OT - The Isolationism Thread (Politics, History, Foreign Policy)

[st.cronin]

Thread started at sterlingice's request. I have commented before that the recurring theme of US History (and, on a larger scale, the history of all great civilizations) is that isolationism is a disastrous policy. I'm far from an expert on this subject, it's just my gut feeling from the various un-organized readings I've done.

Ex. 1 is obviously Pearl Harbor. I don't think elaboration is required.

Ex. 2 could be the countless invasions and military actions in south and central america. While folks like Noam Chomsky raise questions about the morality of this 'policy,' (and, to be fair, he may have a point), it's pretty clear that the cumulative effect of these events has been to make our nation more prosperous and safer. My thesis makes no room for moral concerns - those have to be tackled seperately.

Ex. 3 the fall of the Roman Empire, as described by Gibbon. Basically, the Romans lost the will to go fight the Barbarian nations, so they grew stronger and took the fight to Rome, eventually overrunning the Republic.

edited to add

Assuming anybody is interested in talking about this, I hope that this is a thoughtful and civil thread. No calling each other nazis or commies or anything like that, please.

[cartman]

In the old days, Isolationism helped build our country. Back when the fastest forms of travel were ships and horses, we were left on our own to grow. Since the European powers at the time pretty much respected the Monroe Doctrine, the US was left to it's own devices to grow and prosper.

However, now-a-days, there really isn't such a thing as "isolationism". With planes and rockets, there are no two places on Earth that are more than a few hours apart. Any concept of isolationism is a pipe dream, a idea that for all intents and purposes no longer exists.

[sterlingice]

Good start. I'm hoping the thread doesn't get derailed.

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

My thoughts go something like this: 1. World War Two happened and this country became an industrial powerhouse. Arms race then started between U.S. led western democracies and Soviet led socialist/communist countries. Reagan upped the ante and Soviets saw they couldn't keep up so they quit. Very simple version.

2. Here's where the problem starts. Many countries on the side of the U.S. during the cold war got fat and happy letting the U.S. spend all the money and supply all the arms/troops/equipment for defense while they spent their money on their own economies and social programs.

Now that the cold-war is over the thinking for many is something like "well, the U.S. as the only remaining Super Power owes it to the world to keep on being its 'policeman." This is where the debate needs to take place about what Buchanan says is the 'needed new vision' for U.S. foreign policy. I do not buy into this present-day 'policeman' thinking one bit.

Interesting side-note (since I'm kinda known as putting out some kook-conspiracy theories) many like Buchanan believe that this self-promoted role of world's policeman is something the neo-cons and international banking community have established as the U.S.'s role in the 'new world order." But we can still say no if we get smart.

[st.cronin]

There is also an economic aspect to isolationism, which I understand less well, but which I believe is scorned by any reputable economist. The world markets are growing more open all the time - which, I believe, is a good thing. I suspect this may make other types of isolationism less sensible.

[Desnudo]

There is an economic aspect to isolationism, usually couched in terms of "keeping jobs at home," but in reality, measures that restrict international trade do not provide economic benefits and actually hurt the economic development of a country.

[Mac Howard]

In today's world isolationism simply isn't an option. Economic isolationism would see your standard of living drop significantly. Militarily - your enemy would come to you. It's just not an option!

[Bubba Wheels]

In today's world isolationism simply isn't an option. Economic isolationism would see your standard of living collapse. Militarily - your enemy would come to you. It's just not an option!

Well, just out of curiosity, how does Australia feel about becoming the new world's policeman? Job may be vacant soon.

[cartman]

Well, just out of curiosity, how does Australia feel about becoming the new world's policeman? Job may be vacant soon.

China is there to pick up the slack.

[Bubba Wheels]

China is there to pick up the slack.

I'm all for letting them have the job if they want it.

[Mac Howard]

Well, just out of curiosity, how does Australia feel about becoming the new world's policeman? Job may be vacant soon.

We do have a significant policing role in South East Asia but our 20 million population would argue against a world role. It's yours for the time being :)

I should add that I'm also a Brit and, having been there before, we Brits do have a certain sympathy with your dilemma.

[Dutch]

I'm all for letting them have the job if they want it.

We could outsource it to them.

[Bubba Wheels]

We do have a significant policing role in South East Asia but our 20 million population would argue against a world role. It's yours for the time being :)

I should add that I'm also a Brit and, having been there before, we Brits do have a certain sympathy with your dilemma.

Maybe we both can talk the French into doing it. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

Ex. 1 is obviously Pearl Harbor. I don't think elaboration is required.
The Japanese had no desires to conquer us. They attacked us as a pre-emptive strike because they believed that we would soon enter the war. So actually our inverventionism got us in trouble, or, more specifically, our vascillation between isolationism and interventionism. If he had just attacked first there wouldn't of been a Pearl Harbor, but if we never had any intentions of entering the war there may not have been an attack. But, we were aleady involved in the war, such as with the Lend-Lease Act.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why is it taken as self evident that the US is the world's policeman? The US participates in actions that are in their own self-interest. First Gulf war was a UN action that benefitted the US (the US took the lead on it for sure, but part of that is because the US refuses to have its troops commanded by someone else). Haiti was obviously in the US's sphere of influence. Kosovo was a NATO action where not a single American life was lost. Afghanistan was in retaliation for an attack on us. Iraq was...well, whatever it was, it wasn't on behalf of the rest of the world.

Somalia is the only 'police effort' I can think of that was dominated by the US and was done for purely humanitarian reasons, and that had 28k US personnel compared to 17k for the twenty other countries involved. Today there are 16 current peacekeeping operations being conducted by the UN, and I don't have numbers but I doubt that the US has the dominant number of troops stationed in the Ivory Coast or Georgia. I'd bet that they only have significant units in the places of significance to the United States (Haiti, Liberia, etc).

[st.cronin]

Why is it taken as self evident that the US is the world's policeman? The US participates in actions that are in their own self-interest.

Well, I think it is in the US's self-interest to be the world's policeman, so to speak.

[Bubba Wheels]

Why is it taken as self evident that the US is the world's policeman? The US participates in actions that are in their own self-interest. First Gulf war was a UN action that benefitted the US (the US took the lead on it for sure, but part of that is because the US refuses to have its troops commanded by someone else). Haiti was obviously in the US's sphere of influence. Kosovo was a NATO action where not a single American life was lost. Afghanistan was in retaliation for an attack on us. Iraq was...well, whatever it was, it wasn't on behalf of the rest of the world.

Somalia is the only 'police effort' I can think of that was dominated by the US and was done for purely humanitarian reasons, and that had 28k US personnel compared to 17k for the twenty other countries involved. Today there are 16 current peacekeeping operations being conducted by the UN, and I don't have numbers but I doubt that the US has the dominant number of troops stationed in the Ivory Coast or Georgia. I'd bet that they only have significant units in the places of significance to the United States (Haiti, Liberia, etc).

Why do we have our troops, our planes, our equipment all over the world in Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia (they still there? Isn't that why Bin Laden go mad at us in the first place?) Kosovo, Japan, ect, ect, ect? Know how much money that costs the U.S. taxpayer? That all for our interests? I think last I check we pretty much run a trade deficit with ALL those countries. Time to get out, good luck, farewell, we'll call you don't call us. Put the money into the Navy which is much more usful to protecting our coasts and save a ton. If North Korea decides South Korea should be a part of it, one last auto company competing with us to worry about.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, I think it is in the US's self-interest to be the world's policeman, so to speak.

I and many don't.

[Dutch]

Saudi Arabia (they still there? Isn't that why Bin Laden go mad at us in the first place?)

Actually, our troop levels in Saudi Arabia are back to liaison levels. We left because it was a huge recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and a huge boost to their PR.

It's a lot harder to get poor uneducated arabs to be upset that we are in Qatar. A place so foreign to most arabs that they probably don't even know where it is.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why do we have our troops, our planes, our equipment all over the world in Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia (they still there? Isn't that why Bin Laden go mad at us in the first place?) Kosovo, Japan, ect, ect, ect? ... That all for our interests?
Simply put, yes. We are there because we want to be there, not because the world expects us to be their policemen. So if you want to be upset about it, don't blame other countries, blame the leadership of this country, which right now is Mr. Bush and the rest of the Republicans.

[Bubba Wheels]

Simply put, yes. We are there because we want to be there, not because the world expects us to be their policemen. So if you want to be upset about it, don't blame other countries, blame the leadership of this country, which right now is Mr. Bush and the rest of the Republicans.

Or, as Republican Pat Buchanan points out in his book Where the Right Went Wrong, its actually a group of Republicans called the 'neo-cons." Neo-cons are former liberals that migrated over to the Republican Party for various reasons. It is not in the historical interests of the Republican Party to follow the gameplan of the neo-cons. And I do not defend Bush on this either. During his first election campaign Bush talked the exact opposite of what he's doing now in terms of nation-building, exit strategies, ect. So it ain't Bush I'm looking to for leadership in this particular area.

[Coder]

Kosovo, Japan, ect, ect, ect? Know how much money that costs the U.S. taxpayer?

I looked this up.. and believe it or not..

it's spelled ETC... ETC... ETC!!!!

Yeah? So? I'm Swedish.. hit me.

[Bubba Wheels]

I looked this up.. and believe it or not..

it's spelled ETC... ETC... ETC!!!!

Yeah? So? I'm Swedish.. hit me.

Yeah, and if I gave you a quarter for every word I've mispelled in this forum you could buy yourself a used Hugo. :)

[clintl]

Ex. 2 could be the countless invasions and military actions in south and central america. While folks like Noam Chomsky raise questions about the morality of this 'policy,' (and, to be fair, he may have a point), it's pretty clear that the cumulative effect of these events has been to make our nation more prosperous and safer. My thesis makes no room for moral concerns - those have to be tackled seperately.




a) Safer how? The United States has never, ever faced a serious military threat from a Latin American country. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis was not a Cuban threat. It was a Russian threat.

b) And how can you equate interventionism with isolationism? They are opposites. The Monroe Doctrine was not an isolationist policy, and almost none of the interventions the US "justified" by citing the Monroe Doctrine had anything to do with foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere. Almost all of them were all about using the US military to protect US corporate interests.

[MrBigglesworth]

Or, as Republican Pat Buchanan points out in his book Where the Right Went Wrong, its actually a group of Republicans called the 'neo-cons." Neo-cons are former liberals that migrated over to the Republican Party for various reasons. It is not in the historical interests of the Republican Party to follow the gameplan of the neo-cons. And I do not defend Bush on this either. During his first election campaign Bush talked the exact opposite of what he's doing now in terms of nation-building, exit strategies, ect. So it ain't Bush I'm looking to for leadership in this particular area.
Having our troops in other countries is not just a neocon notion. It's a mainstream opinion, held by Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, the Congress and the Senate. Buchanon is the politician that I know of that really advises such an isolationist stance.

[st.cronin]

a) Safer how? The United States has never, ever faced a serious military threat from a Latin American country. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis was not a Cuban threat. It was a Russian threat.

b) And how can you equate interventionism with isolationism? They are opposites. The Monroe Doctrine was not an isolationist policy, and almost none of the interventions the US "justified" by citing the Monroe Doctrine had anything to do with foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere. Almost all of them were all about using the US military to protect US corporate interests.

Well, as to a) I would suggest that not facing a serious threat from Latin America is obviously a result of our intervention.

And as far as b), I think you misunderstood my point. I was suggesting that isolationism has historically been bad policy, and was trying to say that being active in Latin America (in other words, intervening, not remaining isolated) has been good foreign policy.

[Desnudo]

What are you studying at SJ st. cronin? And secondarily, how did you become a Boston sports fan?

[st.cronin]

What are you studying at SJ st. cronin? And secondarily, how did you become a Boston sports fan?

Double major - Philosophy, and History of Math and Science
Minor in Foreign Languages.

I grew up on Cape Cod, rooting for the Sox, Pats, Celtics and Bruins.

[Bubba Wheels]

Having our troops in other countries is not just a neocon notion. It's a mainstream opinion, held by Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, the Congress and the Senate. Buchanon is the politician that I know of that really advises such an isolationist stance.

Reagan and Bush Sr. were President during the cold war. Under Clinton the military budget was slashed and the military was downsized. Buchanan, among others, argues that our presence all around the world after the cold war has no point other than allow other countries to stay fat and happy not paying for military spending so that they can funnel that money into competing with us economically. You kind of make my case with your statements above. We don't need to cover the earth anymore.

[st.cronin]

Reagan and Bush Sr. were President during the cold war. Under Clinton the military budget was slashed and the military was downsized. Buchanan, among others, argues that our presence all around the world after the cold war has no point other than allow other countries to stay fat and happy not paying for military spending so that they can funnel that money into competing with us economically. You kind of make my case with your statements above. We don't need to cover the earth anymore.


I'm pretty sure the military budget grew under Clinton, although perhaps not as a percentage of the overall budget, or through some other metric. At any rate, it was certainly cut more under Bush Senior. That was when the real downsizing took place.

[JPhillips]

Bubba- The horse is out of the barn on internationalism and it can't be put back easily. In short our troops being stationed all over the world is necessity. I don't particularly like it, but the fact is we can't survive by pulling troops back to our borders.

The reasons are, in a simplified discussion, twofold. One, we as a country don't make much anymore especially the innards of computers that run almost everything. Our presence in Asia is in large part a way of guaranteeing access to those parts. In Taiwan for example something like 90% of the world's microchips are made in one industrial park. If the NKs or the Chinese ever got it in their heads to attack they could wipe out the global economy in under ten minutes. Our military is there to deterr that threat.

Second, we are critically short of oil and we need it to survive. In a small sense Iraq may not have been about the oil, but in a larger sense it certainly was. We are bound to the Middle East until we find a solution to our need for oil. Troops throughout the Middle East are there because we need oil. I don't think that even Pat Buchanon would be willing to bicycle everywhere and cut his own lumber to heat his house.

Now where I think we have made numerous mistakes is in having a foriegn policy that all too often favored stability over democracy. I think we do that at our peril. Democracy is messy and won't always provide us with what we'd like, but the fact is we are far less likely to have conflicts that result in war with fellow democracies. While I don't see Bush following through on it, I do agree with his rhetoric on democratization.

Remember too that Buchanon's isolationism is colored by a not too subtle racism and anti-semitism. Buchanon isn't just calling for a military pullback to the U.S., he's also calling for lless contact, trade and immigration with the non-whites of the world.

And on another note, Pearl Harbor didn't happen because of isolationism. You can argue that our failure to get involved in Europe until 1942 was about islationism, but Pearl Harbor was the direct result of our oil embargo on Japan and their misguided belief that they could get us to negotiate a peace if they hit us hard. Yamamoto saw the folly in this, but the high command of Japan believed they had no choice but to attack us so that tey could solidify oil either through conquest or renewed trade.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, just wanted to say, YES, having our troops all over the world is considered by the powers that be to be in our interest. Our troops allow us to have influence. Troops are in Germany, because it is easy to move them from there to the Mid East and won't cause protests like putting all those troops in certain countries. We have troops in Saudi Arabia because we are concerned about oil. We want to keep stability in the region (well, for the most part) to keep the pumps flowing.

Our troops are not there to make other countries feel happy. Far from it. We're there to keep an eye on our interests and being able to make threats and having the capability to carry those threats out if need be.

[clintl]

Well, as to a) I would suggest that not facing a serious threat from Latin America is obviously a result of our intervention.

And as far as b), I think you misunderstood my point. I was suggesting that isolationism has historically been bad policy, and was trying to say that being active in Latin America (in other words, intervening, not remaining isolated) has been good foreign policy.

I would disagree with both points. At no point in history has a Latin American country possessed the military resources to threaten the US, and that would have been true with or without intervention. The reality is that US intervention has quite often prevented the Latin American countries from developing stable democratic institutions and economies. That would have been good for the US. Much better than what has happened instead.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, and if I gave you a quarter for every word I've mispelled in this forum you could buy yourself a used Hugo. :)One of these? ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Agent_smith.jpg

SI

[Dutch]

Our troops are not there to make other countries feel happy. Far from it. We're there to keep an eye on our interests and being able to make threats and having the capability to carry those threats out if need be.

Our economy is the reason. Absolutely. The economic effect on our country and our citizens is what we are looking out for. Whose economy would you suggest our leadership be most concerned about?

If you march in to Iraq and tell them, "We are here to make sure the oil is regulated fairly and we don't give a shit about you" -- we would fail. I don't know which political leader is suggesting we do that.

What the current administration is offering (and what any administration would offer) is a trade. America wants safe and fair oil trade and in return, Iraq gets rid of a brutal dictator that killed countless multiples more than the terrorists have done during the liberation of that country. And as a result, the Iraqis will be more happy. And in the future once Iraq stabilizes under democracy, we still get fair trade for oil and Iraqis get to gain the responsability of policing themselves and fighting terrorism.

And we get free trade for oil without having to pay for Operation Northern Watch, Opertation Southern Watch, the UN Inspection program, the UN mandates, the UN Resolution protections.

We get what we want, they get what they want. We all pay a price, but we all receive goods and services in return.

Obviously, when dealing with brutal dictators and terrorists, the tarrif's are a bit higher (taxes paid with human lives) but once you get rid of those people, trade and taxes normalize.

[sachmo71]

Well I hope our presence in Iraq helps them stabilize someday, because we can't count on countries to self-stabilize, especially when dealing with a triumvirate of power brokers.

[Airhog]

Ex. 3 the fall of the Roman Empire, as described by Gibbon. Basically, the Romans lost the will to go fight the Barbarian nations, so they grew stronger and took the fight to Rome, eventually overrunning the Republic.



I don't believe that this was the only reason. I think that every nation has a maximun amount of territory they can occupy and maintain. The roman empire fell because they grew too large. And it didnt help them one bit that they had some really bad leaders near the end. Of course this problem is two-fold, since they need the territory to provide tax money to fund their large public works programs.

[Bubba Wheels]

Our economy is the reason. Absolutely. The economic effect on our country and our citizens is what we are looking out for. Whose economy would you suggest our leadership be most concerned about?

If you march in to Iraq and tell them, "We are here to make sure the oil is regulated fairly and we don't give a shit about you" -- we would fail. I don't know which political leader is suggesting we do that.

What the current administration is offering (and what any administration would offer) is a trade. America wants safe and fair oil trade and in return, Iraq gets rid of a brutal dictator that killed countless multiples more than the terrorists have done during the liberation of that country. And as a result, the Iraqis will be more happy. And in the future once Iraq stabilizes under democracy, we still get fair trade for oil and Iraqis get to gain the responsability of policing themselves and fighting terrorism.

And we get free trade for oil without having to pay for Operation Northern Watch, Opertation Southern Watch, the UN Inspection program, the UN mandates, the UN Resolution protections.

We get what we want, they get what they want. We all pay a price, but we all receive goods and services in return.

Obviously, when dealing with brutal dictators and terrorists, the tarrif's are a bit higher (taxes paid with human lives) but once you get rid of those people, trade and taxes normalize.

Well, I don't get this line of reasoning at all. We spend enormous amounts of money to defend smaller countries that elect officials that thumb their noses at us and tell us where to get off, then they take the money that they don't spend of defense use that money to subsidize their economies and businesses that in turn sell to us and cause us to run up huge trade deficits with them The Big 3 auto companies are in junk-bond status and Toyota is poised to pass GM as the world's number one car company. How is all that helping to sustain our economy?

If we took all the money we use to fund the military that defends those other countries (again, many of whom don't want us there to begin with!) and put that into R&D in the form of small-interest loans to businesses and such it would seem to help our economy much more than defense does.

And we don't get most of our oil from the middle east, Europe does. We get most or ours from Canada and Venezuala. Why are we so worried that the French won't get their oil?

[clintl]

Well, I don't get this line of reasoning at all. We spend enormous amounts of money to defend smaller countries that elect officials that thumb their noses at us and tell us where to get off, then they take the money that they don't spend of defense use that money to subsidize their economies and businesses that in turn sell to us and cause us to run up huge trade deficits with them The Big 3 auto companies are in junk-bond status and Toyota is poised to pass GM as the world's number one car company. How is all that helping to sustain our economy?

If we took all the money we use to fund the military that defends those other countries (again, many of whom don't want us there to begin with!) and put that into R&D in the form of small-interest loans to businesses and such it would seem to help our economy much more than defense does.

And we don't get most of our oil from the middle east, Europe does. We get most or ours from Canada and Venezuala. Why are we so worried that the French won't get their oil?

We have bases in those countries more because the US governments want the bases there than because they want us there. In Japan, in particular, the US pretty much imposed a weak military as a condition of surrender. Toyota and the other Japanese automakers took a position of weakness following WWII, and developed better, higher quality, more efficient manufacturing techniques out of the imposed scarcity and hardship, and the US automakers, mostly through their own mismanagement, have fallen behind.

As for oil - it doesn't really matter much where physically the oil comes from and goes, because the market is truly a world market. The price of Venezuelan oil is going to go up if there's a disruption of Middle Eastern supplies, because the Venezuelans can just as easily sell to Europe as to us. And they would. Even some Alaskan oil gets exported to the Far East, instead of all of it being used here.

[ISiddiqui]

And besides, a LOT of Toyota cars are made in US factories. So your Toyota Camry may be just as "Made in the US" as a GM car.

[st.cronin]

Well, I don't get this line of reasoning at all. We spend enormous amounts of money to defend smaller countries that elect officials that thumb their noses at us and tell us where to get off, then they take the money that they don't spend of defense use that money to subsidize their economies and businesses that in turn sell to us and cause us to run up huge trade deficits with them The Big 3 auto companies are in junk-bond status and Toyota is poised to pass GM as the world's number one car company. How is all that helping to sustain our economy?

If we took all the money we use to fund the military that defends those other countries (again, many of whom don't want us there to begin with!) and put that into R&D in the form of small-interest loans to businesses and such it would seem to help our economy much more than defense does.

And we don't get most of our oil from the middle east, Europe does. We get most or ours from Canada and Venezuala. Why are we so worried that the French won't get their oil?


The US economy is the best in the world. It doesn't exactly require 'help,' of the scale you are describing. Could it use some fine-tuning? Absolutely. (As an aside, I think the current administration's economic policy has been moronic.)

[Bubba Wheels]

We have bases in those countries more because the US governments want the bases there than because they want us there. In Japan, in particular, the US pretty much imposed a weak military as a condition of surrender. Toyota and the other Japanese automakers took a position of weakness following WWII, and developed better, higher quality, more efficient manufacturing techniques out of the imposed scarcity and hardship, and the US automakers, mostly through their own mismanagement, have fallen behind.

As for oil - it doesn't really matter much where physically the oil comes from and goes, because the market is truly a world market. The price of Venezuelan oil is going to go up if there's a disruption of Middle Eastern supplies, because the Venezuelans can just as easily sell to Europe as to us. And they would. Even some Alaskan oil gets exported to the Far East, instead of all of it being used here.

In one case you make my point. WWII? That ended 60 years ago. Come on, we still need to spend our money to defend economic powerhouse Japan? From whom? North Korea? China?

Interestingly, Japan had been demonstrating against U.S. troops there because a Marine had raped a Japanese girl and for some other things. Then North Korea goes and shoots a missile somewhere's over Japan's areospace. Next thing you hear is that Japan is giving its ok for U.S. nuclear ships to dock there for the first time in history.

I guess what surprises me most is that so many here seem to think its fine and dandy for our kids to be the global policemen going and fighting in foreign lands not to defend U.S. borders. Shocks me, really. But as long as the military remains all volunteer and those volunteering understand that even joining the National Guard and Reserves could get you a quick ticket to the Middle East, Asia or Africa in a 'hot zone' I guess that's totally up to them.

[clintl]

You missed my point. We are doing what we're doing because the US government considers the strategic value of having troops overseas, and keeping countries like Japan militarily dependent on the US, of greater value than the costs to our economy of doing so. The US does not want Japan to be a military power.

[JPhillips]

Clintl: Its even more than that. Are troops in Japan not only defend Japan, but serve as a base for our projection of power to NK and China.

Japan makes things that we want/need and China as well as much of the rest of SE Asia make other things we want/need. Our presence anywhere in the region serves multiple goals outside of just defending one particular country.

Bubba: You just refuse to see the obvious. We have no interest in being the world policeman and in fact we aren't. We are worried about our economic security for the most part. The troops stationed around the globe are there to protect our citizens from economic catastrophe. Not until we find a way to fuel our transport without oil and rebuild our manufacturing base will we have any other option.

[flere-imsaho]

Thread started at sterlingice's request. I have commented before that the recurring theme of US History (and, on a larger scale, the history of all great civilizations) is that isolationism is a disastrous policy.

Define "isolationism".

Is it a policy of ensuring that a nation is completely self-sufficient and needs to rely on the outside world for nothing?

Is it a policy of avoiding foreign entanglements? ;)

Is it a policy of only reacting to developments, never proactively seeking to better one's position?


Regarding the U.S., one could argue that until 1914, the policy of non-involvement in European affairs was a good one, and that had the U.S. been more entangled in that theater, for instance, the Civil War would have been even longer and more bloody.

As others have pointed out, Pearl Harbor wasn't the result of isolationism, but very much a reaction to the involvement the U.S. already had against the Axis powers. Now, if you want to argue that a practice of real isolationism by the U.S. during WWII would have been a bad thing as it would have mostly likely allowed the Axis to "win", I'd agree with you there.

But the point is that these aren't black and white issues. The world is a complex system, and its political and economic spheres are extraordinarily complex. It's tempting to follow someone like Buchanan and hole up behind our two oceans, but we are simply too interlinked with the world system for this to be successful. Even a cursory look at our trade imbalance puts the lie to this.


I think the problem many people have these days in articulating this question is because in the 20th century the rules changed regarding isolationism & interventionism.

Typically when we speak of countries being "too involved in international affairs" we speak of countries that overextended themselves through conquest and fell. Rome, Britain, France, Germany, etc.... But all of these examples are consistent in that they were all very overt. Conquest, War, Invasion, Occupation, etc....

Iraq aside, "conquest" for nations these days is likely to be less overt. So much so that we need a different name to describe it. As any 1st-year political science student will tell you, that name is hegemony.

In the 2nd half of the 20th century the U.S. and U.S.S.R. waged a war of hegemony around the globe. After the Soviet Union fell, the U.S. continues to play this game, and other players have come to the table (most notably the EU and China). "Conquest" is more of a collection of affinities, where success is measured in the changes in the value of currency and stock markets, and the ebb and flow of trade advantages.

Anyway, all of this is to suggest that the current situation is decidedly complex and as such will not be served by simple solutions, be they Buchanan's isolationism or Bush's interventionism.



As a complete aside, I don't believe the fall of the Roman Empire had anything to do with an overt policy of isolationism. The ruling elite in Rome turned inward in its later days to pursue the games of politics and as such the effective maintenance of government around the empire fell into disarray and left them ill-prepared to meet challenges from outside the Empire. Plus, I don't think any Roman said "Let's ignore the outside world so that we don't get entangled in foreign politics to our own doom."

[flere-imsaho]

Reagan and Bush Sr. were President during the cold war. Under Clinton the military budget was slashed and the military was downsized.

Wrong again, Bubba.

U.S. military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1940-2003

http://kamilewicz.org/albums/misc/military_relative_size_graph.png

Data from here. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf)

I see only one slash there, and it's not in 1992.