Question

In response to the interventionist argument that the United States should intervene in an attack on the Yezidi people in Iraq by ISIS to prevent genocide, what would be the best response that a noninterventionist could give?

1) The United States should prioritize its own national interests over intervening in foreign conflicts.
2) Intervening in the conflict could lead to unintended consequences and further destabilize the region.
3) The responsibility to protect the Yezidi people should fall on the international community as a whole, not just the United States.
4) Nonintervention is consistent with the principle of national sovereignty.

Answer 1

A noninterventionist could argue that the U.S. should prioritize national interests, caution that intervention could destabilize the region further, and suggest that international community responsibility should be collective.

Step-by-step explanation:

In response to the interventionist argument for U.S. action in Iraq to prevent genocide against the Yezidi people by ISIS, a noninterventionist could argue that the United States should prioritize its own national interests over intervening in foreign conflicts. This stance emphasizes focusing on domestic challenges rather than becoming entangled in overseas matters. Moreover, there is the concern that intervening could lead to unintended consequences and further destabilize the region, contributing to a cycle of violence and instability. Lastly, responsibility to protect vulnerable populations should be shared by the international community through collective action, rather than falling on a single nation, to uphold principles of national sovereignty and reduce the instances where interventions may be seen as exerting power or pursuing self-interests rather than purely humanitarian goals.