Syrian Hmong

[CJD]

(10-07-2019, 07:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A good question.  It is odd that so many people who decry US interventionism also bemoan the destabilization created by a withdrawal of US forces.  Personally I really dislike this current action.  I've always been a fan of the Kurds (feel free to check my posting history) and really think we should have a created a free Kurdistan after the second Iraq war.  Sadly, that moment is past. 

My stance on American interventionism is, essentially, "Only intervene if there is an imminent threat to Americans as a result of not intervening (and this does not include the price of their gasoline increasing). However, once you are in there, you can't just crash a regime and then leave, as this creates terrorist organizations and/or new dictators (Whoever has the most local power or thirst for power at the time). In for a penny, in for a pound."

I think intervention is something that should be weighed EXTREMELY heavily in terms of what happens the moment you decide to do so. Destabilizing regions and then peacing out is, in my opinion, the absolute worst of the three options, assuming those three options are:
1. Stay out of it entirely.
2. Stay in forever.
3. Enter to get rid of a particular person or group and then leave and let the locals handle it however they can and hope terrorists don't take over the region.