Posted on 08/09/2016 9:27:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Isolationists must not prevail in this new debate over foreign policy," warns Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "The consequences of a lasting American retreat from the world would be dire."
To make his case against the "Isolationist Temptation," Haass creates a caricature, a cartoon, of America First patriots, then thunders that we cannot become "a giant gated community."
Understandably, Haass is upset. For the CFR has lost the country.
Why? It colluded in the blunders that have bled and near bankrupted America and that cost this country its unrivaled global preeminence at the end of the Cold War.
No, it was not "isolationists" who failed America. None came near to power. The guilty parties are the CFR crowd and their neocon collaborators, and liberal interventionists who set off to play empire after the Cold War and create a New World Order with themselves as Masters of the Universe.
Consider just a few of the decisions taken in those years that most Americans wish we could take back.
After the Soviet Union withdrew the Red Army from Europe and split into 15 nations, and Russia held out its hand to us, we slapped it away and rolled NATO right up onto her front porch.
Enraged Russians turned to a man who would restore respect for their country. Did we think they would just sit there and take it?
How did bringing Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO make America stronger, safer and more secure? For it has surely moved us closer to a military clash with a nuclear power.
In 2014, with John McCain and U.S. diplomats cheering them on, mobs in Independence Square overthrew a pro-Russian government in Kiev that had been democratically elected and installed a pro-NATO regime.
Putin's response: Secure Russia's naval base at Sevastopol by retaking Crimea, and support pro-Russian Ukrainians in Luhansk and Donetsk who preferred secession to submission to U.S. puppets.
Fortunately, our interventionists failed to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Had they succeeded, we almost surely would have been in a shooting war with Russia by now.
Would that have made us stronger, safer, more secure?
After the attack on 9/11, George W. Bush, with the nation and world behind him, took us into Afghanistan to eradicate the nest of al-Qaida killers.
After having annihilated some and scattered the rest, however, Bush decided to stick around and convert this wild land of Pashtuns, Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks into another Iowa.
Fifteen years later, we are still there.
And the day we leave, the Taliban will return, undo all we have done, and butcher those who cooperated with the Americans.
If we had to do it over, would we have sent a U.S. army and civilian corps to make Afghanistan look more like us?
Bush then invaded Iraq, overthrew Saddam, purged the Baath Party, and disbanded the Iraqi army. Result: A ruined, sundered nation with a pro-Iranian regime in Baghdad, ISIS occupying Mosul, Kurds seceding, and endless U.S. involvement in this second-longest of American wars.
Most Americans now believe Iraq was a bloody trillion-dollar mistake, the consequences of which will be with us for decades.
With a rebel uprising against Syria's Bashar al-Assad, the U.S. aided the rebels. Now, 400,000 Syrians are dead, half the country is uprooted, millions are in exile, and the Damascus regime, backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, is holding on after five years.
Meanwhile, we cannot even decide whether we want Assad to survive or fall, since we do not know who rises when he falls.
Anyone still think it was a good idea to plunge into Syria in support of the rebels? Anyone still think it was a good idea to back Saudi Arabia in its war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which has decimated that country and threatens the survival of millions?
Anyone still think it was a good idea to attack Libya and take down Moammar Gadhafi, now that ISIS and other Islamists and rival regimes are fighting over the carcass of that tormented land?
"The Middle East is arguably the most salient example of what happens when the U.S. pulls back," writes Haass.
To the CFR, the problem is not that we plunged headlong into this maelstrom of tyranny, tribalism and terrorism, but that we have tried to extricate ourselves.
Hints that America might leave the Middle East, says Haass, have "contributed greatly to instability in the region."
So, must we stay indefinitely?
To the CFR, America's role in the world is to corral Russia, defend Europe, contain China, isolate Iran, deter North Korea, and battle al-Qaida and ISIS wherever they may be, bleeding our country's military.
Nor is that all. We are also to convert Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan into pro-Western preferably democratic countries, and embrace "free trade," accepting the imported merchandise of all mankind, even if that means endless $800 billion trade deficits, bleeding our country's economy.
Otherwise, you are just an isolationist.
Madison’s lack of readiness gave us the War of 1812. Good thing he learned at the last minute.
And does your handle imply anything?
I didn’t read the whole 1977 article, but from the excerpt I took that Hitler’s success was enabled by his eventual opponents’ weakness. I don;t know if Buchannan is referring to German and Austrian leaders, or if he is including the likes of Chamberlain and other foreigners.
While many comments about Adolph Schickelgruber are on the mark, he was hardly a genius. The core reason he ascended the pinnacle in Germany was the consequence of the Great War; a conflict that Germany could and should have won quickly and decisively; sparing the world virtually every horror of the most destructive century since the dawn of Man.
But fretful mediocrities had replaced the genius of Von Bismarck and Von Moltke, so it would not happen.
The German People could neither understand nor accept their defeat; which was the result of a grossly incompetent Foreign Office and General Staff.
Nor could the latter be openly blamed because of its link to and mutual dependence on the Hohenzollern Monarchy.
So a door was opened through which Hitler walked blaming the Jews, homosexuals, communists; among others.
The rest is history.
Hm.... on your pretentious horse again and right on cue.
I think Washington’s assertions are absurd given the time frame in which he made them. And I think Madison’s assertion is on the mark. But this is merely my opinion.
Of course noisy table thumpers like you never abide dissenting opinion, even on a discussion forum; since anything you say must be so because you day so, like the Cheshire Cat lecturing Alice. Suggest you do all a favor and ignore my posts and I’ll gladly reciprocate.
Why not find a house to haunt?
You do not understand what either man said, regrettably, and even worse since you parsed the words of both men. And it is my fault for not double-checking Madison’s words right away to see the correct context.
I think Washington’s assertions are absurd given the time frame in which he made them. And I think Madison’s assertion is on the mark …
With all due respect, that bespeaks a lack of confidence in one’s own opinion. That is also argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad lapidem together. I merely think my POV is well-founded, and I abide no uninformed insult of any of the Founding Fathers nor parsing of their words—as I feel all patriots should.
Of course noisy table thumpers like you never abide dissenting opinion …
If you look back far enough, Abraham and Sarah got impatient and caused this.
So, it was the Jooose!!
Indeed it’s always Bush, the Prince of Buffoons. There’s an old Arabic refrain that says “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” , a reality that Bush was oblivious to. Saddam Hussein was the mortal enemy of the Mullahs of Iran
w/whom he engaged in a decade long war.They were also our and Israel’s greatest threat.
More importantly, Saddam was the Iron fist that kept Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Fatah; among other fanatics, at bay. In effect, he was our policeman but doofus Bush knew better. And the results are plain to see; a Middle East now on fire!
On the mark.
Who? Those who make money off of them.
What bothered me was Buchanan describing Hitler like a giddy schoolgirl would describe her favorite popstar and then suggesting that Hitler should have been left alone.
Can’t read it, so why post it?
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.