Which approach do you believe is most effective, the interventionist approach or the minimally interventionist? The theory of interventionism examines the nature and justifications of interfering with another polity (that is, political organization) or with choices made by individuals. Interventionism is characterized by the use or threat of force or coercion to alter a political or cultural situation nominally outside the intervenor's moral or political jurisdiction. (InternetEncyclopediaofPhilosophy, 2022) I would think depending on the situation and what it is used for both can be good. Can you justify either approach based on scripture? Read Romans 13 (opens in new window) or 1 Samuel 8 (opens in new window)? In the book of 1 Samuel 8 Samuel was asked for a king for the Israelites to obey and follow. This made the Lord offended and upset as they not only neglected him but Samuel as well. The Lord told Samuel to listen to them and give them what they are asking for, as Samuel told the Israelites they were being listen and give up some things and they stills asked for a king so Samuel told them to go back to Egypt. Which approach do you think the United States follows? Explain The watershed regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy was the shift from isolationism to interventionism after World War II. The turning point was signaled by a series of military activities during and after WWII such as the involvement of the US in WWII and the US intervention in Vietnam. (Mohrem, 2017)