Posted on 09/24/2013 4:59:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
America has gone back to isolationism, many commentators are saying. Not just the dovish Democrats, but also Republicans who were so hawkish a decade ago are turning away from the world.
There is something to this, but it's more complicated than that. To understand where we are, it's helpful to put today's developments in historic perspective.
One picture of American history has it that this country left the rest of the world alone through most of its history, was pulled into world politics by World War II and the Cold War and is now just reverting to its norm.
The problem with this picture is that it leaves a lot of things out. George Washington kept Americans out of a world war between Britain and France, wisely because the early republic was split down the middle on which side to back.
But a few years later, Thomas Jefferson was quite willing to send the U.S. Navy and Marines to quell the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean. He recognized that we were a maritime and trading nation and had an interest in keeping the sea lanes open for trade.
America has sent missionaries as well as merchants around the world for two centuries. The nation has projected power and acquired territory in the Pacific as well as the Caribbean.
It has participated in international organizations since it ratified The Hague Conventions that set out principles of international law in 1899.
So the proposition that America long isolated itself from the world is laced with exceptions.
The term "isolationist" became common in the years after World War I. It was applied, erroneously, to senators who opposed the Versailles Treaty because it committed the U.S. to go to war without a vote in Congress.
But the heyday of isolationism was not the 1920s, when Republican presidents were heavily involved in European negotiations. It was in the middle 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt torpedoed the London economic conference and signed a Neutrality Act. He changed course around 1938 when he decided that Hitler was a menace America could not live with.
Since the Founders, Americans have had different approaches to foreign policy -- four different approaches named after four statesmen, as Walter Russell Mead explains in his book, "Special Providence," and on his blog, "The American Interest." They are isolationist to varying degrees, depending on circumstances.
One approach is Hamiltonian, making the world safe for American commerce through global alliances and military power. Another is Wilsonian, relying more on international law and human rights.
George W. Bush started off as a Hamiltonian and after 9/11 added Wilsonian emphases. Military power would be used to serve universal aspirations for freedom.
Iraq and Afghanistan have made these two mostly non-isolationist approaches unattractive to most Americans and most Republicans.
A third approach is Jeffersonian, seeking to avoid war to keep a virtuous America safe from the wiles of the world. Sen. Rand Paul takes a Jeffersonian approach, combined with opposition to big government at home.
Until Paul became prominent, most Jeffersonians were leftish Democrats, ever seeking to prevent another Vietnam. They like big government at home, but they join Paul in suspicions about National Security Agency surveillance and air attacks in Syria.
The fourth approach is Jacksonian, named after the victor in the Battle of New Orleans. Jacksonians respond fiercely and with utter determination to attacks on America. Most numerous in the South, they have supplied a large share of America's soldiers -- including to both sides in the Civil War.
In war, Jacksonians insist on the "absolute victory" Roosevelt promised in his Pearl Harbor speech. They are not interested in military involvement in areas where America doesn't seem threatened or in "incredibly small" attacks.
All these groups have been dismayed with how American forces have been targeted and attacked by those we have sought to help in the Middle East, except the Jeffersonians, who expected nothing better.
On Syria, Barack Obama seems out of line with all four. Jeffersonians oppose attacks on a country that hasn't attacked us. Wilsonians oppose attacks without international authorization.
Hamiltonians resent Obama's willingness to accept sequester-driven cuts in defense spending. Jacksonians see Obama as a leader eager to talk to America's enemies and reluctant even to utter the word "victory"-- their only goal in any conflict.
A successful foreign policy gathers the support of all four tendencies, or at least three. Obama on Syria is something like the opposite.
The author lays out four flavors of American foreign policy: Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian, Jacksonian, and Wilsonian. But he has forgotten the fifth flavor, which is quite new, but currently coming into ascendency: Jihadism.
Are we isolationists or scared of what the D.C. stooges are getting us into? Who can be confident In the motives of Washington?
In the after-math (it elementary) of WWII, the US gave European nations a 20 supply of money under the Marshall Plan. This was eventually replaced starting in 1969 - 1970’s with VAT’s. What Europe did with this money was create SOCIALISM instead of democracy. They have a blended social democracy today, and are pulling back from that towards capitalism. American’s leaders are repeating Europe’s mistake with socialism by printing Money.
I am for killing ALL of our enemies. I am not an isolationist. I do not want to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary and our National Interests are best served doing so. When we go to war... we need to fight like we did in WW II. Total destruction of our enemies. I no longer believe or trust our federal government. I have caught them lying time after time... and that is why I want nothing to do with their manufactured new world order wars.
Are we isolationists or scared of what the D.C. stooges are getting us into? Who can be confident In the motives of Washington?
Darn good questions. My own opinion is this, becoming ‘involved’ in the world may have made it ‘seem’ more safe and peaceful. When all it has done is caused anger and resentment worldwide to be partially buried and to ferment to the point where it will explode uncontrollably. Much like an forgotten kimchi jar. (And will smell just as a bad in the end.)
As for us... our own ‘good nature’ and desire to spread wealth and happiness have bankrupted the United States and diluted the culture that had allowed that ‘wealth and happiness’ to be created in the first place. The end result I believe is that there is a worldwide backlash and a inside America backlash all building up and coming together at the same time. And it’s target, justifiably so, is the Federal Government of the United States.
I suppose I could go on and on. But simply put, D.C. has really done a number on a ‘good will’ that we may have once had both nationally and internationally. And I believe it is long past time to bring all of our troops home. If a nation they are stationed in and we are not ‘in-conflict’ with says please leave. We should so so with alacrity and return the bases back to the same condition that we acquired them at the beginning of their leases.
And is the approach of choice for John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
The fourth approach is Jacksonian, named after the victor in the Battle of New Orleans. Jacksonians respond fiercely and with utter determination to attacks on America. Most numerous in the South, they have supplied a large share of America's soldiers -- including to both sides in the Civil War.
In war, Jacksonians insist on the "absolute victory" Roosevelt promised in his Pearl Harbor speech. They are not interested in military involvement in areas where America doesn't seem threatened or in "incredibly small" attacks.
Jackson was a nutcase but put me down for this one.
Others were the phrases such as "American continentialism" as in world trade/economic relationships only.
And, another expression heard, especially after WWII - Perpetual Peace thru Perpetual War.
Seems history repeats, and repeats, ...
Out of the four schools listed above, I guess I fit best in the Jacksonian camp.
For good, for bad or otherwise, the vast majority has bought into this line of “it’s time do to nation building at home” IMO.
I saw it first-hand get an ambulatory turnip like Bob Casey elected. And now it has infested the entire country.
Don’t spend that money in Iraq or Syria, spend it on more benefits for ME.
“When we go to war... we need to fight like we did in WW II.”
I agree with you, however, does this mean that the United States should have demanded the unconditional surrender of France during the Quasi War? Would we now be occupying Canada and Great Britian after fighting the War of 1812? Of course, General Sherman gave the rebels what they deserved under this premise. I suppose he should have burned more Southern cities to be true to WWII?. Would demanding Spain’s unconditional surrender mean that we occupy Madrid? And should we have tolerated another 2-3 million or so dead in order to show the Kaiser who’s boss and occupy Berlin? And on and on....
My only point is that we should recognize that WWII-style wars and victories are the exception in both US and World history.
Doesn't mean we have to maximize the barbarity at all times, and it doesn't mean we have to conquer and occupy all adversaries. It just means we kill people and damage property, and we shouldn't apologize for doing so. If our enemies want us to stop doing those things, there is a way to achieve their wish: surrender.
The liberal interventionist democrats and NeoCon republicans are both idealists, they advocate for humanitarianism, nation building, spreading democracy in foreign policy
Obama is a typical democrat prez, his foreign policy team is made up Realists and Liberal Interventionists.
The liberal interventionists and the NeoCons have been wanting to intervene in Syria for a long time. This includes your NeoCon buddies, McCain and Graham. OTOH the Realists were opposed and Obama was opposed.
But the Realists had gradual change to supporting a Syria intervention which forced Obama to change positions.
A good way of measuring this is the Senate Foreign Relation Committee. In May the committee voted 15 to 3 to arm the Syrian rebels. And just recently the committee voted 10 to 8 to bomb Syria.
Those are Military actions... but if we take out iranian nukes then we need to declare War. They have been at war with us since 1979 and they are serious. They have killed many American Military personnel. IF War comes... we need to take take out the persians and devastate their infrastructure. I am talking Dresden here and nothing less. We have not won a war since WWII. Grenada was not a War in the traditional sense although it was War to everyone on the ground there. We won wars by so crushing our enemies that when we arrived with humanitarian aid, they bowed down and were so in need that they welcomed us. This will make despots think long and hard about a threat of War.
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3055253/posts
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
[by “anti-government activists” is meant church-burning jihadists]
Here's the passage at issue:In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. [Rand Paul’s Really Ignorant Paragraph | 7 Feb 2013]
Barone remains an inside the Beltway moron. (Seriously, go read his trite malarkey on immigration.) You can oppose Syria without being an isolationist.
Lots of misinfo in the who we funded part.
bin Laden and his ilk were in the south of Afgan and did little more than hide.
The part of the muj that the US had any contact with was in the north. It was those forces that were at war with the Talib when we went in.
The Talib were a straight up invasion of Afh by Pakistan. The Talib were created in Pak, equipped and led from Pak for purposes designed by Pak.
But, none of it matters. We should have just left the huge AQ training bases alone and bent ourselves over and took whatever the 10s of thousands of jihadiscum trained in the Afg AO, with the full support and protection of the Talib like the good little punks we’ve become.
bin Laden was absolutely and undeniably correct in his fatwa issued after our running away from Mog. We are a Paper Tiger and we Have No Stomach for a Long Fight.
Of course, correcting the trend of refusing to finish what we start, or what gets started against us, a rather well established tradition by this point, Jefferson’s quip about the Tree of Liberty needing occasional watering with the blood of tyrants and patriots would have to be put into play here at home. Nearly half our pop have been turned out so hard as punks for the enemy, they’ll back any enemy, any time for any reason.
Treason hath become trendy.
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.