When discussing United States foreign policy, the hackneyed principle of “moral consistency” is often brought up. This clichéd credo is repeated tirelessly and without shame in discourse about the U.S.’s foreign policy and its role in the global community.

The proposition of “moral consistency” is as follows: since the U.S. cannot fix all the problems of the world, why should it even attempt to solve any of them?

I find this principle to be a dismal excuse to extirpate U.S. action abroad. Even if the U.S. cannot resolve all the world’s problems, it is morally indebted to alleviate or amend some of these calamities, particularly those it has had some influence in exacerbating or inciting.

Look at the proposition for war in Iraq – the Bush administration began and carried out Operation Iraqi Freedom with benign intentions. The disastrous, or perhaps even criminal, poor planning in the early- and mid-stages of the intervention are another issue. But why then did the U.S. intervene in Iraq and not, for example, Rwanda? Read more

US President Barack Obama has declared the end of combat operations in Iraq.

This is an open thread. Leave a comment.