Alpha:

Ferenbach returns to his refrain on the “far frontier” repeatedly, comparing American involvement in Korea with the wars on the fringes of the British and Roman Empires. While I believe his analogy is perhaps applicable in the specific case of Korean intervention, it is clear that he is operating under the faulty assumption that any action on a”far frontier” is necessarily in the best interests of the US. Ferenbach writes the “While civilizations live, they may still aspire, and hope – as long as their legions can hold the far frontier.” Surely, the “far frontier” may apply to direct military aggression against an American ally, as in the case of Korea in the 1950s and today. When applied to other American military interventionism since Korea however, it is clear that the majority of our wars have not truly been in the defense of our civilization. Major interventions and offensives in Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, and the Balkans have arguably upheld some minor American interests (even if only humanitarian), but it would be specious to assert that the fate of American Civilization truly hung in the balance in any of these conflicts. Another response in this thread notes that the dismantling of the Hussein regime was necessary because Americans cannot endure evil in this world and have a duty to intervene. I would reassert that empires throughout history have necessarily allied themselves with “evil” client states , as we do today with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (among other nations). Clearly the US does not apply military force for the purposes of simple humanitarianism alone, nor would such a policy be sustainable. When committing military forces to the “far frontier” in the modern day it would be prudent for American military leaders to consider whether these interventions strengthen American civilization in defense of the frontier, or weaken it with needless expense and effort.