This philosophy, which you call "isolationist" (I prefer the terms "non-interventionism" or "armed neutrality") is the foreign policy application of the American principle of limited government. George Washington, and every other major political leader of this country at the time of the founding, believed that we should avoid entangling alliances and imperial wars.
It is the new ideology of "pax americana" and "benevolent world hegemony" which is new and alien to America. I would go so far as to consider these ideologies, and there adherents, to be un-American.
Unfortunately geopolitics, like nature, abhores a vacuum.
Some power will dominate world affairs.
If it is not America, it will be someone else. Someone who may be hostile to American interests. China springs to mind. And there are worse possibilities than that.
In the old days Britain filled this role. They were the real reason the Monroe Doctrine was largely upheld through the 19th century.
But Britain's day vanished in World War II.
We would lose far more than you think by the kind of retrenchment you seem to have in mind.
In the meantime, I am still curious what kind of theories you might be entertaining about what Bush and his people really were motivated by in staging this war. It's speculation, I know. But I am curious. Indulge me.
I scrolled through this thread, hoping to find that the British Conservative Party was returning to its traditional principles, but found quite the contrary. That is sad. But then I stumbled on your little exchange, at the end, which perked me up.
You are, of course, correct. (For an essay on traditional Amerian Foreign policy, which was anything but isolationist, see An American Foreign Policy.)
I have Washington's Farewell Address posted at my web site, and it may be linked from the above essay. I do not yet have the Memorandum, which Jefferson prepared for Washington in 1793 on relevant issues, but will post that also one of these days. This policy was not intended for a time and place. It is the most practical and easily adaptable for all situations. It is premised upon basic fairness and respect. We treat all with respect. If they do not treat us with respect back, however; if they threaten our legitimate interests, we take whatever action is required. Meanwhile, we offer the hand of friendship and trade to all the peoples of the earth.
Those who scoff at that policy, either do not understand it--however easy it is to understand--or they have some sort of agenda that does not put American interests foremost. Obviously, you do not abandon a policy that has served us so well, in favor of policies that have failed others, if your objective is the same as that of our founders.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site