2021 will be my pushback against the conservative/patriotic non-interventionist. It is a very dangerous stance and one that I am surprised has survived so long. They rely on a handful of erroneous premises, often a (partial or complete combination of the two).

(cont.)

a) That the national interest does not lie outside of the own-state itself, or
b) That hostile actors will not fill the void, or
c) That hostile actors filling the void will not disadvantage the own-state.

All of these are false.

That the national interest does not lie outside of the own-state is ludicrous to assume in our contemporary world. If we rely primarily on Country X for a resource, such as energy or food, and Country X chooses to withhold/restrict our access to said resource, what do we do?

We have three choices. The first two are the only ones open to non-interventionists; i) Accept losing access to that resource and go on without the resource, or ii) find a secondary supplier.

Assuming the reason for going to Country X was that it was the most efficient...

...then we can conclude that either choice i or ii will result in negative effects, one less so than the other. Assuming that the reason for going to Country X was non-economic, such as to enhance diplomatic relations, then the non-interventionist has already internally...

...conceded the importance of outside relations, thus discrediting their non-interventionism. The third option, however, is intervention.

Intervention does not need to be a full scale military operation. The USA intervened significantly in Cold War Italy, by limited means.

The CIA provided crucial political support and other institutions helped provide resources for countering socialism. This is a form of intervention. Military action shouldn't be excluded as a useful form of intervention of course.

That hostile actors will not fill the void is straightforwardly wrong. Russian influence declined in Eastern Europe, and American influence replaced it. Likewise, American influence declined in Iraq and Iranian influence replaced it.

That hostile actors will fill the void and not disadvantage the own-state is also erroneous. If Country X is of geopolitical importance to two states, then the own-state pulls out and the hostile-state enhances its activity in Country X, then what happens?

If Country X is important for resource access or military projection, then the own-state may lose that.

It is with all of this in mind that I conclude it is evidently unpatriotic and harmful to the national interest for one to advocate a principled non-interventionism. This of course is not to say opposing specific interventions is bad, but that principled non-interventionism is.

I wanted to go to sleep but I was lying in bed pondering this. Had to bestow my intellect on you all.