Posted on 08/06/2014 8:15:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The proliferation of crises around the globe has, for the most part, been met with a yawn from the political class. Americans, they say, are tired of being the world’s policeman. Most media and political elite believe Americans are happy to let the world can sort out it affairs for now.
They are not entirely wrong. “Americans in large numbers want the U.S. to reduce its role in world affairs even as a showdown with Russia over Ukraine preoccupies Washington,” an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in April found. “In a marked change from past decades, nearly half of those surveyed want the U.S. to be less active on the global stage, with fewer than one-fifth calling for more active engagement—an anti-interventionist current that sweeps across party lines.”
Americans got what they asked for, and Washington retreated from the world stage even as the war in Ukraine grew more violent, Iraq and Syria witnessed the rise of ISIS, and violence in a series of Central American nations precipitated an exodus of migrants who streamed across America’s southern border.
While Americans may have welcomed the dual policies of disengagement and retrenchment, they sure don’t seem to like the results of those policies. Another NBC News/WSJ poll released on Tuesday indicates that Americans are not happy with the level of disengagement displayed by the American government in the face of a number of pressing threats to global security.
Respondents were asked about a series of crises; the war in Europe, an attack on a commercial airliner by Russian separatists, the civil war in Syria, the war in Gaza, ISIS’s rise to power in the Fertile Crescent, and the crisis on the southern border. Pluralities in all cases were dissatisfied with the United States’ level of involvement in those crises.
When asked what American policy they would prefer to see, many said that they were unfamiliar with or had no opinion on those particular matters. Among those who were familiar with those crises, however, the consensus is clear: America is “not involved enough” in world affairs.
Americans may like the theories of disengagement and retrenchment, but they do not seem especially fond of them in practice. While Americans are war-weary and cautious about reengaging in global affairs after a decade of conflict, they are also apprehensive about increasing global instability. An electorate plagued by anxiety about the state of foreign affairs is usually not predisposed to vote for the status quo. Maybe after Americans vent their unease at the polls, the political class will wake up to the fact that Americans are plagued by fears, not just about their own country, but for the world.
Unless we’re going to start approaching any foreign problem with the question “How will getting involved benefit us?”, yes. I’m sick and tired of the US wasting values for no values in return.
Calvin Coolidge was non interventionist when it came to American lives as well.
We need to fix our problems here. Sending our troops to fight Muslim wars is over. Send troops to our borders.
Yes, we need to stop being the Saudis’ errand boys.
~Ronald Reagan
please click the pic
donate today!
Help support Free Republic
Since the late 1800’s, the US has invested its treasure and the lives of its citizens around the world, to little avail and to widespread condemnation.
It’s past time to disengage.
It's way past time the US took a "time out". Haven't we done enough already?
No one is talking about sending troops. In some cases their is no good side to support.
Disengaging from world politics involves a lot more than troops. Rand Paul has made a fool of himself on this issue. He thought that total withdrawal would win a lot of young voters whose ant-war tendencies are driven more by self-interest than moral certitude, but current events caused that position to backfire on him.
That was used as a bogus reason to rearrange the world map to the liking of the global elite. It's Saudi Arabia that should've been punished. Instead, we're still carrying their water pail.
This isn’t 1814.
It'll be like 1014 (or so) if globally countries don't stabilize their borders and become self-sufficient.
Perhaps Ron Paul can tell us what nations in the Middle East we were engaged in on 09/11.
You’re right of course.
How many al Qaeda and Taliban will no longer be coming to our shores because we eliminated them on their own soil?
09/11 took place on our soil. All the fighting since took place somewhere else. And yet..., some folks can’t grasp which is better.
Oh it cost us too much. How much did 09/11 cost us? How much is welfare costing us?
We’ve got some pretty F’d up priorities even here...
that’s what I like about ol’ Calvin - but he was described as a “do nothing” POTUS - what I wouldn’t give for someone like that.
As long as it doesn’t affect their social security checks,food stamps,free phones,they couldn’t care less
Yes.
Nuke the moose-limbs from orbit and begin carpet bombing again in Afghanistan. Rinse & repeat.
Spec/Op troops in-and-out on limited missions to destroy things and kill people, and send regular Army troops to our own border. Garrison them there until the border is secure. Shoot to kill Los Zetas narco-terrorists; disarm `lost’ trespassing Mexican troops, spank them and boot them back south. Deport the illegals.
Impeach Obama.
Make some sense out of our acid-trip budget and spending. Did I say, `Impeach Obama’? Start making things here again.
We’ve got a full domestic plate without worrying about our generals getting shot by our `allies’.
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.
