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.
Hired guns certainly have their uses. But the idea that we can count primarily on mercenaries for our national defense is silly and extremely dangerous.
And the notion that we can run a sensible foreign policy and a cogent, cohesive defense for this country via the separate individual preferences and actions of millions of private citizens is incomprehensible.
Well, we're not disagreeing. I've never met anyone who doesn't feel that national defense is a vital national government function.
Our differences, if any, concern the attempt to consider any foreign action our government takes to be "national defense" just because it was an action by our national government. I don't think that foreign nation building, foreign aid and a lot of other baloney should be considered "national defense."
No matter how high you raise our taxes, there's not going to be enough to solve all the internal problems in other countries. And, it's not usually good for them, either.
I think it’s worth proposing (if only to watch the hue and cry and gnashing of teeth and countries begging us to stay once we begin to actually do it)
Having participated in this “Save The World” nonsense - I say that the USA has been played for a sucker by expending its treasure and young people for the benefit of ... Who? Certainly Not the USA! I say mostly Europe!
If the US were to be attacked, we would not be helped by the E.U. nor Asia - we would need to defend ourselves! We could do it with our Nukes! I say we should abondon the world to its own devices and devote ourselves to US not THEM!
Starfisher
Really? You don't think it was in our national interest to help in the rebuilding of Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII, to secure a form of government in those countries that would not be hostile to us, our principles, and the national security needs of ourselves and our allies?
It was not in our interest to shore up the forces of liberty in the former Eastern Bloc and the former Soviet republics after the fall of the Soviet Union?
It was not in our interest to have friendly stable governments in place in Iraq and Afghanistan and in other countries in that region of the world post 9-11?
As for "foreign aid," would you rather expend dollars where necessary to thwart our enemies or the blood of American men and women?
Because, for all its many faults, that's what foreign aid was throughout the Cold War, and has been in the War on Islamic Terrorists: a fairly passive but very effective instrument of our national defense policies.
Going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan was legitimate so long as that is what we were doing there. That's what I call national defense. We should have kicked some butt and then left.
Nearly all of the rest of your list could and should have been left to the private sector.
A lot of it has to do with taxes for me. I think it's time for a smaller government. I recognize, though, that we don't all share the same view on the size of government.
What do you mean by that?
Maybe instead of raising taxes to engage in political and social engineering in other countries, the government could allow private Americans to make individual decisions in that regard. If an American citizen believes strongly enough that a regime somewhere needs changing, maybe that American should go to that country and work for regime change. If he believes strongly that the electrical system in another country needs replacement or repair, maybe he should go over and replace or repair it, or send money so that someone else will do it. If he believes that more "family planning" services would improve another country, maybe he should make his contribution privately.
Maybe it's time for us to find ways to reduce taxes and the role of government.
Bombing raids over California? The fire balloons don’t count. Methinks he doth protest too much.
We gain much more militarily than we expend with our support for Israel.
But I always find it fascinating how quickly isolationists always get around to one of their main goals: the abandonment of the nation of Israel. It never seems to fail.
But, in any case, private war-making is a really bad idea.
We just didn’t leave from Miami and go into Iraq the first time. Long held bases in Turkey, Italy, Bahrain and of course Port of Haifa in Israel were instrumental in setting up a supply line from Europe to the theater. We cannot possibly draw back to our own borders and still project power abroad. Withdrawing to our own borders is a guarantee that future conflicts will be fought on American soil.
As for Israel, I think it fortunate for Israel that its leaders don't share your view that Israel cannot survive without American tax dollars. I have never understood our strategy of using our tax dollars to pay off both sides to that dispute, but maybe it makes more sense to you.
Anyway, I guess it's only money and so long as people don't mind paying taxes, the government won't mind collecting them and spending them for us.
You think we’re “paying off” Israel? LOL...
I’m detecting a certain moral equivalency which is very common among those who think like you do.
Everybody has his own favorite government project. And, that's why government's so big and so special, and going broke.
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.