Skip to main content

I share the concerns of all who agree that the Iraq War, and most of the other wars we've entered into since World War II, have been ill-thought-out wars of aggression. Yet must it imply complete military isolationism?

Your answer may well be "please--how many times are we going to put roller skates on the elephant and send him careening through the china shop, before we just admit that roller-skate dancing in china shops just isn't our forte?" Put another way: "if we make war, even if we conceive it as defensive, or as living up to our duty to defend the defenseless, we'll screw it up."

This seems so obviously true as to be beyond question. However, I've wondered recently: why on earth do we on the left move instantly to throwing up our hands and saying "forget it! Forget it all! Shut it all down and get us out (except a nominal defensive force, just for our own borders)" when faced with the idea of military force? Do we throw up our hands like that on any other issue, say, on energy policy? No--we address it far more carefully than that, aiming always to cajole, to tweak, to fine-tune, and only dreaming of the day when we might be granted our wishes more generously. Yet when it comes to military force, or our engagement in foreign policy full stop, America is becoming more and more isolationist.

This Pew poll from last year shows that those agreeing that the US "should mind its own business internationally," and let other countries fend for themselves as best they can, went from a low of 30% in 2002 (following the 9/11 tragedy) to an all-time high of 52%. More below the fold.

I've always felt we were divided into a left wing who tremble in the corner if they're in the same room as a gun, and a right wing too eager to grab it and shoot at anything that moves. Poll results show some partisan differences, but I can't say it conclusively points to America's left being more isolationist than our right. However, this is a left-wing blog, and I am a leftie, so that's who I address here.

Andrew Bacevich wrote last year in mockery of many such claims of an emerging isolationism. He warns, correctly in my opinion, against allowing such talk to be a propaganda ploy by self-interested parties, to defuse calls for pacifism.

Again, I do NOT, I want to make clear, agree with most of our uses of military force so far, in the past 70 years. Nor do I think we should have spent 2/3 of a trillion dollars (base price, before adding on a per-war surcharge) each year on the military. Nor do I think we should have tried to put our military in EVERY single country on earth. Nor did I (I think it's safe to put this ridiculous idea in the past tense now) favor a war against Iran, out of nowhere, to double down on the Iraq debacle.

However, Mr. Bacevich is wrong to mock a 2004 article that mentions that isolationism was on the rise. His pretext for doing so (and for the rest of the mockery in the article) was that America's GOVERNMENT had not become more isolationist, but was carrying on making war after war. Just so. However, the Pew poll above shows that in 2004, isolationism HAD indeed come back on the rise, among the PEOPLE of America, for the last many moons since 2002.

So... you may be thinking, "what is this jerk (your diarist) hinting at then? Surely the diary intends to condone some use of military force. Otherwise, what is it getting at?" What I'm getting at is: FOCUS; concentrate our military preparedness on the places which make sense, which are mostly at keeping east and southeast Asian commerce moving; and I do NOT think we should completely disengage militarily from the world. However, if we ARE to do so, then I think we need to look seriously at what that means.

If you do favor complete military detachment, except just to protect our borders, then what does that imply? I did have that very attitude myself, for quite some time, and the reason is that I was bulls---ed so much from the right wing that our military policy was "defensive." Uh... Saddam Hussein is another Hitler, and we'll fight him here any day now, if we don't attack him out of nowhere now? Uh... RIGHT. (Eyeroll.) SURE he was. No one was EVER going to invade America, and a 250,000-soldier Army would suffice, if it was only for defense.

However, my rationale for defending east Asia and southeast Asia (mostly with our Navy and Air Force) rests on two things: firstly, and most importantly, the smaller nations there WANT us to have such a military presence there. The single biggest military spender on earth after our Pantagruel of a military is China. If we leave, guess what happens to all the many territorial disputes between China and everyone else in their region? Those countries in dispute with China include Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam. All of those disputes would be settled quickly in China's favor, if we left. We're also still treaty-bound to assist South Korea in case of attack, I believe. Secondly, much of our entire economy rests on keeping those shipping lanes open.

The US Dollar is used in a majority of all the world's financial transactions; this allows us HUGE leeway in deficit spending, which other countries don't dare indulge in, lest their bond markets fall, which would make their interest rates rise, which would make their bond payments balloon until untenable. If we lose that primacy (though we certainly will one day), there will be a frightening straitening of our circumstances. Withdrawal from the world stage, I believe, would speed the day when we lose that, by emboldening moves from regional powers away from the Dollar. (Yes, I am aware of further mockery of such moves; however, before reminding me of them, remember to toss out the ones based on continuing American military presence in the world. We will continue to be a great industrial power, I think, failing some complete catastrophe; but we cannot survive as an autarky.)

None of that would mean anything if those southeast and east Asian countries wanted us out. But they don't. They'll have a hard time not becoming Chinese vassal states, if we do, and they know it.

This question is complicated by our dogged insistence to keep wading into the site of an earlier power vacuum: the Middle East. This area roils with contention between Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Zionist, pan-Arab, Turks, Iranians, a dozen contenders for power. The Mideast was left in a power vacuum when the Ottoman Empire began to collapse; its retreat from its former possessions left the area a maelstrom, where it had been relatively (I emphasize relatively) stable under Ottoman rule until especially the time of Napoleon and the early 1800s, when Greece, Egypt, and other areas began to break away. This is what happens when there is a power vacuum.

This year, we commemorated the century mark for World War One, which came about (largely, though that was not the only reason) precisely because of uncertainty in the Balkans and eastern Mediterranean as to how to fill the power vacuum left by the Ottomans.

Understand this: if we decide as a nation to withdraw from EVERYWHERE in the world militarily, this will have repercussions. And I feel that such withdrawal is implied in our (again, well-justified, in the case of most of the wars we've fought lately) leftist default, pacifism. When push comes to shove in east Asia, though, this withdrawal will be read as a craven abandonment by actual, sometime or would-be allies such as Taiwan, South Korea, and the Philippines, especially if it comes to conflict between our treaty allies and China and we say "dude--sorry, I couldn't make it." Leaving a power vacuum means someone--perhaps someone meaner--comes into the power vacuum. I know, I know: "aha!! You're beating the drums of war!" No--I'm not. I think it's our disengagement that will bring war. And believe me, China is continuing to test the waters, and will continue to do so, until they're sure America is gone, and they can move in militarily to settle scores.

Or, I know, I know: "aha! You're falling into the old trap: you think such a stance is 'defensive,' but that's the thinking that led everyone into World War One! That's what Christopher Clark wrote in 'The Sleepwalkers!' Everyone thought they were acting defensively, but they started World War One!"

Well... actually, YOU'RE probably not thinking that; I'm thinking that. And if you were thinking that, I'd say: you have a good point. I worry about it.

But are you worried about leaving Russia's neighbors to settle their hash with tender Russia? Or China's neighbors to do so with respectful China?

I think you should be.

We need to ponder this, folks. We're great at screaming "OH MY GOD! NO, NO! We shouldn't have done that!" We need a better articulation of what we SHOULD be doing. We need to articulate it; then we need to communicate our positive vision to our leaders. Otherwise, it'll be drift.

To quote the Dead: "Think this through with me. Let me know your mind." I look forward to your comments and suggestions.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Whamadoodle, have you been (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whamadoodle, charliehall2

    sucking my brain or something.  I love where you are coming from.

    I agree that American isolationism is every bit as bad as it's antipode, America being the cop of the world.

    When W Bush was running in 2000, and took a slap at some of Bill's misadventures in the world by calling for a more humble foreign policy, and an America who doesn't tell other countries how to tell themselves, my reaction was this: Part of me wanted to agree with him, but part of me was worried he was an old fashioned Republican isolationist out of the 30's.

    Turns out that he was anything but an old fashioned isolationist; he was an old fashioned big stick President who led us into a stupid and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. He led us there for the weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be there, but weren't - nobody other than Fox News found any. And because Saddam was involved with 9-11, which he wasn't. And if he should have been removed because, well, he was just evil, chances that the Arab Spring would have done that without a full-scale US invasion.

    I want the US to be actively involved in world affairs, not as the Lone Ranger, but in concert with other nations as part of an international  consensus.  

    You'll tick off some people with this diary, Whamadoodle, but I'm glad you wrote it.

    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

    by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 06:55:33 PM PDT

    •  Thanks RhodeIslandAspie, yes--W was THE guy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      charliehall2, RhodeIslandAspie

      I always thought of when I thought of the "shooting wildly" guy. And man, did he ever step all over your idea (which I agree with) that we should "be actively involved in world affairs, not as the Lone Ranger, but in concert with other nations as part of an international  consensus."

      I don't mind ticking people off if it happens, but I definitely don't mean to strike a pugnacious tone with the diary--these are difficult questions, and as my last few paragraphs indicate, I'm far from easy with any pat answers of my own. I'm haunted by the possibility that I'll either 1) strike too hawkish a tone, if we end up goading on a war that shouldn't have been started, and 2) in a related way, falling victim to the "we have to be ready to defend (our allies or ourselves)" trap, when almost everyone involved feels they're engaged in such "self-defense," but somehow a war starts anyway even though everyone's just "defending" themselves, and doesn't want to start one.

      So I'm far from certain that everything would be hunky-dory if only everyone would listen to Wise Old Me. However, I do believe that 1) we should NOT have American soldiers in 200 of the earth's many countries, as we did in the Cold War (counting intelligence people), and yet 2) we SHOULD maintain a strong, certain presence in east and southeast Asia's commercial shipping lanes, at least for as long as most of the countries besides China want us to.

  •  When you write (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whamadoodle, corvo, Alhambra
    However, my rationale for defending east Asia and southeast Asia (mostly with our Navy and Air Force) rests on two things: firstly, and most importantly, the smaller nations there WANT us to have such a military presence there.
    None of that would mean anything if those southeast and east Asian countries wanted us out. But they don't. They'll have a hard time not becoming Chinese vassal states, if we do, and they know it.
    It makes me question who, precisely and in what capacity, you mean by "us" and and who "they" - precisely - are.

    "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

    by Calvino Partigiani on Sun Aug 31, 2014 at 07:06:44 PM PDT

    •  Thanks Calvino, the "they" is, from the diary: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calvino Partigiani, charliehall2

      "[t]hose countries in dispute with China[, which] include Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam," and South Korea; especially, the former five countries, and others who have had territorial disputes or wars with China since World War Two, and who would be alarmed by our withdrawal.

      By "us," in this context, I mean "America's military," especially our Navy and Air Force, which can act to defend those countries' territory and the commercial shipping lanes of the region.

    •  Further clarification (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      As to who exactly wants us there: I'd say The Philippines do; Japan does, despite widespread anger over a brutal rape of a local by American soldiery there; and I'd say South Korea still does, and Taiwan still does.

    •  I think the reason these countries want... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calvino Partigiani

      ...the US to meddle in their affairs, is because the US is/ has already been meddling in their affairs.

      And since the US is the 500lbs gorilla in the lifeboat, you'd better make sure the gorilla understands that you're on his side.

      Or something like that :-)

      "No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks” --Mary Shelley

      by Alhambra on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 03:44:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NO. But...... (4+ / 0-)

    The combined population of Iraq and Syria is 55 million.  
    How exactly do we think we can control what happens there?  Seriously.

    Extend that to Asia the numbers are far worse.

    Total disengagement is probably not wise, but realistic assessments are.  There are other ways to influence things beyond the use of military and we need to learn that.

    •  To clarify, when I say: (0+ / 0-)

      "This question is complicated by our dogged insistence to keep wading into the site of an earlier power vacuum: the Middle East. This area roils with contention,"

      I am definitely in favor of disengaging militarily a lot more, in the Middle East. I am merely concerned about what should happen if we disengage from EVERYWHERE as a default, including all of Asia.

    •  As to Asia, population isn't everything, I think (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Considering that most of the contention in east and southeast Asia consists of maritime disputes, and considering that our Navy is THE world-beater, with only a few challengers on earth, we are in very good shape to influence things there militarily.

      I do want us to do so only in a defensive capacity, either defending our commercial ships, or defending treaty allies.

  •  this is what we have a UN for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The UN is currently dysfunctional precisely because the US and its allies fixed it to be dysfunctional, by giving themselves a veto power that nobody else has.

    Fix that. Take away those vetos. Make the UN functional. Make the UN a real authority over everyone (including us).

    Legally, the US (and every other country) cannot intervene anywhere at any time without the approval and sanction of the UN. In reality, of course, we simply act as if WE are the international authority while at the same time international law does not apply to us.

    Fix that.

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 06:19:49 AM PDT

    •  The UN is unfixable (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lenny Flank, Whamadoodle

      The first and last time that the UN ever stopped a war of aggression was the Korean War. And that was largely because the US took the lead.

      Even with no vetoes the UN would not do squat in the event of, say, an invasion of Taiwan by mainland China.

      •  the UN is unfixable because it was designed to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        be perpetually broken. When the five largest militaries in the world are given veto power over everyone else, nothing will ever get done.

        Fix that, and the UN can be fixed.

        Even with no vetoes the UN would not do squat in the event of, say, an invasion of Taiwan by mainland China.
        Perhaps, perhaps not. There's only one way to tell.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:33:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site