One cannot run from the world. Isolationism was tried in both previous world wars, and the “world” dragged us in notwithstanding. Showing weakness gets interpreted as being ripe for conquest.
I say again, what are our national interests, how much risk do they justify us in taking, what are the odds that we will prevail in securing those interests at an acceptable price?
These are the questions that should determine our policy. I do not say that we can never intervene anywhere, I say that there has to be a proper weighing of our national interests against the risks.
Let's hear it
Nah. Interventionism was tried in Europe in the first half of last century. Tried again in the Pacific in the second half. Now in this century is venturing into the ME and Africa. We are now broke and in debt to China, got some 24,000,000 un&under employed because we want intervention in all the trade of the world whereas we need to restore MADE in USA. We have trip wires all over the world for war intervention and in multiple wars right now. Another war would be existential for us.
WWII was a failure of Versailles, not of isolationism. And FDR's actions on behalf of China that provoked Japanese attack were hardly isolationist. Nor should we forget that isolationism, in the imperfect manner that it was followed, gave us the tremendous advantage of being the last power in the war, an advantage totally ignored by today's Washington tough guys who seem to have a policy that we are to enter any life and death contest bloodied and bankrupt.