Posted on 10/14/2010 8:33:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A growing number of Americans, including libertarians, are suggesting that the U.S. should adopt a "Fortress America" foreign/defense policy: withdraw all of its troops from all foreign countries, end all aid to foreign governments, and withdraw from all alliances. They try to justify this by quoting George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, the latter of whom proclaimed, "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none."
Such a policy was obsolete and unfeasible already during the 20th century, but it makes even less sense now, during the 21st century, in today's world. Policies that might've worked during the 18th century are not feasible during the third millennium.
During the times of Washington and Jefferson, not only was this isolationist policy feasible, but it was the best choice for the U.S. The country was simply too weak and too young to influence the world or fight mighty enemies. Thus, Washington and Jefferson tried to maintain stable relations with both Britain and France, as well as other countries of the world.
Back then, there were no empires hell-bent on world conquest and imposing their ideology on the entire world. European monarchs were busy fighting each other (or Napoleon Bonaparte) in Europe, and when the U.S. did start a war against Britain, Russia helped broker a peace agreement to end it and involve Britain in Europe against France again.
But even Jefferson didn't refuse to undertake military interventions he believed necessary: he built up a navy and sent it to North Africa to fight Barbary pirates.
A "Fortress America" policy became obsolete during the early 1920s and 1930s, when fascist regimes were established in Europe and began to threaten the world. Unfortunately, the U.S. continued this obsolete, ridiculous policy right until December 7, 1941. Four days later, Hitler declared war on the U.S. Hitler's U-boats sank thousands of American ships, many of them just a few miles off the East Coast, and the Japanese conducted bombing raids over California. It took over two thousand dead Americans for the U.S. government to realize that it shouldn't continue its isolationist policy.
Had Hitler been taken out before 1939, it is likely that World War II would not have erupted in Europe. Had Japan's ambitions been tempered early enough, Asians wouldn't have been murdered en masse by the Japanese.
After WWII, a new threat to world peace -- and to the United States -- emerged: an aggressive, totalitarian Soviet Union. President Harry Truman then made a crucial decision not to withdraw the U.S. from global affairs and to protect Western countries against Moscow. On this one issue, he was right, and all isolationists were wrong. And eventually, the Cold War was won by the U.S., partly because of Truman's globalist policies, including his decisions to create NATO and defend West Berlin and South Korea.
During the Cold War, and especially during the 1970s, some Americans shouted "better red than dead." They called for American troops to be withdrawn from Europe and for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO. Donald Rumsfeld (then America's ambassador to NATO) even had to testify before the Congress to prevent this from happening.
The USSR did not recognize such a thing as a "neutral" country. Moscow was hell-bent on creating a global communist empire and had been trying to accomplish this for decades. Even if the U.S. had withdrawn from world affairs after 1945, Moscow would've targeted it anyway, just like it targeted (and made plans to invade) Austria and Switzerland.
An isolationist ("noninterventionist," as Paulites call it) foreign policy, a "Fortress America," makes no sense today. There are global threats to global peace and to the U.S. itself -- threats that won't stop targeting the U.S. even if it declares neutral status tomorrow. This is because the rulers of China, Iran, and North Korea, and the leaders of al-Qaeda, do not recognize "neutral states." China's goal is global hegemony and expelling the U.S. from Asia and other regions of the world completely. Iran is the world's largest sponsor of terrorist organizations. Al-Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist organizations aim to establish a global caliphate, and they won't spare the U.S. regardless of American foreign policy.
If the U.S. withdraws from global affairs and adopts a "noninterventionist" (read: isolationist) foreign policy (also called "a restrained foreign policy"), it will only shoot itself in the foot, because this way, it will make its enemies' job easier while failing to convince them not to target it. The proposition that the U.S. can simply withdraw from world affairs and live happily forever afterward is ludicrous.
The reason why all U.S. presidents since Harry Truman, regardless of party label, believed that the U.S. must be engaged in the world is not because of the influence of the mythical "military-industrial complex," and not because of some other conspiracy, but because presidents from both parties have recognized that such a general policy is necessary to protect the U.S. and its interests.
A completely different question is what exact policy the U.S. should adopt towards this or that specific country, question, or organization. Whether the U.S. should've invaded Iraq, whether it should continue to wage the Afghan war (and how), and how to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis are debatable questions. (This is an issue for another article, and it is beyond the scope of this one.)
But there is no factual basis to justify a "noninterventionist" foreign policy. It would practically mean abandoning the entire foreign world to countries and organizations hostile to the U.S. and drastically worsened relations with America's allies, including such stalwarts as the U.K. and Australia.
Nor is it true that the U.S. has an empire. Troops deployed (and bases built) to protect America's vulnerable allies against real threats do not constitute an empire, and neither does a 95,000-strong army deployed to fight the Taliban.
President Eisenhower's Defense Secretary Thomas Gates said, "Should we ever abandon our forward strategy in favor of the so-called 'Fortress America' concept, we would retreat forever." This was true during the 1950s, and it's true now.
-- Zbigniew Mazurak blogs at zbigniewmazurak.wordpress.com. His book, In Defense of US Defense Spending, is forthcoming.
We’re done taking policy advice from people with first names like Zbigniew.
Even if they are right?
We do need to reshuffle our forces. We need troops at home to secure our southern border and we need more soldiers and equipment in Asia. Do we really need to be anywhere near as heavily deployed in Europe as we are? Honestly if Russia wants Europe let them have it.
This Zbigniev IS right. Isolationism is as dangerous a foreign policy as the Democrat’s Kuumbuya nuclear free fantasy of world socialism.
Fortress America won’t work because it didn’t work when we weren’t a fortress. Got it.
What? And pay all those pensions? Crazy Ivan isn't THAT crazy.
RE: Honestly if Russia wants Europe let them have it.
Some history books actually said that FDR believed something similar at the Tehran and Yalta Conference in the 1940’s.
He allowed Stalin to have his way with Eastern Europe.
His affectionate name for Stalin : “Uncle Joe”.
Those who call for a “fortress America” policy don’t really understand the ancient military strategy of shoring up your defenses. The strategy comes from extending your defensive line to just outside the range of your enemy’s fire. For example, if you had a castle, you would create a defensive line of trenches and spikes outside the wall, just out of range of your enemy’s catapults and arrows to slow down or stop their advance before their weapons could hit you.
In today’s battlefield in a direct war situation, these are kill zones- areas around your main line where you do not allow an enemy to enter where they could use RPGs or whatever arms they may have against your storehouses and barracks.
From a national perspective, a ‘fortress’ defensive policy that goes no further than your shores doesn’t make sense when the enemy’s weapons can reach us from across their shores. We need to have a defensive line in place at the maximum range of our enemy’s weapons- in this case, global. This is a win-win for us and our allies who allow us to locate these defensive positions on their land.
(In football terms, you don’t put your whole defensive team on the goal line, allowing your opponent to continue to advance towards you until the last yard.)
RE: We’re done taking policy advice from people with first names like Zbigniew.
You prefer someone with the first name of Henry, James, Warren or Madeline perhaps?
Because that did so well of keeping us out of WWII.
“Zbigniew” is a Polish name. A lot of Poles have come out of Communism with good advice on how to recognize it and reject it.
Sorry you’re so prejudiced that it has affected your reasoning skills.
Our Fortress America policy stopped when the British burned Washington D.C. to the ground in the War of 1812. Since then, our basic war strategy has been to never fight a war on American soil. Hence the Monroe Doctrine and every other strategic doctrine we’ve put into place since 1815. Our entire war strategy has been designed to force our enemies to fight us on their land rather than on ours. Waiting for the enemy to invade your land is a very bad idea - just ask the Russians how that typically works out.
+1
Yes, you can judge a man’s ideas by his first name. //Sarcasm off//
It was a joke, son. Remember Zbigniew Brzezinski? That was my aim; sorry I left off the /sarc tag.
In this time, we can deploy our troops as needed extremely fast. We don’t need to have them based in every country. When it comes to Hitler and Japan, are they saying that we should have pre-emted a strike on Germany and Japan? We also aren’t the police of the world.
The author is correct no matter what his name. I dismiss anyone who believes that our interest stop at our border as complete idiots, and rightly so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.