The Bolduc Brief: Revisiting the Principles of Non-Intervention in U.S. Foreign Policy

The idea of the United States avoiding entanglement in foreign conflicts—a principle often associated with the historical concept of non-interventionism—has seen considerable erosion in modern American foreign policy. This shift towards military involvement, particularly in uncertain missions that lack clear strategy, policy alignment, and robust congressional oversight, raises significant questions about the foundational values and long-term implications of such actions. To understand this transformation, it is essential to explore the historical context, the evolution of U.S. foreign policy, and the contemporary challenges these practices create.

Historical Context: Non-Interventionism in American Foreign Policy

The principle of non-interventionism—the belief that a country should avoid alliances with other nations or involvement in their disputes—was articulated by many early American leaders, including George Washington. In his farewell address, Washington famously warned against “entangling alliances,” advocating for a policy that would allow the country to focus on its internal development and avoid being drawn into foreign conflicts.

This sentiment persisted through various historical periods, especially after the devastating experiences of World War I, with the U.S. initially adopting a more isolationist approach in the interwar years. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 shifted national perspectives, leading to active U.S. involvement in World War II and the subsequent Cold War. Throughout this era, the U.S. began to see itself not only as a protector of democracy but also as a global police force, a role that has evolved significantly since the end of the Cold War.

The Shift Toward Military Engagement

In the decades following World War II, U.S. military engagements became increasingly common, often framed as efforts to contain communism or promote democracy. Conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and later in the Middle East—particularly post-9/11 interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan—highlighted a shift away from the non-interventionist ethos.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplified a departure from the principles of strategic military engagement. Both conflicts began with noble intentions: to dismantle terrorist networks and promote democratic governance. However, over time, they devolved into protracted and uncertain missions lacking clear objectives. These wars were marked by a pervasive absence of congressional oversight, as administrations frequently engaged in military action without formal declarations of war or robust legislative support.

The Consequences of Uncertainty and Lack of Strategy

The departure from non-interventionist principles and the embrace of uncertain military missions have had profound implications. One primary consequence is the erosion of public trust in government and military decision-making. Continuous military engagement without visible outcomes leads to skepticism among citizens regarding the motives behind these interventions. Many Americans have grown weary of “endless wars,” questioning the efficacy and purpose of such missions.

Furthermore, the lack of a coherent strategy can result in destabilizing consequences for both the U.S. and the nations involved. Military interventions that do not align with overarching national interests or that lack clear objectives can exacerbate conflicts, fuel terrorism, and foster long-term instability in regions that the U.S. aimed to assist. The troubling legacies of prolonged interventions, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, illustrate the risks associated with engaging in military action without comprehensive planning and alignment with diplomatic goals.

The Need for Congressional Oversight