Alex Knapp puts the case for permanent war:
There is an old Anglo-American common law principle that imposes a duty on people to defend third parties so long as such defense doesn’t put their life at risk. The same principle should apply to our foreign policy. Dictatorships should be undermined and invasions should be repelled by the United States, so long as doing so would not dramatically undermine our own security.
Logically, then, the ‘good’ states have not only the legitimate power but a positive duty to maintain military forces strong enough to suppress any ‘evil’ state, damn the cost in taxes and the necessary regimentation of society. And if some dictator should seize power in a formerly ‘good’ state and apply the splendid military machine to ‘evil’ ends, why, them’s the breaks.
Further on:
The Versailles Treaty was lousy. But does that mean we should not have defended our allies, England and France, in World War I?
Yes, on two grounds. One, Britain and France were not threatened until their respective governments saw fit to intervene and thereby turn a simple border war into a World War – for the same motive: a commitment to defend their (i.e. their governments’) allies. Two, American help made the Treaty of Versailles possible.
The case against foreign military intervention is similar to the case against domestic economic intervention. There is no reason why it cannot do good in principle, and it may in fact have done great good in some cases, but it is easier to find examples where even benevolent states have botched it, let alone corrupt ones.
[Five words changed, 2005 Mar 26]