To analyze which of the statements represents a military interventionist approach to foreign policy, we need to understand what military interventionism entails. Military interventionism involves the use of military force to influence or change the political situation in another country, typically to achieve strategic objectives.
Now, let's look at the given statements:
A) The U.S. decides to invest money and resources into the country and avoid going to war with other countries.
- This statement illustrates a non-military approach focused on economic support rather than intervention, so it does not represent military interventionism.
B) The U.S. decides to overthrow the Japanese government by providing Japanese rebels with weapons.
- This statement involves directly influencing the internal politics of another nation through armed support for rebels, which reflects an interventionist approach, albeit through indirect means (supporting rebels).
C) The U.S. decides to have an embargo on Japanese goods after Japan cut ties with U.S. imports.
- An embargo is an economic sanction and does not involve military force, so this is also not an example of military interventionism.
D) The U.S. decides to fight and deploy military soldiers to Japan after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
- This statement clearly involves direct military action and deployment of U.S. forces, making it a definitive example of military interventionism.
Based on this analysis, the best examples of military interventionist approaches among the statements provided are B and D. However, D is the most explicit as it entails direct military involvement. Therefore, the clearest example of a military interventionist approach to foreign policy is:
D) The U.S. decides to fight and deploy military soldiers to Japan after Pearl Harbor was bombed.