Isolationism: Tell me why it's a bad idea.

[gregintenn]

It seems to me that Switzerland has fared very well by not sticking their noses into other peoples' business. I'd be interested in hearing why the United States couldn't do the same. It would require having a strong military, and good border protection. I believe I'd prefer to have our people here instead of scattered about the world trying to enforce some political agenda no one quite understands.

I do understand this isn't a popular view, and I'm likely wrong in my thinking. I would appreciate hearing your views.

[DaveTN]

It’s not a bad idea if other countries aren’t doing things that threaten the safety and security of your nation.

You look at each individual case and decide if you should wait or act. It’s proactive vs. reactive.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The problem with the United States is that we have made ourselves the world's policeman and engage in situations that are done for the purpose of "nation building" or "spreading democracy." The fact of the matter is that not all nations want or can implement a democratic system of government, nor do I believe we have the lawful authority under the Constitution or international law to interfere in the majority of military operations we are part of. Sometimes we just have to let other nations find ways to deal with their own problems and offer political support without sending in troops. Unless we are directly threatened, we need to keep our troops here.

On a related note, we must understand that our foreign policy decisions have consequences. This is the point that Ron Paul tries to make, but is usually booed severely for. Take the current threat of terrorism from the Middle East. These terrorists don't hate America because of our culture or government. They hate America because we have sent our military and money into their region and interfered with their society. They believe we are intruders and should leave them to their own path. We helped build Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by supporting them financially and logistically through the CIA during the revolt against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Bin Laden became infuriated with the USA when we took military action in Kuwait, and was even more infuriated when we didn't leave. We also support Israel. The question is definitely one of whether we think our actions in the Middle East are worth making ourselves a target for terrorism. This is not to say that we "deserved" what happened on 9/11, but that 9/11 probably would have never taken place had we not tried to interfere in Afghanistan back in the 1980s in our project of "nation building" and fighting communism. That region is shaped by literally centuries of history that still influence their culture today. We simply can't expect to send our military into the region and transform that region into a happy and prosperous collections of democratic nations that love us and love Israel within a few months.

Edited October 15, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Isolationism and independence have long been valued by USA citizens of all political stripe. Similarly interventionism has been expoused by USA citizens of all political persuasion.

Oil is the main reason the middle east matters. That is where independence comes in. If it would cut our military expense, misery of soldiers/families and blowback of future problems coming from current interventions-- We could afford to spend the military savings on more-expensive domestic energy and be better-off.

One might wonder how much territory to "isolate". For instance, is the Monroe Doctrine isolationist or interventionist? It led to various gunboat diplomacy interfering with south and central american nations, winning us as many enemies as friends, and such as Venezuela may be blowback from Monroe Doctrine actions a hundred years ago. On the other hand, it would probably have been a real direct threat to have imperialistic French remain in control of Mexico?

Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So perhaps the "isolationism umbrella" naturally includes most of the world where our interests could be compromised? I don't think so, but it is a natural question. Does the isolationism umbrella only cover continental USA, Hawaii, Alaska, and a few important islands? Or does it extend over all of the americas? Or what?

William F Buckley and neocons are interventionists, but other "conservative" folk such as John Birch Society and most libertarians are isolationists.

Some democrats are interventionists and can't keep their nose out of other people's business, wheras democrat conservative farmers or the much-maligned liberal hippies were TYPICALLY isolationists. It is difficult to nail down the "hippy" context because there are commie hippies, conservative hippies, and libertarian hippies. Most of which do bathe, contrary to popular opinion.

In the 1960's and 70's, the typical Bircher may have had many disagreements with the typical hippy, but they were both anti-vietnam-war.

Haven't most presidents been interventionists regardless of party or the content of their speeches? May be recalling wrong, but the least interventionist president we've had lately was probably Carter? Most of em didn't at all mind poking hornets nests with a stick. Strangely, Reagan talked interventionist, but he didn't get us into too many big shooting wars.

[jonlisha]

Agreed, not to mention being world police is expensive and we could spend that money in much better ways such as securing our boarders and improving our infrastructure.

Ron Paul just released an add about this in which he states that he would take the money we use to meddle in other countries problems and re route it into strengthening our own defenses, we finally have a candidate that understands the need for a strong military but will not run blindly into every conflict around the world just to establish our presence, the world knows we are here and our military isn't one they will soon forget.

[DaveTN]

Ron Paul just released an add about this in which he states that he would take the money we use to meddle in other countries problems and re route it into strengthening our own defenses, we finally have a candidate that understands the need for a strong military but will not run blindly into every conflict around the world just to establish our presence, the world knows we are here and our military isn't one they will soon forget.

Can Ron Paul get Posse Comitatus repealed? If we bring our troops home we still need to maintain a strong military. Let’s repeal Posse Comitatus and use our military to protect our borders.

[mav]

I often think that people incorrectly interchange isolationism and non-interventionism. They are similiar, but not the same. Now there are varying degress of isolationism, and my understanding is basically putting a wall, metaphorically speaking, around our borders. An isolationist nation cuts itself off from the rest of the world. Trade is restricted due to protectionist trade policies. No political and/or economic agreements or treaties are made with other nations etc...

Non-interventionism on the other hand was one of principles this nation was founded upon. The first example of this occured right after we (with the help of France) defeated the British in the Revolutionary War. France was wanting us to join them against the British. Washington and others said no. This country did not want to enter into any alliances with other nations to keep from being drawn into wars that did not directly affect our nation. History is replete with examples of our non-interventionist stance.

I feel that the non-interventionist policy was greatly changed after WWII. We became increasingly involved in the affairs of other nations, which ultimately has lead us to where we are now, a mess. We prop up other one dictator one day while tearing down another. The dictator we are supporting is our ally today (only because we are paying him), but tomorrow he is our enemy. One group of foreign military forces is our ally today, tomorrow they are our enemy. It often reminds of 1984's Oceania vs. Eurasia vs. Eastasia. We are getting to the point of perpetual war.

I am against isolationism, but totally support non-interventionism. If a situation does not directly affect this country, then we need to keep our noses out of it. If the situation in Lybia is a threat to France and other European nations, then let them fight that battle. We need to stay out of it. If we hadn't been meddling in the affairs of a lot of the middle eastern countries the last 70 years, the current quagmire probably wouldn't exist, or at least we wouldn't have any involvement in it. If a country wants to trade with us, that is great, we will trade with them. However, if they want us to get involved in some internal political b.s. or ally with them against another country they have the red ass against, then no thanks.

Until we change our now interventionist policies, the situation is not going to improve (if it can be improved), it is only going to get worse. I think John Quincy Adams said it best, "...But she (USA) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

[Dolomite_supafly]

I agree.

We should take all of the funding we send outside of the US and bring it back home. Don't send our enemies money in hopes they will someday like us because it will never happen. And when we quit sending them money they will hate us even more. A lot of countries in the world give us lip service so we will help them financially while citizens in our country suffer with poverty, starvation and malnutrition. And then there is the education system that is failing our next generation.

The only money they should get from us is for goods and services but not as free money, better known as aid. As we have seen here with our own welfare system when you hand out money for free there is no incentive to improve your situation. I guarantee most countries that receive a substantial amount of aid from us would find a way to make money if we quit funding their existence.

We need not worry about getting involved with every little conflict in the world. All we need to do is support those who have proven to be our allies with action and not just words. And even in that case limit it to the type of help that doesn't involve sending our citizens to give their lives for another country. Send them equipment or even help with some monetary funding but none of our citizens.

We need to pull out of the middle east now. Take those soldiers and start a rotation on our southern border to sure it up more. Start a rotation of 6 months on the border and 1 year at home with their families. And for every illegal that is caught we need to take the cost of transporting, housing and feeding them as well as a hefty fine from the funding their nation receives. After those nations start seeing their funding dwindling away they will take a more proactive approach.

There are roughly 67,500 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. There are a lot more in the region to support them though and those same soldeirs can be used to support the border deployments. Taking the 67,500 number and dividing it by 3 gives 22,500 troops per rotation on the border. That works out to 11 soldiers per mile on the border with Mexico. And that gets our men and women home on US soil protecting US citizens.

We had one of the best and largest manufacturing bases in the world in this country. But we have regulated most companies to a point where moving overseas was the most cost effective way to do business. We need to get back to being the innovators and manufacturers we once were rather than subcontract it out to third world countries.

Dolomite

[Guest pfries]

Can Ron Paul get Posse Comitatus repealed? If we bring our troops home we still need to maintain a strong military. Let’s repeal Posse Comitatus and use our military to protect our borders.

Dave you really feel this way?

We can protect our borders with the military without repealing this. I would think the protection of our boarders would fall into federal hands as the actual Boarder is federal not state or local, if this were repealed a whole new can of worms would be open. This would allow the Federal Government to be far too close to home in its “police powers” if you will. Repealing this would open the door to far too much Federal intrusion IMHO.

[DaveTN]

Dave you really feel this way?

We can protect our borders with the military without repealing this. I would think the protection of our boarders would fall into federal hands as the actual Boarder is federal not state or local, if this were repealed a whole new can of worms would be open. This would allow the Federal Government to be far too close to home in its “police powers†if you will. Repealing this would open the door to far too much Federal intrusion IMHO.

Absolutely I feel that way. I do not fear our Military or our Police Officers. Take the gloves off.

Police Departments are left to try to deal with these problems after these criminals have crossed the borders and obviously the Border Patrol does not have the resources to do their job.

The U.S. military should be used to defend our border with Mexico - National Immigration Reform | Examiner.com

[mav]

I thinking suspending or repealing Posse Comitatus and/or putting our military on the border is a very bad idea. I have absolutely no fear of our military nor our LEOs. However, those they would report to, the politicians in the federal government, is who I fear. Why in the world would I want to give our federal government new and additional power(s) when they won't do their job in the first place, which is enforce our existing laws? Remember the Berlin Wall? It's primary goal was to prevent mass emigration out of East Germany. There may come a time in the future when a border wall or military patrol on our borders could be used for the same reason. It is doubtful, but you never know.

Illegal immigration is an easy problem to solve, but it takes political will. Enforcing our existing laws and removing the enticements to enter the country illegally are sufficient. Let's see, perhaps if our government would do the following:

Anchor baby citizenship: gone.

Healthcare: gone.

Housing: gone.

Education: gone.

Food stamps, welfare, etc...: gone.

To those sanctuary cities and states who provide services such as granting driver's licenses, I wonder how they would like to have their federal funding cut or withheld for violating federal citizenship laws. I would be willing to bet they would drop their sanctuary status rather quickly. These are the things we should be talking about, not granting the federal government even more authority.

I must be "heartless" as Governor Perry suggested.

[Guest pfries]

I thinking suspending or repealing Posse Comitatus .....is a very bad idea. I have absolutely no fear of our military nor our LEOs. However, those they would report to, the politicians in the federal government, is who I fear. Why in the world would I want to give our federal government new and additional power(s) when they won't do their job in the first place, which is enforce our existing laws?

Illegal immigration is an easy problem to solve, but it takes political will. Enforcing our existing laws and removing the enticements to enter the country illegally are sufficient. Let's see, perhaps if our government would do the following:

Anchor baby citizenship: gone.

Healthcare: gone.

Housing: gone.

Education: gone.

Food stamps, welfare, etc...: gone.

To those sanctuary cities and states who provide services such as granting driver's licenses, I wonder how they would like to have their federal funding cut or withheld for violating federal citizenship laws. I would be willing to bet they would drop their sanctuary status rather quickly. These are the things we should be talking about, not granting the federal government even more authority.

I must be "heartless" as Governor Perry suggested.

All of this I agree with however I do believe we need military enforcement at the border, the border, being federal they already have jurisdiction. I do not believe Posse Comitatus needs to be repealed or suspended to do this. I do not feel that in protecting or "Locking down our boarders" will lead us to a Police State as you seem to be implying. If that is not what you are implying then forgive me and please elaborate.

[Guest pfries]

Absolutely I feel that way. I do not fear our Military or our Police Officers. Take the gloves off.

Police Departments are left to try to deal with these problems after these criminals have crossed the borders and obviously the Border Patrol does not have the resources to do their job.

This is why we need our military to strengthen our federal borders; we do not need to grant them any additional powers beyond what they currently hold in order to accomplish this. Granting the federal government police powers would be a major pitfall opening the door for an amount of control I am not willing to cede.

[mav]

All of this I agree with however I do believe we need military enforcement at the border, the border, being federal they already have jurisdiction. I do not believe Posse Comitatus needs to be repealed or suspended to do this. I do not feel that in protecting or "Locking down our boarders" will lead us to a Police State as you seem to be implying. If that is not what you are implying then forgive me and please elaborate.

To the latter statement, yes, that is what I was implying (hence the tin foil hat). Do I believe that we are headed towards a police state such as Alex Jones and others suggest? Probably not. However, do I think it is possible that we are in the future? Based on the rapid expansion of the federal government, demonization by the government and media of authentic grassroots movements like the Tea Party, the characterization by DHS of so-called right wing militias and soldiers returning from war as one of the primary concerns in regards to national security, then I would say that it is not out of the realm of possibility, although unlikely. I do not want to be one of those who says, "Never in this country."

In regards to Posse Comitatus having to be repealed to put troops on the border, we are in agreement. I don't think it is necessary.

We are at an impasse, however, as to whether they should be. As I stated earlier, enforcing the existing laws should be sufficient to curb illegal immigration.

[Guest pfries]

As I stated earlier, enforcing the existing laws should be sufficient to curb illegal immigration.

I can agree to disagree.

However the Problems with enforcing laws are;

1. Someone has to break the law in order for it to be enforced.
   
2. A Law will only stop Law abiding Citizens from committing an act just as locks only keep honest people out
   
3. We are not able to stop the actual commission of the act by enforcing penalties after the fact, especially since we cannot catch most perpetrators to begin with.
   

In lieu of this we need to strengthen our border security in order to curb the commission of the crime and enforce the existing laws .

[East_TN_Patriot]

I can't go along with the idea of repealing the Posse Comitatus Act. It's not a matter of not trusting the military, but one of the military and police having very different jobs and rules of engagement. Allowing the military to participate in civilian police work without doing a lot to un-train the military way of doing things is a big risk. When I trained new officers, I had he opportunity to train a couple of former military folks. They were shocked at the restraint the civilian police had to use with regards to force and search & seizure. Like one told me, the military is a whole different ball game.

However, I don't see using the military on the border akin to typical police work. That is a very special mission and one that both falls within the powers of the federal government, and within many exceptions to rules of search & seizure defined in case law. I have no issues at all using the military to secure the border and think it should be a regular part of their mission.

[Smith]

Funny thing is I agree with just about every one in this thread to one degree or another. I do think you need to distinguish between non-Interventionism and Isolationism, but I don''t think practically speaking we can do either completely. You think the world economic situation is bad now? It would be non-existent (as in no economy) if we were took either philosophy to it's design. The Medieval system of fiefdoms would be the norm. We all know how that worked out for the world.

There are many ways we could and should lessen our role worldwide and make things better. Doing away with the UN for one would take care of a lot of the non-sense. It would allow us to act much more firmly and directly as needed instead of getting mixed up with a bunch of political idiocracy. It's like parents letting the under 10 yr old kids and the crazy uncle decide on the family budget.

[Guest pfries]

I do think you need to distinguish between non-Interventionism and Isolationism, but I don''t think practically speaking we can do either completely..

I am at least for now not saying we jump into either, I do believe we need to head toward a more non-Interventionalist approach, at least until we figure out how much is too much and not necessarily through our eyes.

The locking down of our borders is more for the illegal trade, drugs, immigrants and such. Not to change our policies in this area but to put ourselves in a position of being proactive, versus reactive.

here are many ways we could and should lessen our role worldwide and make things better. Doing away with the UN for one would take care of a lot of the non-sense.

Thank goodness I am not the only one that feels this way.

IMO we need to get out, or make the rest of the nations in the UN step up to the plate to do their own bidding.

It's like parents letting the under 10 yr old kids and the crazy uncle decide on the family budget.

On a lighter note that may be fun... Detrimental but none the less fun

[Guest lostpass]

I'm all for doing a lot less less overseas than what we do now but a strict isolationist policy is asinine.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, North Korea decides to take over South Korea after we isolate ourselves. Well, who the hell cares TVs are gonna be a little more expensive but we can bear that burden. After starving the South Koreans the newly founded Korea takes over China. I've got friends in China but, hey, isolationist and all. And so on, and so on. Until there is Best Korea everywhere but the US.

The idea being that you can't be completely isolationist, sometimes you have to intervene even when it doesn't impact your country this second.

There are also times you should intervene even on humanitarian reasons even if it will never impact your country. If the US suddenly decided to kill all the Native Americans left then I would hope someone would step in.

Those are extreme examples and I suppose most people would agree that there is no real right or wrong answer here, the real question is about how often a particular country should intervene. This is why we have elections. Isolationism is neither possible or wise but judicious use of intervention is.

Personally, I prefer minimal intervention. If I were king we wouldn't be in Iraq and would be out of Afghanistan. We'd close a lot of foreign military bases. We'd probably give more in foreign aide but it would be results driven. And I would define success not by how much the recipients of foreign aid kowtowed to us but rather by how much the aid helped the populace. Cause it doesn't help the US any if El Presidente gets a new gold plated mercedes but it does help if the starving get a bag of rice with "USA" stamped on the side.

People in other countries don't trust our motives with good reason. We need to spend out foreign capital dollars more prudently. Good luck finding a party who'll do that...

[Guest pfries]

I'm all for doing a lot less less overseas than what we do now but a strict isolationist policy is asinine.

Imagine, for the sake of argument, North Korea decides to take over South Korea after we isolate ourselves. Well, who the hell cares TVs are gonna be a little more expensive but we can bear that burden. After starving the South Koreans the newly founded Korea takes over China. I've got friends in China but, hey, isolationist and all. And so on, and so on. Until there is Best Korea everywhere but the US.

The idea being that you can't be completely isolationist, sometimes you have to intervene even when it doesn't impact your country this second.

There are also times you should intervene even on humanitarian reasons even if it will never impact your country. If the US suddenly decided to kill all the Native Americans left then I would hope someone would step in.

Those are extreme examples and I suppose most people would agree that there is no real right or wrong answer here, the real question is about how often a particular country should intervene. This is why we have elections. Isolationism is neither possible or wise but judicious use of intervention is.

Personally, I prefer minimal intervention. If I were king we wouldn't be in Iraq and would be out of Afghanistan. We'd close a lot of foreign military bases. We'd probably give more in foreign aide but it would be results driven. And I would define success not by how much the recipients of foreign aid kowtowed to us but rather by how much the aid helped the populace. Cause it doesn't help the US any if El Presidente gets a new gold plated mercedes but it does help if the starving get a bag of rice with "USA" stamped on the side.

People in other countries don't trust our motives with good reason. We need to spend out foreign capital dollars more prudently. Good luck finding a party who'll do that...

+1

Extreme examples yes but they get the point across,

lostpass for pres anyone.....

[East_TN_Patriot]

Funny thing is I agree with just about every one in this thread to one degree or another. I do think you need to distinguish between non-Interventionism and Isolationism, but I don''t think practically speaking we can do either completely.

You are correct. Due to globalization, it's simply not possible for us to be completely disconnected from the rest of the world. We are so economically reliant on other countries, we would collapse if we were totally isolationist. However, I think that the two are essentially the same for practical purposes. Even during the early 20th century when we were an "isolationist" nation, in reality this meant we were non-interventionist with regards to foreign squabbles.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Unions, anti-trade-agreement people, lovers of tariffs, and made-in-usa gingoists are perhaps the main groups who are economically isolationist?

Am not being critical of such folk. I have some sympathies for high tariffs and I have some distrust of free-trade zones. OTOH I suspect that such restrictions would be futile though it would feel so good.

Also the phenomena of cultural isolationism? Don't want no ferriners corrupting our culture with heathen customs. That has been common enough in our history, and ain't entirely wrong. If somebody wants to move here then at least they otter talk, act and dress like murcuns by gawd. The usa is not the lone ranger. Most nations don't appreciate ferriners moving in then acting weird. Lord forbid if you move to France or China and then refuse to adopt the customs.

However I generally equate isolationism with non-interventionism just because it is a smaller less awkward word. When I proudly brag of being isolationist, it primarily means in the "non-interventionist" sense.

[Guest PapaB]

After WW1 we started to become more isolationist as a country. By the late 1930's we were in a strong non-involvement mood. The war in Europe wasn't our problem and people argued that we should keep our nose out of it.

Welcome to December 7th 1941.

We need to learn from history, our enemies won't allow us to be isolationist. Closing military bases around the world would save millions of dollars but how would we effectively protect citizens of this country? Should we close our embassies as well? What about civilians working overseas? Should we tell them they're on their own? Have you considered how our allies will take it if we remove our military from the region, putting them in more danger? When we're attacked again (and don't be naive enough to think we won't be) can we effectively protect ourselves with no nearby facilities to keep our shorter range planes and other equipment?

History has shown our enemies won't allow us to stay isolated or un-involved for long. Trying to mind our own business will leave us unprepared, not unengaged.

[zapfbroad]

Agree with PapaB. We took to the international stage because we had adopted an isolationalist doctrine and in our absence multiple dictators arose with powerful regimes with ideas of expansion and world domination. History repeats itself. Unfortunately, as the threats perceived became more aggragate and less focused people became disenfranchised with 'the war movement' and fatigued by attention..enter isolationists hippy movement a la 1960/70s... thus leading again to temp isolationists until noriega/che guevarra/shahs of iran etc..re-enter the world stage.. anytime we pull back from internationalism things crop up. I agree we unfavorably bear too much of the burden in costs and troop deployment. I don't believe the current structure of U.N. involvement & oversight nor our widespread deployment is necessary. Sure 40 years ago it was an asset. As technology has evolved we can assess and react remotely and far more rapidly than ever previously. We need a handful of strategic launch zones and significant personnel withdrawal to remain involved. The U.S. is the great enabler of the world with drunken uncle U.N. encouraging along. We should adapt to the times and reinvest our nation's wealth within otherwise we have a failing business model. If your roof is leaking and your foundations are crumbling maybe you shouldn't spend so much time/money planting hydrangeas at the elementary school on the weekend. I think we should try to maintain the most elite military in the world however I don't think we should view possession of such to mean that we have the responsibility to intervene in situations where we aren't needed. Just as a strong patriarch on a farm has to make hard decisions about the level of aide to offer neighboring farms in times of hardship with the interest of family first regardless of whether there are sympathizers who would deplete their own stores and let their own fields go fallow to help others. Our government's first and primary responsibility is to our freedom At home, our security At home, our essential needs At home. This country was colonized because of its rich resources. Many of which are still untapped. We have the means.

sent via EPIC4G SyndicateRomFrozen 1.2

[gregintenn]

I can understand a person wanting to travel abroad, and we'd have life a lot easier with some means of foreign trade. I really don't tihink, however, that we've been designated by any power to be the world's police.

The U.N. building should be turned to the world's largest homeless shelter.