As for myself, I am perfectly happy to give that "Missile Defense Shield" thing a whirl, and see how that works. Won't know 'till we try!! At least it is Constitutional National Defense (if one wishes to pay any attention to that musty old scrap of hemp).
And "Non-Interventionism" speaks primarily to a posture of military defense (as opposed to military interventionism), not complete withdrawal from world affairs. China has nuclear weapons? Well, sure, we can try the "direct military confrontation" thing, but there's also the option of quietly increasing trade ties with India, while giving a wink and a nod to Japanese expansion of its military defense capabilities.
Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic.
But the fact that China would thereby be hamstrung between looking West (at India) and looking East (at Japan) is pretty nice gravy on the Moral steak, IMHO. Meanwhile, US troops and taxes are able to stay home.
"Non-Interventionism" simply speaks to the policy of viewing military confrontation as the weapon of last resort, not the first.
I should also point out that foreign aid has always been part of a policy to stabilize regional conflicts.
This is assuming that it is morally correct in the first place to EVER "tax the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" (which is the essence of Foreign Aid). But even if that idea were philosophically moral in the first place, it plainly hasn't worked.
Whoa... Hold on a minute... you are saying that this (inherently illegitimate) policy of "taxing the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" is intended to stabilize regional conflicts?
Good grief. With "stability" like this, who needs Armageddon?
In the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the two likely outcomes of Arabs destroying Israel or Israel nuking its neighbors, a little financial aid is a perfectly reasonable solution. Right now we have sufficient power and money to offer to strongly influence the stability of this conflict.
Exactly what was wrong with the (NON-subsidized, in 1967) Six-Day War solution of Israel grabbing enough empty desert in a pre-emptive strike to effectively provide that little nation with the "defensive depth" she required?
All that US Foreign Aid has done is shoe-horn the Israelis out of the Sinai (leaving Egyptian armor and mechanized infantry that much closer to Tel Aviv if Islamist radicals ever do come to power in Cairo) and provided the American-killing PLO its own "mini-state" and enough camel-bags full of cash to buy whole shiploads of illegal anti-tank weapons, no doubt intended for Israeli kindergarten school-buses.
Oh, and US foreign aid has also helped to socialize the Israeli economy... an Israeli economy which, given the economic success which family- and education-conscious Jews have so often accomplished in every corner of the globe, would be far better off were it more capitalistic.
Let's see... did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, it got the buck-toothed peanut farmer Carter a purty little photo-op at US taxpayer expense. Whoop-de-do.
Now, let's see.... this is supposed to be some kind of world-wise "pragmatic realpolitik"? Because it sure looks like the same counterproductive, pork-barrel, rent-seeking practiced by every other special interest lobby in Washington, and there ain't a dime's worth of Virtue to it.
As for myself, I am perfectly happy to give that "Missile Defense Shield" thing a whirl, and see how that works.
Research on Missile Defense Shields has been going on for decades, with few signficant results. Generally the critique is that the measures needed to defeat the shield are quite simple and easily developed, or the complexity of the system would so much that the system would breakdown during operation. At this point in time there is no system that looks viable. This is reality. Perhaps in a few decades something more viable will be developed, but that is not the case now.
Let's go over this. There is no shield. So what exactly do you think is protecting this country from nuclear weapons? To confuse what *may* be developed in the future with what exists *now* is an irresponsible approach to decision making.
Won't know 'till we try!!
But we have tried -- for decades.
And "Non-Interventionism" speaks primarily to a posture of military defense (as opposed to military interventionism), not complete withdrawal from world affairs. China has nuclear weapons? Well, sure, we can try the "direct military confrontation" thing
No one is claiming that "direct military confrontation" with China is implied by an non isolationist approach. The actors that we should be worried about are unstable regimes or individuals who would tend to either use nuclear weapons against the United States or perhaps lose control of their weapons. This would include nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. You're also missing the obvious point that the time to prevent proliferation is *prior* to these nations aquiring nuclear weapons.
Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic.
Non isolationism is not incongruent with other policies as you have described above. So I'm not sure why you are raising this issue.
But the fact that China would thereby be hamstrung between looking West (at India) and looking East (at Japan) is pretty nice gravy on the Moral steak, IMHO. Meanwhile, US troops and taxes are able to stay home.
Most of this irrelevant. See above.
This is assuming that it is morally correct in the first place to EVER "tax the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" (which is the essence of Foreign Aid).
I'm not sure what kind of moral argument you could possibly present to dispute the practice of foreign aid. Money going from poor people to rich people is also typical of the essense of capitalism. Try presenting an argument that doesn't work for foreign aid but does work for capitalism.
But even if that idea were philosophically moral in the first place, it plainly hasn't worked.
But it has worked. Do you really believe that foreign aid would still be taking place if it *didn't* work? It doesn't work perfectly but it still works. It sounds like you're criticizing specific implementations, but *not* the general policy.
Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Batista, and managed to so radicalize the Cuban peasantry that they allowed the murderous Castro to come to power. Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Somoza, and managed to so radicalize the Nicaraguan peasantry that they allowed the murderous Sandanistas to come to power. Interventionists subsidized the corrupt Shah, and managed to so radicalize the Iranian peasantry that they allowed the murderous Ayatollahs to come to power. So, in order to "counterbalance" the murderous Ayatollahs, Interventionists subsidized Saddam Hussein of Iraq. That ended up working out real good too. Interventionists subsidized the maniacal Taliban, and they thanked us by carting barrel-loads of US dollars down to the local Al-Queda training camps where fanatics were poring over schematics of the World Trade Center.
Every example you have given is to some extent bad policy. So how is this is a general critique of foreign aid or specific policies toward Israel?
Whoa... Hold on a minute... you are saying that this (inherently illegitimate)
Perfectly legitimate.
policy of "taxing the poor people of a rich country to subsidize the rich people of a poor country" is intended to stabilize regional conflicts?
You are confusing specific implementation with the general policy. You are also making judgements concerning what would have occurred *without* foreign aid. This is a very complex subject. Are the policy wonks in the State Department sometimes wrong? Of course, but I would rather trust this pragmatic decision making rather than any sort of idealism based on isolationism.