Opinion of this foreign policy philosophy

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. You only get involved in a conflict if it threatens your country's interests, and if they dont you dont get involved it it at all

2. If you have to get involved go all out against the enemy until your mission is completed

3. Once your original mission is completed , you leave immediately, and dont get involved in nation building, or solving internal conflicts unless the other country has unconditionally surrendered with all enemy soldiers surrendering as well .

I say FP

[Kingpoleon]

Number 2. and 3. sound like the Powell Doctrine simplified.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Number 2. and 3. sound like the Powell Doctrine simplified.

I thought it was the foreign policy of the Reagan/Bush Sr years

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Overly simple, to the extent it might as well be "do good things"

[Kingpoleon]

Number 2. and 3. sound like the Powell Doctrine simplified.

I thought it was the foreign policy of the Reagan/Bush Sr years

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine
Which was based on:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Seems pretty moronic.

[parochial boy]

1. You only get involved in a conflict if it threatens your country's interests, and if they dont you dont get involved it it at all

And how long is a piece of string anyway?

[Blair]

Awful- I'm by no means an expert but the intervention in Kosovo in 1999 seems like the model that worked best- air campaign, followed by UN involvement, negotiated political settlement (involving Kosovo) and then slow integration of Serbia into the EU

[OSR stands with Israel]

Seems pretty moronic.

Worked out well in the gulf war suddam Hussein was no longer a threat to us allies in the Middle East and Iraq was still a stable country .

[Kingpoleon]

Awful- I'm by no means an expert but the intervention in Kosovo in 1999 seems like the model that worked best- air campaign, followed by UN involvement, negotiated political settlement (involving Kosovo) and then slow integration of Serbia into the EU

The Kosvo intervention debatably violated several of the Powell Doctrine's points, but definitely violated:
7. Is the action supported by the American people?

It also showed American intervention in a genocide we may be to blame for. We never took an active role in supporting neutral countries like Yugoslavia, allowing dictators to take power there. Better diplomacy by earlier Presidents there could have easily prevented genocide.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"The country's interests" shouldn't be the main focus of foreign policy.

[SWE]

Terrifying

[Santander]

Seems pretty moronic.

[OSR stands with Israel]

"The country's interests" shouldn't be the main focus of foreign policy.

Yah you kinda need to define country interests but what I'm mean if someone has attacked your allies , harboring terrorists which attack you, attack you, or threaten to take hostage of the world economy by taking too much of worlds oil supply ( like suddam in 1990) that violates counties interests

[Antonio the Sixth]

If it's not moral for an individual to pursue their self-interest at the expense of others, then it's not moral for a country to pursue its self-interest at the expense of other countries.

Any moral foreign policy should put universalist goals to the forefront.

[dead0man]

I agree with Tony, if you see a weaker person getting beat up by a stronger person and you have the ability to stop it, you should.  On the personal level and the nation state level.

[Mr. Smith]

Solid.

I agree with Tony, if you see a weaker person getting beat up by a stronger person and you have the ability to stop it, you should.  On the personal level and the nation state level.

And just what happens when you do intervene and not only does the stronger person go after you, but things get even worse for the weaker person?

[dead0man]

Well, I'm confused.  Sometimes when you help someone they still suffer, especially during the initial help....this is unfortunate but better than just standing by and watching while they get destroyed by the stronger person.  I don't understand how helping could make things worse for the weaker person unless the help is done very very poorly......we shouldn't help very very poorly.....that is rather obvious.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Solid.

I agree with Tony, if you see a weaker person getting beat up by a stronger person and you have the ability to stop it, you should.  On the personal level and the nation state level.

And just what happens when you do intervene and not only does the stronger person go after you, but things get even worse for the weaker person?

You realize that, by that analogy, the US is by far the strongest person in the world, right?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Mostly positive, but "country's interests" of course is by itself a meaningless term.

[Intell]

All three are dumb points, the first one is an utterly dumb point (support for human rights, or a war against fascism, i still find NATO intervention deplorable 99% of the time, and that includes in Serbia.)

Horrific... Better than a neo-con foreign policy, but this foreign policy is certainly shouldn't get an award.

[Arturo Belano]

"Country's interests" usually translate into "business interests," so no thanks. But as others have said, I'd rather have this over imperialistic neo-conservatism.

[HisGrace]

No. 3 just isn't realistic, no matter how much many people would like to be. You break it, you buy it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

All three are dumb points, the first one is an utterly dumb point (support for human rights, or a war against fascism, i still find NATO intervention deplorable 99% of the time, and that includes in Serbia.)

Horrific... Better than a neo-con foreign policy, but this foreign policy is certainly shouldn't get an award.

If your talking about war against fascism , WW2 directly did affect America and its allies  so it passes point one

[Greedo punched first]

FP.