Isolation versus Intervention: Where Does the United States Stand?
The argument for and against American involvement in foreign conflicts has been a debate for decades. The United States has historically attempted to remain neutral in world conflicts. During the outbreak of World War II, the United States maintained its isolationist policies until intervention was deemed necessary. In the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, the US has remained mostly neutral but has some intervention tendencies. Therefore, significant parallels can be drawn between the United States isolationist and interventionist policies demonstrated during World War II and the Syrian Civil War, in regards to refugees and military intervention.
In keeping with its isolationist …show more content…
On May 13, 1939 the German ship, the St. Louis, travelled across the Atlantic in search of religious freedom (“Voyage”). The people on board the ship were told they could gain entrance to Cuba; however, upon arriving they were turned away. The refugees then turned to the United States in search of protection. The White House decided not to take any measures to grant refuge to the emigrants. The Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1924, was the main reason upon not allowing the emigrants into the US. It was argued that the quota for the German-Austrian immigrants was already filled, and the passengers of the St. Louis would be surpassing those who had been on a waiting list for longer. Along with the quota being filled, racism and anti-semitic mindset was running rampant through American households. Roosevelt claimed he needed to put the American people first, and therefore contributed to the opposition against allowing refugees into the country (“Voyage”). In comparison, members of Congress have attempted to halt the resettlement of the Syrian refugees coming into the United States. Many fear the refugees entering could be possible terrorists and thus threaten the welfare of the American …show more content…
The Neutrality Acts were but a mere front to appease the isolationists. The fall of France in 1940 caused the US to realize Great Britain was the only European democracy standing between Nazi Germany and the American people (“US Entry and Alliance”). In response, the Lend Lease Act was passed in October 1941, which allowed for the sale, lease, transfer, or exchange of arms to any country that the president deemed vital to the defense of the United States. While this was regarded as a neutrality act, this act favored only allied countries. Furthermore, after many attacks by German U-boats, congress repealed a bill in 1941 that banned US ships from entering belligerent ports. Essentially this allowed for US ships to respond to U-boat attacks (“Milestones”). Comparably, Obama created the Train and Equip Programme which was designed to train Syrian refugees in combat so that they could successfully return to Syria and fight Bashar al-Assad’s forces without US military aid. However, only few refugees returned to Syria and the programme failed (McKelvey). Obama also created the “No Boots on the Ground” policy, this was in attempts of keeping ground troops out of Syria. Obama believed sending troops into Syria would not be beneficial; however, in April of 2016 Obama told the nation he is deploying 250 troops into Syria bringing the total to 300 (“Syria Conflict”). Obama
The argument for and against American involvement in foreign conflicts has been a debate for decades. The United States has historically attempted to remain neutral in world conflicts. During the outbreak of World War II, the United States maintained its isolationist policies until intervention was deemed necessary. In the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, the US has remained mostly neutral but has some intervention tendencies. Therefore, significant parallels can be drawn between the United States isolationist and interventionist policies demonstrated during World War II and the Syrian Civil War, in regards to refugees and military intervention.
In keeping with its isolationist …show more content…
On May 13, 1939 the German ship, the St. Louis, travelled across the Atlantic in search of religious freedom (“Voyage”). The people on board the ship were told they could gain entrance to Cuba; however, upon arriving they were turned away. The refugees then turned to the United States in search of protection. The White House decided not to take any measures to grant refuge to the emigrants. The Immigration and Nationality Act passed in 1924, was the main reason upon not allowing the emigrants into the US. It was argued that the quota for the German-Austrian immigrants was already filled, and the passengers of the St. Louis would be surpassing those who had been on a waiting list for longer. Along with the quota being filled, racism and anti-semitic mindset was running rampant through American households. Roosevelt claimed he needed to put the American people first, and therefore contributed to the opposition against allowing refugees into the country (“Voyage”). In comparison, members of Congress have attempted to halt the resettlement of the Syrian refugees coming into the United States. Many fear the refugees entering could be possible terrorists and thus threaten the welfare of the American …show more content…
The Neutrality Acts were but a mere front to appease the isolationists. The fall of France in 1940 caused the US to realize Great Britain was the only European democracy standing between Nazi Germany and the American people (“US Entry and Alliance”). In response, the Lend Lease Act was passed in October 1941, which allowed for the sale, lease, transfer, or exchange of arms to any country that the president deemed vital to the defense of the United States. While this was regarded as a neutrality act, this act favored only allied countries. Furthermore, after many attacks by German U-boats, congress repealed a bill in 1941 that banned US ships from entering belligerent ports. Essentially this allowed for US ships to respond to U-boat attacks (“Milestones”). Comparably, Obama created the Train and Equip Programme which was designed to train Syrian refugees in combat so that they could successfully return to Syria and fight Bashar al-Assad’s forces without US military aid. However, only few refugees returned to Syria and the programme failed (McKelvey). Obama also created the “No Boots on the Ground” policy, this was in attempts of keeping ground troops out of Syria. Obama believed sending troops into Syria would not be beneficial; however, in April of 2016 Obama told the nation he is deploying 250 troops into Syria bringing the total to 300 (“Syria Conflict”). Obama