US Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, Afghanistan, Dec. 5, 2009 -wikipedia.org

The second session of the Summer Institute asked a question that has been on the minds of politicians, academics, activists and policy wonks alike “what should the US role in the world be?” To properly discuss and investigate this inquiry, students tackled issues such as the responsibility to protect doctrine (R2P), military intervention, sovereignty, humanitarian aid and multilateralism, applying them to conflicts such as the Balkan War, Rwandan genocide, intervention in Somalia, the US invasion of Iraq and the current war in Syria. From our fishbowl style conversations, we learned that the students had a variety of opinions regarding just how the United States should act on the world stage:

  • “The United States should not spend 37% of global military spending.”- Alex
  • “Until the economy is performing at its highest level, there is a surplus and no national debt and all federal programs have the budget they need, the United States needs to have more of an internal focus and work on domestic problems before it goes out trying to solve the problems of other countries.” – Whit
  • “Due to astounding costs and negative aspects involved , military intervention should always be the last tool on our ‘Ways to Help List,’ not the first.”- Vivian
  • “I strongly believe that humanitarian intervention is worth a try because it works more effectively in comparison to military intervention. The cost of humanitarian aid is low and much more manageable.” – Mi

We were lucky to have two of the World Affairs Council’s Veteran Fellows, Anthony Alfidi and Joshua Keller-Fish, join us; they provided on-the-ground expertise and personal insight to this topic. According to Nava, “I feel that my perspective was widened. What struck me the most was how even after committing for so long to the military, both of these men were able to think critically about its effect…Both men used their knowledge of the history of US military intervention in order to consider its role in the future.” In particular, the students were struck by two observations offered by our Veteran Fellows:

  1. Mr. Keller spoke about how many stable democracies became so after being allowed to fight an all-out war without any intervention, such as the case in Europe. He challenged the students to think about allowing the US to stand back and let countries deal with their problems internally.
  2. Mr. Alfidi described the US’s military as the world’s most expensive Swiss Army Knife – being useful and effective for many things, but perhaps not necessary and appropriate in all situations. This statement caused students to look at interventions in a more rational and cost benefit type of mentality.

This question has no easy answer, but through our discussion each student expanded their own understanding to the types of areas in which our military can and should be involved.

Educators, if you would like to lead a fishbowl discussion about the US role in the world, we welcome you to use our lesson plan and reading packet.

By Netta Ascoli, Education Program Officer, World Affairs Council