Signing of the Peace of Westphalia, the birthplace of sovereignty.

Sovereignty.

This one word is the cornerstone behind the concept of international relations, whether you are a realist, liberal, or proscribe to another theory of IR. The determination as to whether a state can conduct its own affairs without outside interference has been the law of the land since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In most cases, the concept of sovereignty has been respected by most liberal democracies, including the United States. If we look back at every war that the US has been involved in, almost all of them are justifiable. In the case of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and World War II, American sovereignty was violated. In the case of World War I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Persian Gulf War, the United States was protecting the sovereignty of nations (against aggressors) who were recognized by the international community. In the as of the War in Afghanistan, the Taliban government was not recognized by the international community. In the case of the Civil War, there was a insurrection against the American government.

While there are many minor cases, there are three major examples where the United States has violated the sovereignty of another nation. First was the Spanish-American War, where the government of Spain was blamed for the “sinking of the Maine”. The second major action was the the Bay of Pigs invasion at the start of the Kennedy administration. And, of course, the third case is that of the Iraq War. In all three of these cases, the United States was unprovoked, but yet attacked a sovereign nation.

For the sake of this argument, let’s stay with the Iraq War. Since we sent troops into Iraq, we have had mixed results. Some have been positive but some have been negative. But the whole concept behind the war in the first place was illegitimate. This is the reason why the UN Security Council rejected support for action against Iraq. It is also the reason why Americans are totally confused when it comes to foreign policy.

If you are reading this article, I am sure you already know about the situation in Ukraine. Therefore I will not go into it. But with the recent news, many Americans have opposed taking any military action in Ukraine (Note: I am not one of them). Most of the reasons that I have heard for opposition to military action is that we cannot afford another war, or we should not police the world, or we should not conduct American imperialism or exceptionalism and, of course, we should not send our sons and daughters to die for another country. These were all very popular themes by those who opposed the war, and they carry over into the debate today.

On the other hand, I rarely hear anyone talk about Ukraine’s sovereignty, and their right to conduct their own affairs without interference from other nations. This is what the debate should be about (and is about in Ukraine), but nobody seems to be listening.

The problem is that Americans now look at all military actions in the same light. No matter what the situation may be, many anti-war people will oppose war, any war, for any reason. This is why we see the same debate in Ukraine as we did in Iraq, which is comparing apples and semi trucks!

But can we really blame those who were anti-war to have these feelings? This is where we can blame the neo-conservatives when it comes to our foreign policy problems. Not only did the United States violate the sovereignty of Iraq, but spent a lot of money and troops to do it. This, in turn, has led to the American populous becoming extremely weary of any military attack, whether is is warranted or not. Instead of looking at each situation separately, we now look at all military actions in a jaded and close-minded way, supporting or opposing any action without learning any facts whatsoever. Still, because of the illegitimate Iraq War, we now have these feelings.

To put it to you in another way, let’s look at two recent events where military action was considered, Egypt and Syria.  In the case of Egypt, the politics of overthrowing Mubarak was internal without outside military help. Therefore, to get involved militarily would not be wise at all, as we would purely be violating the sovereignty of Egypt. In the case of Syria it becomes trickier. This, like Egypt, is an internal issue, so military action would also be a violation of sovereignty. But when Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens, sovereignty was no longer a defense for Syria against military action. This is the reason why Syria quickly sought to “fix” the chemical weapons issue and now fights a conventional war against the rebels. Therefore, Syria has returned to a internal battle an intervention would be a violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

If we look at the case of Ukraine, it is similar to what we had during the Persian Gulf War. One state has violated the sovereignty of another state. In a pre-Iraq War world, international reaction to this would be swift and predictable. UN Security Council strongly opposed Iraq’s action. After this, an international coalition was formed and war against Iraq commenced. This should be the routine when any peaceful, liberal democratic nation has its sovereignty invaded without provocation!

But nowadays, we look at things in a post-Iraq War way, which doesn’t make sense. All of the arguments made by the anti-war crowd makes does not apply to this. How so? Well, unlike Iraq, NATO is 100% against Russia’s action against the Ukraine. Therefore, no “Coalition of the Willing” is needed if it comes to military action, as all NATO members have already expressed that they are united on this issue. Also, the old “America doesn’t need to police the world” debate doesn’t work either, as Ukraine is actively asking for our support. This means that any action would be taken in support of a liberal democracy, not to overthrow someone we don’t like.

As far as the American exceptionalism debate, Ukraine is seeking to become more western. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are ramming our version of democracy down their throats, the currently Ukrainian government seeks to be closer to the United States and Europe, which was the reason for the Euromaidan protests in the first place. These anti-war debates seem to stem from the lack of understanding the concept of sovereignty by the average American.

While I am clearly in a minority when it comes to providing military support to Ukraine, I think this is the time where the United States can reclaim its foothold as a respectable international power. Ukraine wants us to come there to defend their country. In addition, NATO and most of the world community is in opposition to Russia. This means that any action by the United States would not be seen in a bad light, but in a good light internationally. And if NATO has a strong presence in Ukraine, what will Vlad do? Yes, Putin’s Russia is certainly more powerful than Ukraine. But it isn’t more powerful than the combined efforts of NATO. We could easily have Putin shaking in his boots and out of the Crimea, but our post-Iraq War mentality makes it so that we no longer clearly think about very simple foreign policy issues.

The neo-conservatives in this country has certainly destroyed the psyche of the average American when it comes to foreign policy. They have made it where we can no longer conduct productive foreign policy. This, in the end, might be what determines our action in Ukraine, which is quite sad.