Although I find isolationism morally repugnant, I'm beginning to think it's a good idea. At least in the contemporary sense. I am being swayed in that direction by a world that is indifferent to our crusade against terror if not downright hostile, which is much more often the case.
I have supported the War in Iraq since October 2002, when I wrote for the first time about the proposed conflict, six months before it was launched. And I have stalwartly defended and believed in it since. My belief was that Saddam was always going to defy U.N. resolutions, the information we had on Iraq - the dossiers - appeared credible because it was the same information liberal Democrats used to justify attacks on Iraq throughout the '90s, and if Saddam weren't really to have or use weapons of mass destruction, then certainly his successor, his son Uday, would have. You could have counted on that happening. The argument countering action against the Ba'athists, largely "better the devil we know," seemed old, tired and irrelevant - and dangerous.
I won't give up on Iraq - we have got to stay the course and finish the job, "the job" being a large, fully-trained Iraqi security force and the full implementation of the Iraqi constitution. I cannot walk away from my support for this war. But I am swiftly being left with no doubt that this should be the last major war the U.S. supports.
What we should do is maintain a considerable presence in Afghanistan, along with U.N./NATO help, to see that tortured country through to normalcy. A rebirth in Kabul will not be enough; regeneration has to take place across the land. And as Afghanistan was a justified war, had U.N. support, and even saw the participation of Canada, France and Germany, I don't see a problem justifying a continuation of the Afghanistan project.
Same with Taiwan. We are, rightly, entrusted to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression. We cannot allow Taiwan to fall into China's irredentist hands.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
well and thoughtfully presented MEM and I can see your thought process and sympathize. There is no question we have to prioritize - we cannot be all things to all people and right every wrong unilaterally, but I think the very term "isolationism" is an oxymoron that will never again be possible, even if we should wish for it. That is still the lesson of 9/11: ignoring it doesn't make it go away and proactive is generally better than reactive
2 - Al Barger
You've definitely got the right general idea there, Mark. We absolutely need to be much more limited and careful than we have been in making our foreign commitments.
We may have to go stomping around overseas sometimes, as people from overseas are still intending on stomping US. But exactly where and who and how is extremely tricky, and it's easy to get sucked way deep into everybody else's problems. Plus, every little bit of foreign involvement provides an excuse for every playa hata in the world.
Whereas, the more we withdraw and go hands-off, the more co-operation we'll tend to get. Our help will tend to be more appreciated the less there is of it.
3 - Mark Edward Manning
Thank you, Eric and Al. I didn't come about writing this easily at all, because, while not exactly agreeing that we should be the world's policemen, I became a convert to liberal interventionism. But as I say, the more I think about, the more convinced I am that a dose of solid isolationism makes for sensible policy - at least in the current, contemporary sense.
4 - Al Barger
You see suffering and oppression in the world, you WANT to do something, but it ends up being Stuart Smalley writ large. You can't fix everybody's problems, and 99% of the time, the best thing to do is to stay the hell out of them.
5 - Dave Nalle
Fortress America!
Hope we still have a military when the Chinese Red Army comes knocking.
Dave
6 - RedTard
Great post, you bring up a good point. We need to turn inward and work on our own domestic problems. After a few years of ignoring the world's conflicts, terrorists and everyone will pick new countries to hate.
When the Chinese Army or some other worldwide threat does eventually rear it's head all those "friends" who want us out now will be begging us to come back quick.
7 - RJ
Even vis-a-vis 9/11, the isolationists have a point. After all, the people who attacked the US on that day were all foreigners, and they had been let into this country thanks to liberal immigration/visa laws, and lax enforcement of them...
8 - Al Barger
RedTard, I dig ya, but this right here is wishful thinking: "After a few years of ignoring the world's conflicts, terrorists and everyone will pick new countries to hate."
That ain't happening. We're hated much more for who we are than for any relatively minor bad things that we do in the world. Our military presence in other countries to some extent gives schmucks an excuse, but if we weren't out and about they'd just make something up- which is pretty much what they do now.
9 - Alethinos
I, at times, feel exactly the same way Mark... However, right now trying to be isolationist in THIS world of the 21st century would be absurd. The sentiment is understandable but it is completely impractical.
Also, even though Iraq would have had to be dealt with sooner or later, our entry there was a MASSIVE and STUPID mistake - borne by a bizarre and personal thirst on the part of Bush. There were no WMDs. There was no link to Al-Qaida. Nothing.
I've seen this before. I used to do country risk analysis for Fortune 500 companies. Fourteen months BEFORE Iraq invaded Kuwait I had done a report for a company wanting to open a regional office in the Mideast. I warned them, in an oral report AND in the written report that there was EVERY EVIDENCE that Sadaam would turn South once he wrapped things up with Iran. Indeed I had access (perfectly legit) to CIA reports that stated this... One of the VPs for this company was a Kuwaitie... I specifically told the group of VPs I reported to to NOT put a regional HQ in Kuwait - that if they wanted one on the Persian Gulf they should think much further South...
Anyway, I was paid handsomely for my work and I went on my way...
Three days AFTER the invasion of Kuwait I was watching NBC news and I saw this same VP "tearing" up in front of the camera because their company had just lost FOUR PEOPLE in the invasion and, (this is what killed me) "...how could we KNOW that this would happen?! And now four of my colleagues are dead!"
An interesting note here too - Bush senior was blaming everyone he could find, INCLUDING the CIA because it seems NO ONE in Washigton had a clue that Sadaam was going to do this. He sacked the ambassador - a woman, her name escapes me now - because SHE didn't "know". And here I was with reports, now 30 months old from the CIA stating that this very thing would likely happen...
Alethinos
10 - RJ
"There were no WMDs. There was no link to Al-Qaida."
Wrong on both counts.
From Hillary herself:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
Was Hillary lying, too?
What about the 1,500 gallons of chem weapons found in Iraq after the successful invasion?
11 - Alethinos
RJ... No one was saying that the Mad Man wasn't trying to pull this crap - the point was he was NO WHERE near the fruits of his labor. There WERE NO WMDS! None! Period! Iran and Korea were and are even more now - a far greater threat. But attacking either country would have cost us dearly in lives lost. Iraq looked like easy pickings to a group of fat White Men who are TOTALLY out of touch with the real world. Their arrogance in this was and is amazing!
There was no need, whatsoever, to invade. Sadaam was going no where. He had nothing. We held the moral high ground around the world. If at any time Sadaam had really become a threat we could have dealt with it then...
Now we are a trillion dollars in debt, we are up to our ASS in Iraq with NO easy way out, we have wasted vast resources that could be used to fight real threats...
The point is this: the issue WASN'T that Sadaam, sooner or later would have to be dealt with - the point is the way we went about this was ALL wrong, was pointless at this time, and has cost the lives of thousands of our men and women and RUINED the lives of hundreds of thosands of family members here in the US... AND FOR WHAT? For a "democratic" Iraq that will collapse 6 months after we leave?
Bush was itching to invade Iraq months BEFORE 9/11. Al-Qaida simply gave him the excuse to play soldier and Cheney to enrich his masters at big H.
Alethinos
12 - Alethinos
And PS RJ... I sure as hell DON'T trust Hillary. Or Bill. Bush can be an idiot WITHOUT my having to be a Democrat.
Alethinos
13 - G. Oren
RJ - so Hillary got it wrong too. Big deal. It all goes back to who is presenting the intelligence and how it is interpreted in the first place. The administration refused to listen to any intelligence that didn't square with its own desires, and presented the same info to Congress. No politician, in the Fall of 02, wanted to appear weak on anything that smelled of possible terrorism.
Good post MEM, we may not call it isolationism, but a pause to reconsider our goals and methods is called for.
On China, we seem to be doing all we can to help the Chinese build up a first world economy (and of course they are largely financing our deficits). That they will become a powerful regional player is a foregone conclusion. That the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Indians are rightly concerned about that means we have plenty of allies with which to forge a containment policy. We also know that despite their tremendous growth rate and need for oil, the Chinese also have a demographic time bomb waiting to go off as a result of their "one child" per couple policy. If I remember right, they will actually begin to lose population in twenty-thirty years. Their competitive advantage in labor will not be permanent.
14 - noanchorbabies
I'd go a lot further and call for a halt to all international trade by the United States. We are losing our sovereingty real fast to the WTO, and to UN bodies like Codex Alimentarius whose "rules" the WTO stands ready to impose on us - thereby nullifying our own democratically established laws like DSHEA.
I'd also disallow ownership of American land and other assets by any foreign interest, especially China.
So where would we get our oil? you might ask. If such a strict isolationist policy had been in effect for the last hundred years, we might have faced running out of our own reserves around the middle of the 20th century, and that would have forced us to begin the conversion to bio-diesel and other alternative technologies. We would not now be in the precarious spot that we are with dependence on OPEC.
etc., etc., etc.
15 - Anthony Grande
Isolationism was the cause for World War I and World War II.
The United States is a blessed and more privledged country and it is our responsibility to spread what we have and act as a police force when times get bad.
The whole thing about the whole world hating American, though maybe true in Socialist France and Germany, is a farce.
Has anyone seen that commercial, paid for by the Iraqi people, supporting our cause? Has anyone heard about the Jordanians marching in support of us?
The reason why Socialist countries like Spain, France and Germany hate us so much is the fact that they are envious in what we are capable of and do. They are extremely jealous that the U.S. has the power to act as a Police force and at the same time NOT act as an Imperialist force (we all know the Imperialist history of the Spanish and French).
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mark, you did a real nice job on the piece. but I wouldn't call the concept you are pushing "isolationism." I'd call it something else.
As for the content, there isn't much I can say, except for this.
Your nation did not make a mistake in unhorsing Saddam Hussein. The mistake you made was not immediately invading and unhorsing the regime of the Sauds and the thugdom of the Wahhabis. Oil would be a lot cheaper and the terrorism threat would be gone - the source of the problem ould be gone.
The poblem is that your nation is in the hands of oil barons who are sucking you all dry - and bankrupting your country as well. Bush is nothing but a headwaiter for the Saudis and for his friends in the oil and banking establishment.
When you deal with Arabs, the key is to go in and get out quick - unless you plan on keeping the territory in question.
17 - RJ
"There WERE NO WMDS! None! Period!"
All the exclamation points in the world won't make that statement true.
Please look at this...
18 - Luke
#14
noanchorbabies
URL
November 13, 2005
02:05 AMI'd go a lot further and call for a halt to all international trade by the United States. We are losing our sovereingty real fast to the WTO, and to UN bodies like Codex Alimentarius whose "rules" the WTO stands ready to impose on us - thereby nullifying our own democratically established laws like DSHEA.
I'd also disallow ownership of American land and other assets by any foreign interest, especially China.
So where would we get our oil? you might ask. If such a strict isolationist policy had been in effect for the last hundred years, we might have faced running out of our own reserves around the middle of the 20th century, and that would have forced us to begin the conversion to bio-diesel and other alternative technologies. We would not now be in the precarious spot that we are with dependence on OPEC.
etc., etc., etc.
===============================================
It's too late for any of that now, America is pretty much owned by the world bank, miss a few loan payments and they can repossess your country.
19 - Luke
#15
Anthony Grande
November 13, 2005
03:03 AM Isolationism was the cause for World War I and World War II.
The United States is a blessed and more privledged country and it is our responsibility to spread what we have and act as a police force when times get bad.
================================================
regardless of how blessed and priviledged America is it's not your reponsibility to do anything at all, but even if you do decide to do something, when it seems like a stupid idea, like invading iraq and causing more death and mayhem than they already had, you do it, and when it seemed like a good idea to get involved, like that time a million africans were getting hacked up with machetes, you did nothing. I only wish that America would be consistant, and help countries regardless of whether they're major players in world politics or not, because it seems to me that, if they have no oil, and they have no weapons, and they have no wealth, then you don't mind if they get slaughtered, perhaps that's why the countries you mentioned hate America.
20 - Mark Edward Manning
nonanchorbabies: "I'd go a lot further and call for a halt to all international trade by the United States. We are losing our sovereingty real fast to the WTO."
That is the big reason why I was rabidly denouncing GATT in columns back in 1995, and why I still oppose this monstrosity today. It has nothing to do with free trade, but with this beast called the WTO. It has lived up to the anti-American monster I suspected it would be.
But I wouldn't cease free-trade. The positives outweigh the negatives. I used to be a real protectionist, but I am now a convert to free trade. I want out of GATT, but to focus our energies on smaller free trade pacts like NAFTA.
21 - Mark Edward Manning
Ruvy: "The problem is that your nation is in the hands of oil barons who are sucking you all dry - and bankrupting your country as well. Bush is nothing but a headwaiter for the Saudis and for his friends in the oil and banking establishment."
Hi Ruvy,
Well, if we oust the House of Saud, who would we replace it with? Lord knows, Iraq is a tough enough project - installing democracy in Saudi Arabia would be near impossible.
I don't like Saudi Arabia. They are friends who've got their fingers crossed behind their backs.
[Legend has it that a few years ago, the Royal Prince penned a peace agreement for Israel that he planned to unveil at an Arab summit conference, but, just like Arafat, he shelved it at the slightest "provocation."]
I want to start tapping Alaskan oil, but the same mushheads who decry our dependence on OPEC oil also shout, "Don't go into Alaska!" You just can't win with some people.
22 - RedTard
"I want to start tapping Alaskan oil, but the same mushheads who decry our dependence on OPEC oil also shout, "Don't go into Alaska!" You just can't win with some people." - MEM
This is the part I can't understand either. For now we'll consider Alaskan oil a "strategic reserve". It will be tapped...eventually.
Biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen fuel are not practical in large scale for a variety of reasons. Our petrol economy will only be replaced if a major scientific breakthrough occurs. That new technology would be worth trillions and if there were any leads companies would be R&Ding them like mad.
"We are losing our sovereingty real fast to the WTO, and to UN bodies like Codex Alimentarius whose "rules" the WTO stands ready to impose on us " - Luke
Great point. It sounds as if the UN is making a play to wrestle control of the internet from us now. The US should have gotten out of that parasitic body and destroyed it years ago. Now it is too late, we are dependent on it.
The UN has a pretty good grasp on power in the world. If the UN gets the I-net it will have every country by the balls. Global taxation and control of funds have been Annan and Co's wet dream for years and controlling the internet will give them the leverage they need to implement it.
23 - noanchorbabies
Mark says: "I want out of GATT, but to focus our energies on smaller free trade pacts like NAFTA."
And CAFTA? This nasty little pact includes a committment to harmonize with the SPS Agreement, which specifically mentions Codex Alimentarius, the brainchild of Nazi war criminal and head of the Bayer Auschwitz plant, Fritz ter Meer. The threat from international Big Pharma, is far more deadly and sinister than Big Oil. And these little baby WTOs are no better than their grand daddy.
Until the Federal government stops trying to regulate business, thereby setting itself up for the ineveitable co-opting of the regulatory apparatus (as for example the FDA by the drug industry), I would go even one step further with isolationism, and limit any company to facilities in a single state. Megacompanies that sprawl all over the country have too much power and cannot resist the temptation to wield the same through the fourth, lobbyist, branch of government in order to further entrench themselves and benefit their bottom lines at the expense of the people (witness the drug company sponsored 7 billion dollar bird flu boondoogle, complete with immmunities from prosecution!)
24 - noanchorbabies
Luke says: It's too late for any of that now, America is pretty much owned by the world bank, miss a few loan payments and they can repossess your country.
You mean like we've "repossessed" countries who couldn't pay their debts back to US?
Just being facetious of course. What we have done in those cases is known as debt FORGIVENESS. And if we can be expected to forgive other countries' debts to us, then by God they can jolly well forgive our debts to them. And if they don't like that idea, then just let them come and try to collect!
25 - Anthony Grande
"I want to start tapping Alaskan oil, but the same mushheads who decry our dependence on OPEC oil also shout, "Don't go into Alaska!" You just can't win with some people."
You know we really need to start drilling in Alaska. I am tired of these damn Democrats, "Oh, we might harm the caribou!" (I know that there has to be a better argument, can one of you liberals give me another one?)