Consider the failure in Darfur—which I have already written about here twice. Consider Zimbabwe, where dictator Robert Mugabe has made a mockery of international disapproval, demands, and even assistance. Consider Iran, a country where election fraud was condemned and people took to the streets, all to no avail. In these three cases—and many others—the international community has offered little more than soothing words and hollow statements. What's more, it has not even felt the need to mourn its inability to turn words into action. President Barack Obama was hailed for being opaque in the case of Iran, and his liberal supporters, who care intensely about Darfur, stayed mum when the new president made no detectable progress on this issue.
In this new world, caution is more important than intervention. What some have described as Obama's "cult of pragmatism" is really a nice way of saying that Americans no longer have a taste for intervention. And without American leadership, there will be none.
There needs to be hesitance with using force, yet when force is needed, where will we stand? How will we be judged on Darfur a decade from now? If genocide is not worth an intervention anymore, what is? Are we back to solely intervening for national interest? The world is not our "playground," yet our military can still be a force for good.
Interventionism: Sleeping for now, or dead for good?
Update 1: Be sure to check out But I am a Liberal! He came across the same article. You might also like this post by Roland on Iraq and interventionism.
Update 2: Be sure to also read TNC and his take on this subject.