That response is funny coming from advocating a liberal position (withdrawal). Running away from an aggressor and telling allies to go it alone means that the “foreign entanglement” remains, and remains unresolved. It also makes us look like extremely unreliable allies. (Not that Obama is too bothered about maintaining our alliances with true allies, of course; he is quite intent on breaking them and founding “alliances” with enemies that weaken us greatly.)
So now you’re calling me a liberal.
Again another liberal tactic used when one lacks facts to back up their argument.
You’re 0-2 for now.
“...telling allies to go it alone means that the “foreign entanglement” remains, and remains unresolved. It also makes us look like extremely unreliable allies.”
I agree. The United States is already perceived that way in many parts or the world. We should also keep in mind that it is this worldwide network of bases that allows the US to project it’s power all over the world. Isolation means giving up this forward position. The lessons of WWI and WWII (and Thomas Jefferson, for that matter) teach us that isolation is no bulwark against “foreign entanglements”.
It seems neither strategy is 100% satisfying.
While it is true the President Washington admonished the nation not to get involved in foreign entanglements. It is also true that he and his successors ignored that advice completely, and got the nation involved in all kinds of “foreign entanglements” - because that’s how the world is. A president can hardly do otherwise.
North Korea + ICBMs + nuclear weapons vs. missile defence (that’s one thing President Bush had right). 1 missile to Seoul and South Korea is done. A withdrawl of the US umbrella means nuclear proliferation as the south responds with the only proven way to counter nuclear weapons - MAD. Ditto across Asia. Does this enhance US security or hurt it?