Even as the last major battle in Iraq came to a close with the surrender of Tikrit to American forces, thousands of protesters who proudly declare themselves "liberals" and "humanitarians" converged in cities around the globe to protest and advocate for a policy that is distinctly anti-liberal. Ironically, the "liberals" that are participating in the protests have hijacked the long-standing conservative viewpoint on America's role in the world. The slogans of the remnants of the anti-war protest movement, which advocate the immediate removal of U.S. troops and an end to intervention in Iraq, fly in the face of the liberal notion of internationalism and responsibility. If implemented, the protesters' demands for a smaller role for the United States in Iraq, a historic withdrawal of troops from the Middle East and an end to America's international role as the safeguard of democracy will cause the shirking of the responsibilities of our great nation. This will ultimately increase anti-Americanism, thereby jeopardizing America's interests and Americans' security.
First, for our government to accept the demands of protesters here and across the world would mean the rejection of the very responsibilities that both the Progressive Movement and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal established as fundamental for a nation as blessed in economic wealth, military power and political clout as the United States. As these scions of internationalism correctly recognized, America the superpower cannot afford to ignore the course of international politics. As Harry S. Truman demonstrated most cogently in his execution of the Marshall Plan, America bears the responsibility for leading the Western world in restoring and nurturing democracy throughout the rest of the world.
This mission, which some derisively condemn as "policing the world," is at least as important today as it was in the years before World War II. As in the 1930s, aggressive dictatorships still threaten the safety of millions throughout the earth. As in the years of American isolationism and self-interest, dangerous and violent ideologies are daily becoming more potent forces for social action and recruitment of young people into their destructive world-view. As in the age of Hitler and Mussolini, sinister political movements that exploit the real sense of suffering and vulnerability of entire populations around the world are able to operate unchallenged and without alternative in the most volatile regions of the earth.
No, this is decidedly not the time for America to accede to isolationists who masquerade as liberals and peace-lovers. Withdrawing American influence, security protection and foreign aid from the world, as some "liberals" demand, will not cause a subsiding of anti-Americanism -- it will exacerbate it. Leaving the Kosovars or Albanians or Iraqis or Afghanis or any number of significant populations without the embrace of American aid and military protection would lead inevitably to an unprecedented degree of suffering in those regions which will undoubtedly be blamed solely on the United States.
Indeed, America must embrace the opportunity that presents itself in Iraq to encourage the flowering of true democracy for the first time in an Arab country. Americans must be committed to providing the core of security support and reconstruction in the months (and maybe years) ahead. The American government must commit itself to the liberal ideal of aiding the people of Iraq with humanitarian supplies, infrastructure reconstruction and political support. The people of Iraq will need food, medicine, water and electricity to alleviate the famine and drought that war has caused. Iraq's roads, airports, schools and power plants will need to be rebuilt. And, as the war-wary (but money-hungry) states of France and Russia demand to be repaid in full for the billions of dollars of military and financial support they provided the regime of Saddam Hussein throughout the years, America must work through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to ensure that Iraq's oil revenues will not be diverted from reconstruction and alleviation of poverty and suffering to lining the pockets of Saddam's long-time supporters.
As the much-berated "neo-conservatives" seem to understand, and as the liberal Internationalists of Franklin Roosevelt's time understood, America cannot afford to be swayed by self-hating and misguided opponents of American intervention in the world. To do so would contradict the compassionate mandate of liberalism, cause unprecedented suffering and jeopardize the security of democracies throughout the world.
(Ilan Gutherz's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at igutherz@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
