Are We Facing a Dangerous Return of the Old Conservative Isolationism?
In this strange pre-election season, when the Republican Party is trying to sort out to which candidate it might turn for the 2012 election, it seems that the Republicans and some conservatives are contemplating a dangerous return to the old pre-World War II isolationism, as well as to the Robert A. Taft neo-isolationism of the early Cold War years.
The result is hypocrisy on all sides. A group of Republicans has been condemning the president for violation of the War Powers Act — a law put into effect in the waning days of Vietnam, and which the Nixon administration argued was unconstitutional and an attempt to limit presidential power. Last week, Speaker John Boehner — who actually voted for repeal of the Act — criticized President Obama for making the argument that his actions in Libya were not a violation of the Act’s statutes, since it was only a limited skirmish and not a war.
As defense expert Max Book argues, “The hypocrisy of Democrats who once damned Bush for his supposed misuse of presidential powers — in spite of the fact Bush won Congressional approval for his wars — while now defending Obama’s flagrant power grab is stunning. But no more disturbing than the hypocrisy of Republicans like Speaker John Boehner who in the past called the War Powers Act unconstitutional and voted to repeal it, but are now blasting Obama for refusing to abide by its terms.”
The speaker once understood how our constitutional system works. He said:
A strong presidency is a key pillar of the American system of government — the same system of government our military men and women are prepared to give their lives to defend. Just as good intentions alone are not enough to justify sending American troops into harm’s way, good intentions alone are not enough to justify tampering with the underpinnings of American democracy.
Now the speaker tells the president:
You took an oath before the American people on January 20, 2009, in which you swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation. … I sincerely hope the administration will faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution and the requests made by the House of Representatives, and that you will use your unique authority as our President to engage the American people regarding our mission in Libya.
So the man who once decried “tying the hands of future presidents” and favored a strong executive who could act decisively to implement our nation’s foreign policy is speaking in the manner of left-wing Democrats in the Vietnam era.
On the other side, the neo-conservative Foreign Policy Initiative convened a group of foreign policy experts, who urged House Republicans to not only support the NATO operation in Libya, but who argued that the action should be waged relentlessly and without hesitation. As they put it,
The United States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N. Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.
The problem, they said, “is not that the president has done too much, however, but that he has done too little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power.” Their conclusion is sharp:
For the United States and NATO to be defeated by Muammar al-Qaddafi would suggest that American leadership and resolution were now gravely in doubt — a conclusion that would undermine American influence and embolden our nation’s enemies.
The statement includes the names of experts who are Republicans and Democrats, and thus harks back to the kind of bipartisan foreign policy that helped win the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The signers include William Kristol, Elliott Abrams and Tod Lindberg on the Republican side, and Robert Lieber, R. James Woolsey and Martin Peretz on the Democratic side.
Pakistan doesn’t exert sovereignty over the entirety of its own country. An unknown but significant element in the gov’t has sympathy for its own terrorists because of the ongoing feud with India.
What are the Kagans thinking of? Another war to clean out the tribal areas of Pakistan while holding half the Pakistani gov’t at bay? And that on top of achieving nothing in Afghanistan other than what one achieves as long as one holds a gun to a man’s head.
We need more isolationism, not less. Libya is a disaster that should’ve been left alone. Every time we intervene we get more asylum seekers and the state of Minnesota will forever curse the Feds for their involvement in Somalia. Cuz guess what? Now we have a Somalian community and there are Iraqi communities and on and on.
“We need more isolationism, not less…”
Man oh Man I couldn’t agree more. Let the Isolationism begin now! We have a country of millions who are unemployed….we’re seeing huge deficits without solutions. Yet we cannot afford to put those resources that are being wasted, squandered on 4th word crap holes that will NEVER….NEVER be what we envision them to be.
We are utterly stupid, naive and ignorant to think that 7th century minds will ever be able to grasp freedom over tribal stupidity and their ISLAMIC traditions and loyalties.
We think that handing out friggin candy bars and CD’s to these animals will change their views?
How damn dumb are we?
Let the savages be…what they will always be….illiterate POS’s that need to be released to return to what they know best.
The hell with the Arabs…to hell with the ME….let them all kill each other without one more noble, brave American sacrificing his / her life for these animals.
Take care of Americans….let these tribal dopes do what they do best…KILL EACH OTHER.
FUBAR>
Times have changed. We are deep in debt and potentially teetering on default. That’s a bigger threat than some tribesmen in Afghanistan. Some battles are lost in order to win a war. Islamic terrorists can just move to other areas like Yemen and so “winning” in Afghanistan may not achieve all that much considering the costs. Sure, it will reflect badly on the US and may embolden terrorists to say they won, but we can also sell the side that we went in there to get Ben Laden and devastate Al Qaeda and we have done that.
What we cannot afford to do is bankrupt ourselves, and so we’re going to have to make massive spending cuts and expecting to pour hundreds of billions nation-building with little return on investment in this environment does not make sense. Bring the troops home. If they attack us again, tell them we may be forced to take the easier route to eliminating them which won’t be pretty and could wipe out entire sectors of their own nation.
Why can’t the Dems and Repubs in Washington understand this? It’s not “rocket science”, pardon the pun. Simply amazing that they fail to understand. They are a tribal society and will remain so. Israel understands and the countries surrounding Israel know, “if you harm us in any way, we’ll make you pay dearly”. Not an idle threat.
I said in a previous comment we would be in 7 wars in the middle east syria will be 6
who will be the one to break our backs? It is time for us to Stop let them kill each other, if it is Isolationism or Nationalism whatever….. it is time to take care of the wars we have on our own borders our own Revolutions and the Civil unrest right here, the many many starving children and homeless Veterans what a Shame we really need to look things over here at Home….We had a man sit in the middle of the street in front of a Government Office and pour accelerant over his body and lit himself ….did not even make the news , I am betting this is new to 99 per cent of the people that read this but any where else in the World and a Huge Media Blitz starts the spark that began all the middle eastern revolts..what does this say about us???? Now that is what makes me worry about are Country…..
If Obama ran against a paper bag I would vote for the paper bag.
Heck yes. The “unknown” comic can’t be any worse than this parade of commie clowns.
Yeah, me too.
But if it comes down to Ubama vs. a bad Republican, I’ll vote and then emigrate.
Oh, and by the way, this article is complete bulls***.
The American citizenry (and I don’t give a rat’s patootie for the think-tank policy wonks) is not isolationist – we’re just sick of wars that are not being fought on behalf of US NATIONAL INTERESTS.
A huge and growing number of Americans want to see Islam and Muslims expelled from American soil – NO, Islam is NOT a religion that deserves First Amendment protection; it is an expansionist, enemy totalitarian political ideology that seeks to rid the world of everything outside of itself. We also want to see all Islamic powers in the world suppressed as far as possible. We don’t want to spend any more blood and treasure on “nation-building.” Islamic nations and regions are our enemies, by THEIR OWN DEFINITION, and deserve to be treated as such until such time as they are no more.
We are sick of all of this pussyfooting around. Islam is our enemy and we want it GONE.
Isolationism? You Betcha. We are spread all over the planet and for what. Spending more Blood and Treasure? There is no gratitude from the people we so called liberate from tyranny. It’s a different world from the 40′s when we were hailed as liberators. We should pull all of our people out of the counties that hate us and bring them home where their needed, especially along our southern border. Then tell’em to go pound sand. Cut off all foreign aid except to Israel,Great Britain, Australia, and Taiwan.
Right, but as I hear endless commercials on radio admonishing young men that it’s their duty and obligation to register for the draft…I’ll wager there’s fire behind that smoke…and plans to send the (only) young men capable of taking orders (take a guess who they’ll be) over to die in place of young Muslim men.
After all, their own men must be available when needed to enforce sharia law over the Western world…and there’ll be plenty of draft-ineligible gang-bangers back in America to maintain order.
What the hell are we doing in Libya? We have no business being involved in their civil war. Our military is stretched too thin as it is. What kind of president gets permission from the UN and the Arab League, but fails to make the case to his own countrymen? A president who is hastening the march to a global government. You think our bureaucracy is bad now? Wait until we pay more taxes to the black hole of a world government. Only Obama would intervene with “kinetic military action” in Libya, but ignore what is going on in Syria.
I don’t think it was in our interest to get involved in Libya. But now we’re stuck, and I fear to leave in power someone who will want vengeance.
It is interesting that when Republicans simply ask for a reason why we are fighting in a war, yes A WAR, we are called isolationists. Yet I didn’t hear all this screaming about isolationism when the Democrats wanted to leave Iraq. Rember THOSE days, when all of the Democrats thought Iraq was “The Wrong War” and that it was lost and that we needed to leave ASAP? Was that isolationism? So now we have our “fearless leader” getting us involved in a civil war in Libya, a place we have absolutely no vital national interests in and a place where we don’t even know too much about the “rebels” who want to overthrow Gaddafi. Yet we are called isolationists simply because we think it’s a dumb idea to get involved in a civil war like that?
The media would like nothing better than to paint the Republicans as isolationists going into the 2012 election. Fine, then lets just replay all of those lovely sound bites of what Democrats had to say about Iraq in 2004, 2006, and 2008, especially when Obama was running for president. There is nothing wrong in demanding to know what our objectives are when going into a war, especially a war where we have no vital national interests at stake. If France and Britain want to fight this war, let them. But, if Libya is any indication of what’s to come in the way of running a multilateral foreign policy with both NATO and the UN, then son, we need a hell of a lot more isolationism, and less agreeing to fight in every war that’s taking place on this planet.
All I know is that I have no interest in going to fight in behalf of any Muslim nation. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that they’re simply not worth it. I need a better reason to step into harm’s way.
Right you are. Dung heaps…crap holes….put here by God Almighty to keep us humble.
If it were up to me….I’d nuke every damn one of them…get out oil and resources from our own states….and let them all eat each other. We know they will.
I’d pay $10 per gallon if I knew that we could utterly starve the ME to oblivion.
Now…that’s an honorable goal….putting American wild catters to work and killing the Saudi’s in the process. How long before we realize who the real enemy is???OPEC.
Rubbish, Radosh. Saying the US “is needed more than ever” is a bit hyperbolic. It might be more accurate to say the US is hated now more than ever. Not justifiably, but because of the gross global naivete that has arisen due to the US being out in the front trying to solve the world’s problems and leaving the rest of the world with no need for the self-reflection that the head-on impact of reality would bring about.
In a perfect world we would at least get global brownie points for trying. Instead we end up with everything judged from a twisted negativity. If we touch a country we take responsibility for ever brutal event that takes place there forever, regardless of that place’s history. The world has given us no quarter in its universal condemnations; we owe the world nothing.
In fact, a good argument can be made that our being “out there in the front” only makes us a bigger target for every nut case and wacko dictator out there. We are the target because that is how we present ourselves.
The world will accede to its own foibles. Those very frailties that have always plagued the human condition: self-interest; envy; self-righteousness; ignorance and hypocrisy. I’m tired of having to bury our own for words that pull on the heartstrings, of helpless, innocents made of straw who–first chance they get–turn right back on us. I have no doubt about the sincerity of those uttering the words, its just that we will always be punished for acting on them.
Somebody once said men are either wolves or sheep dogs. Some men are instinctually out for themselves, while others derive their identity and happiness by protecting others. Well this sheep dog has been beaten one too many times for barking at the wolves.
hahahahahahaha Keep calling us names, what’s it going to be next, RACISTS!!!???? We have had enough, it’s over, so stop sooner than later. Tell McCain we will not put up with him either. Oh, tell the Republican that likes to play in gay bars to fess up, step down, the media knows who it is and so do we and we will expose him first!
grrrrr
Indeed!
Don’t go away mad, John & Meghan McCain.
Just go away.
On second thought, I don’t care if you’re mad or not. Just go away.
If not wanting to involve the nation in every little contretemps around the world makes me an isolationist, so be it. Make the most of that charge you can, I wear it as a badge of honor.
President Obama has stired up a hornets nest by presenting an incoherant ‘policy’. Those who have long warned us about not getting envolved in someone elses civil war are now silent. Those who once accused the United States of overreach in Iraq, turning a UN resolution on WMDs into a justification for regime change, now overreach turning a UN resolution on civilian protection into a cover for regime change while being to cowardly to admit that is what they are about. No wonder conservatives are having a hard time sorting out our responce.
I agree that a premature withdrawl from Afghanistan would be a mistake. The last time we descided to walk away from that mess, we left it to Pakistan and we all should remember what that got us. But Obama should realy not get a pass on Libya. War powers act or not, our constitution should make it clear that no President gets to go to war without consulting with congress.
We don’t need a large military force left in a lot of places for decades. Maybe one AF base and Navy sub base in Britain, One Army and AF base in Germany. The Same with Italy, Turkey, Japan, Korea and maybe another of each some where in the Middle East. We pay billions to secure the safety of Europe and Asia. Why aren’t they paying to secure their own nations? Because we do it for Free, duh! If Europe, Japan and Korea can’t provide for their own military they are of little use to us for anything but a buffer and we don’t need tens of thousands of troops to provide this buffer.
That’s a lot of exceptions. Remember that each of these exceptions you mentioned have a general public that polls say would most of the time like nothing more than for us to leave. It takes a big man to offer our blood and treasure for the good of those people who have no appreciation for our sacrifices.
The only reason there is any good will on the part of the US toward these people is because our liberal media never talk about what low-lifes these people are. They’re busy trying to paint their fellow liberal Europeans as good willed and rational, when–for any of those with a second to read their publications–in reality they are obsessed with the evil America and are willing to twist anything we do into a dark, conspiratorial narrative of global colonial-ization.
Are you afraid that the mighty Russians are going to steamroller Europe? Their society is collapsing. South Korea without us would be hit harder than they otherwise would have been without us being there, but is that worth not only the cost of having our soldiers there but the ultimate risk of entering in a potentially catastrophic war? Not when the Koreans periodically generate massive protests on streets to get us out.
Where is there any goodwill left for these people? Some of their politicians understand the need for us, but spend no time explaining why to their people. Their populations have over and over made a statement that they do not like what we stand for, do not like us, and do not wish our soldiers to be in their countries.
So–if for a moment I can play with the conceit of being able to speak for all of us– from one people to another, we can’t stand you guys either, and we will not bear the cost of defending you any longer.
Bring most of our men home and put some of them on our Southwestern border with shoot to kill ROE.
There are too many programs and too many wars. We are being drained of our life blood. Nation building in Iraq? Why? We lost our buffer against the Iranians and now have a Shia majority gov’ment. Someone tell me how this benefits the USA? Nation building in Afghanistan? There is NO NATION TO BUILD.
Its a collection of fiefdoms run by tribal affiliations and allegiences. If we can’t get the job done in 10 years, its time to get out.
Pakistan plays a double game. Always has, probably always will. Let’s cut them loose and stop the foreign aid. Make overatures to India which is more reliable and more western oriented.
Get the hell out of Libya. There was never a reason to be there and yes it is a war. Just another excuse to waste precious resources which we don’t have. And Quadaffy had calmed down. Still Obami refuses to tell us who will govern once Quadaffy is deposed. Another MuBro group? If he can’t answer a straight question, pull the plug on funding.
Let’s cut the foreign aid, end NATO, and close our bases in Europe except for Ramstein. Then pull out of Korea, time to go and let them stand on their own.
We need a drastic streamlining of our government from top to bottom. More is not better.
Power comes from prosperity. It takes a strong economy to create a strong military and we’re slipping.
After Obama, America needs to retreat and re-group and reinforce.
American involvement to keep the world a safe place for commerce and trade is definitely worthwhile and is something of the mission of the American dream. Yet, there are limits to what we HAVE to do and what we CAN do. Until we get our house in order, what we’re doing seems to exceed our purse.
The proper course is to pull back some – fewer long, extended, expensive commitments abroad. Not every involvement, certainly, but we need to chose more carefully and live within our means. With a wiser president and Congress in 2012, I see some retrenchment in activities but continued investment in capabilites. That is by no means “isolationism!”
Just like after Carter, the US has been weakened by poor leadership and it will take rebuilding.
The one good thing I can say about Obama is that he has sent the message to our European allies and others that they need to step up and do more in their own defense.
Count me amongst the isolationists of the pre-WWII, Taft variety.
The only thing interventionism has ever brought us is hordes of dead Americans, including the thousands and thousands murdered by Muslim fanatics over the last few decades.
The Swiss have the right idea, and we’re a bunch of idiots.
The problem is, of course, how do we get from where we are now to being a neutral country that doesn’t get hundreds of thousands of its citizens killed fighting in foreign wars that are none of our business?
How do we wrap up our punitive campaigns against the Muslim swine and start minding our own business, instead of butting into everyone else’s?
Easier said than done, I guess.
The only thing interventionism has ever brought us is hordes of dead Americans, including the thousands and thousands murdered by Muslim fanatics over the last few decades.
Imperialism encourages immigration from the conquered territories to the Imperial city / country. That is the historical norm, despite a few exceptions.
Imperialism empowers centralized authorities and their sycophants at e the expense of local authority and liberty.
Why exactly are conservatives supposed to be imperialists?
There is no hypocrisy in upholding the rule of law, nor in expecting the President to do so.
Bad law or not, the War Powers Act IS the law of the land, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect the President to abide by it.
There is also a great gulf between a head-in-the-sand isolationism and the nation-building, run-the-entire-world interventionism of the neocons.
Neither extreme is wise.
The issue of the US going pre-WWII isolationist is greatly exaggerated. While most Americans are almost certainly fed up with this chronically needy planet there is no danger that we’re about to go along with leftist phantasies about who the real good guys are out there because of it.
Defense spending got to where it is because to fund the Cold War dems constantly demanded higher entitlement spending. This was their version of logic for supporting it. So, both side got to spend like crazy until we are just about broke coming from both directions. Now, the dems won’t pare down bloated entitlement spending unless the same is done to defense spending—it’s a law of nature you can’t get away from.
In any case, there is only so much we can do to maintain stability around this planet if the usual suspects want to start a war. But there are other ways to deal with these people rather than rushing carrier battle groups at them.
In the same vein it’s also safe to say that Pearl Harbor ended US isolationism forever.
We don’t have to be isolationists but we damn well don’t need to flush money down every rat hole in this world. We need a coherent foreign policy that intelligently defines our friends and our enemies and coherently apply our money and our military for OUR best interests.
They could start with pulling out the 52440 troops in Germany, 35688 in Japan, 9660 in Italy, 9015 in the United Kingdom, 8029 in Qatar and 10548 troops in Kuwait.
But no that would be too logical. Let’s instead have 200000 troops in peaceful countries and keep troops out of war zones. The main purpose of the military is clearly to drive around in jeeps on military bases, work out in the gym all day long and go sight seeing on the cote d’azure. Fighting wars? Nonsense, that could be dangerous and might hurt the careers of incompetent officers slated for their well deserved promotions.
The US has 70000 troops in peaceful and rich Europe and 5000 troops on its own border. You must hand it to the Europeans. They are not stupid. Its pretty clever actually. It might be the biggest scam in history and thus the US being the biggest sucker in history.
Where did you get the 5,000 number? Are there any troops at all on our border now? On our side of the border, I mean?
Even if troops are there, they provide only administrative support to the Border Patrol. They do not pose any kind of an effective obstacle to invaders.
One has to appreciate the supreme irony of having tens and tens of thousands of U.S. troops around the world but an undefended southern border of our own nation. God bless the Border Patrol who are undermanned, underfunded, and given an impossible mission given their resources. Bottom line, though, the border is essentially wide open.
Ah the neocons are coming out in force to defeat the Constitutional conservatives—big government is good if your guys are running it, right?
Republican isolationism? As exemplified by the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, the naval disarmament treaties? “Isolationism” was a myth (or should I write “a narrative“?) composed by the Wilsonian progressives who were disappointed that the United States wisely avoided involvement with the League of Nations.
For real isolationism, check out FDR’s neglect of the Navy, his planned reduction of the Army to a paper force, and his abandonment of the Carribean to the likes of Somoza.
I want the United States to engage the International Community with a keen appreciation of United States interests. Surely by now, with the examples of Russia, Iraq, Afganistan, etc. we should be aware of the difficulty of creating democracies in countries without the requisite history, laws, customs, etc. required. We need to learn the limitations of our projection of economic and military force. Quite frankly, I am much more concerned about the impact of Mexico than Afganistan. We need to stop abusing our regular and reserve military forces by asking them to accomplish unrealistic objectives, and save their capability for real need. If there is anything of strategic importance to us in Afganistan or Iraq, I fail to see it. If they give up on democracy and once again become hosts to terrorists, we retain the ability to destroy those regimes without continuing to sacrifice ground troops to no avail. That is not isolationism, but realism. The sooner we conduct our foreign polity for the benefit of America without undue concern for regimes who are not real allies, the better off we will be.
“Old conservative isolationism?” Refusal to become embroiled in civil conflict in a foreign nation, particularly when the character of the revolutionists is suspect and may, in fact, be worse than the existing regime’s, cannot fairly be termed “isolationism.” How about “prudence?”
I believe that the evidence that Sadam Hussein had acquired WMD and thus was a serious threat to both neighboring and distant nations, justified attacking Iraq. Today Iran openly declares that is building WMD and we do nothing. Ghadaffi tries to control rebels with rocket launchers mounted on pick-up trucks, presenting no threat to his neighbors. and you and Kristol think we should bomb the hell out of him rather than be “isolationist.” Assad kills thousands of his own rebels and you think we should go after him too. “Let’s not become isolationists” by refusing to be embroiled in Springtime for Mullahs.” Mugabe has slaughtered all his opposition and is starving the rest of the citizenship:is “isolationism” to be supplanted by bombing to promulgating the “spread of Democracy?”
The British spent centuries and never controlled Afghanistan. The Russians spent a decade or so and left with their tail between their legs. Just why do you think we should “give it another year” because this is such a critical time? Another year puts us into the summer of ’12, right before the election. Do you feel that would be abetter time to pull out? Which party would benefit? Would it help deter Iran?
I question that there is a consensus among the Generals that another year will find us in control of Afghanistan even if we greatly increase our troop force. As in any fight, from a barroom to a battlefield, if you are sure, beyond any doubt, that you are not going to WIN, you get out. Pride is a lousy reason for protracting bloody conflict. If, instead of of demonstrating our anti-isolationism in the HinduKush, we had spent the money and effort in knocking out the LWMD in Iran, we’d have accomplished a much greater goal, and with less loss of blood and honor.
I think our intervention policy should be old fashioned, conservative and straight-forward: stay out of any Internal strife, no matter how upsetting to our caring sensibilities; open assault or calculated preparation for assault outside a nations borders, (as opposed to defense purposes) will be met with military force if negotiation does not succeed. No isolationism. No aggression. The only exception – genocide. Our record in this respect – Zimbabwe, Sudan – is shameful.
Yes. We don’t need to be isolationists, but we do need to observe the rule of law. And we do need to know that we’re on the side of the angels. In Libya, we are laying down our lives for al Qaeda. WTF? After we help them kill their enemies, they’ll come after us using guns we bought for them. Are we insane?
We don’t want to be isolationists. We want to intervene in the Balkans like Clinton did, against Christian Serbia in favor of the local Muslim squatters. We want to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq like Bush II did, spending blood and treasure on upholding countries whose writing of Islamic constitutions we have approved. We want to intervene in Libya to help the rebels, never mind them being Al Qaedah to a man. And maybe, if we get lucky, we’ll achieve the ultimate in interventionism by following Samantha Power’s good advice and doing a repeat of the Serbian saga on Israel.
Isolationism sucks. Interventionism is the way to a better, safer, more peaceful, more Islamic world. The choice is a no-brainer.
(Do I really need a /sarc tag?)
While I can appreciate your concerns Ron Radosh, I have to agree with 6. Libertyship46 among others here. Of course the usual suspects from the WEEKLY STANDARD (Kristol, the Kagans) along with Woolsy & Pertz are likewise being supported by McCain & his BFF Graham. Claiming some kind of mass movement afoot to revert into isolationism is beyond even McShamesty’s delusional cow dung, all the more putrid to swollow when he insists on Sunday when shilling it.
It is bunk. But hardly surprising coming from the senior senator of my state. It is a genuine regret we couldn’t find a suitable candidate to retire him in 2010.
I was born during the tail end of Eisenhower, in late ’58, and since then the American Dollar has lost approx (it’s hard to exactly keep up given the sea of read ink floating about when discussing the topic in polite society) 98% of its value. We were the worlds largest market then, the mightest economic engine beyond anything ever imagined, the worlds largest creditor nation. Oh and by the way, it was 3 YEARS AFTER the private market peaked with almost 33% Union participation(nearly zero being public unions then). Likewise, it was almost 6 years after Ike had approx 12 million latinos (predominately mexican- once very useful workers during the Boom War years – sound familiar) illegals deported in less than a year – with the states doing most of the heavy lifting -and without a single lawsuit of merit. It was also 4 years after BROWN V BOARD OF ED – and the waining momets when the Southern Dixiecrats could still hold back the flood which would soon become Civil Rights transformation.
A whole lot of things have changed in this country and you are smart enough of a wise old man to know it Ron Radosh.
…”Now, I can understand the sensibilities of those who feel that what is now our longest war, that in Afghanistan, is more than problematic, and that it could drift into an endless battle with no end in sight, costing scores of lives as well as billions of dollars that we cannot afford in perpetuity. But …”
What do you mean…but? “…could drift into an endless…”?
There is always another argument for continuing with these damn wars that we have never required the American People to pay for directly – and which – in my humble view – has indirectly devestated us all. Just as there is yet another one ‘looming’ in Syria or Iran or what ever east-bum-*&^%istan will be the next hill we must take and nation-build upon or risk descending into another Munich moment of surrender.
We are in the midst of a genuine grass-roots populist movement in this country because everyday ordinary Americans, like me and most others reading and posting here, have had it with all the preaching about impending armageddon – be it financial or war-on-terror related – IF THEY DON’T COLLECTIVELY DO AS THE BRILLIANT GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGISTS (or Just plain vanilla odd couple farts like McCain & Graham)or Timmy Geitner or helicopter Brenanke or you pick it – don’t get what they want immediately.
[Hint - this is why the debt ceiling vote is going to rock a few days on the Street]
Just has a numbness has decended when trying to wrap an average brain cramp around the trillions upon trillions regarding our national debt the same numbness has decended upon the public regarding the kind of ‘urgency’ threat you are trying to extort – even as I read in the Weekly Standard (and hear on Fox every sunday) how defense spending in these wars are a ‘historically acceptable percentage of GDP…’
The same bullshit I have been hearing since Cheney claimed the Iraq insurgency was the ‘death rattle.’
Two years into Obama and porkulus and resurgent Keynsian statism and his oppertunistic play to score the historic spike in the end zone by achieving what every Dem has dreamed of since LBJ – while we now are creeping up on the 10 yr anniversary of 9/11 – and we are still being bullied and proded and conned – every which way and loose – FOR THE VERY PERPETUAL WARFARE the blame-America-first crowd howled about from 9/12 ONWARD!
Have you no shame Ron Radosh? Have you no sainity left?
Are you so convinced that if we are not in the perpetual state of war some where on the planet that the evil march of something/anything cannot be held in check long enough for one more generation of American children to grow up above ground?
It is not either selfish or isolationist to demand these wars stop because we have to START THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF RESSURECTING AMERICAN CAPITALISM – which is both under assault from the idiot Obama and his crew due to their complete lack of understanding as to what it is – and their fever dream that it’s disintigration (just as it was with Carter and to a lesser degree, yes, EVEN FORD in the 70′s)- is sold as a desired & virtuous goal.
We are fiscally coming unglued. Broke. The biggest debtor nation in the world is borrowing like a drunk ‘Rican at the middle of the month you TOOL!!!!
Yet, You and other wonks are trying to sell committment abroad in both blood and treasure while demanding austerity with a stiff upper lip both now and into the future as far as the eye can see. And when people get pissy about it, you give them a friggin lecture not much different than Obama with his ATM analogy.
The American people are in revolt regarding these incompatiable directives Radosh. Both political sides on these issues foreign and domestic have lost all credibility. There is no more wiggle room for Petraus to sweep down to a congressional hearing and sway the public. The public is way out front on this.
I am convinced that wonks like you Ron Radosh will not ‘get it’ until there is blood in the streets and social unrest on par with the race riots of the 60′s & ’70′s – or the tragic stories you report from Arab Spring. You really seem to believe that just one more persuasive article is all that is needed to bring the public back around.
People everyone in this country are either in a family (or one degree of seperation from it) with wrecked lives and economic chaos – no job, no home, no savings, a cross-generation of lost souls for whom today is the new Great Depression 24/7.
For myself, a true child of the 60′s, and my sister (4 years younger) we are living the same nightmare our parents dealt with not that long after the seminal ’67 boundries’ you have elequently written of – the Nixon years following the oil Bomb and his fiat disguarding of the Gold standard whilst diving into the brief experimentation of wage and price controls.
Like most Americans today we are IN SURVIVAL MODE – NOT SURVIVALIST MENTALITY – which is a huge difference. We have not faced the worst of it, just witnessed it, and know that but for the grace of God…
I am genuinely sympathetic that it is a more extreme danger in Israel – as well as Lybia and elsewhere throughout the middle east. I will pray for them.
But….
What I won’t do is succom to the bogus hysteria that if we don’t continue bleeding ourselves dry in blood and treasure then representative Democracy as we have come to know it will go the way of a snuff film – a truely horrific death.
It’s neither irrational or isolationism, neither selfish or stupid. Its common sense.
In pre WWII we did not have 1,000 military bases overseas. We were not shouldering 75% of military cost for Europe. We were not engaged in a land war in Asia with an undefined goal. We were not afraid to go somewhere, kill some people, and leave. And we had not turned over command decision-making to allies.
Another false narrative. I am a Conservative with Libertarian leanings. I believe we should pull back from areas that are simply not in our vital strategic interests. We are broke and in danger of collapsing soon from our debt. Countries are selling off our T-Bills!
That said, I would support an invasion of Iran in a minute. Ahmanutjob has made very clear his nuclear intents. He also exports his violence to other parts of the world: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Hizbollah and Hamas, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina. This guy is trouble and he and the Mullahs just plain need killing.
Europe can barely fight a war against a lowly Linya. Why? Because we have been a crutch for them all these years. We hurt them by doing their defense for them, and we hurt ourselves.
I am opposed to intervention for humanitarian reasons. I think it is poor policy to send someone’s kid off to die in some armpit of the world, so certain folks can feel oh-so-noble.
American troops are trained to kill the enemy. When we send them on “peacekeeping” missions, we tell them specifically to NOT kill the enemy. What could possibly go wrong?
Also, these things end badly (Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti), or they just never end (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, et al). If you feel it is vital to involve us, then go in, hold the leaders of that country accountable by killing every single one of them, then get the F*&% out! If the next bastards cause trouble, kill them too, until they figure out we are not to be trifled with.
This is not isolationism. It is not even non-interventionism. Reagan got out of Lebanon, because he “never realized how insane ME politics were”. This was completely rational policy. I am in favor of completely rational, consistent policy. Choose your battles wisely. You cannot fight every fight.
Now tell me how this is neo-isolationism?
Reagan got out of Lebanon without completing what should have been done and that is destroying the seeds of Hezbollah, Iran’s foreign legion, thanks to the terrible council of those bright realists Weinberger and Baker.
From there Iran went from strength to strength, taking in Syria and apparently Turkey, and its hegemony is now able to threaten America’s and Europe’s energy supplies.
There should have been a price to pay for what Iran did in Lebanon, especially after Carter’s hostage mess in Teheran and those hundreds of dead marines in Beirut; but nothing was learned and nothing taught.
Exactly.
I am so pleased reading responses. We are waking up. My two cents also: RUBBISH.
Who cares about history and past events or hypocrisy. We are going bankrupt. We’re damned if we do or don’t where ever our intervention. The Soviet Union is no more so any mandate to stop communism is indeed history. Show me how we can possibly interject any more troops into an Arab and/or Islamic nation and succeed? Show me how getting the backing of the UN and Arab League to make it internationally ‘legal’ for “democracy and human rights” is any more justified when the former had Qaddafi on their Human Rights Council and recently wanted Assad, while the latter hasn’t one democratically elected government?
We’ve been stuck in Afghanistan way too long and if they don’t get it together in the next few years we should be out, period. If the dominoes fall, they fall. That will be the only way the world will be forced to act, and not turn their collective backs leaving the sacrifice largely to American and Brit soldiers with our respective nations’ taxpayers footing the bill for billions every single year.
The USA is in dire straits financially. You have to start from where you are. You have to wage war with what you have. You have to use what you have to get what you want.
For a long time the US Federal Government is only going to be able to spend money on what saves American lives or keeps the nation going. Luxuries like war in Libya, Yemen or Afghanistan are going to be seen as extravagant because there is no credible claim that we are saving American lives by waging war in these places.
The war in Afghanistan does not save American lives because it stops Pushtun riflemen invading other countries. Nor does it stop suicide jihadis leaving Afghanistan and entering the West. Nor does it reduce the supply of narcotics to the US in a way that securing the border with Mexico would reduce the supply of narcotics. Why does the US government display no interest in securing its southern border but insists on sending soldiers to Central Asia? Because money is no objection and security no objective. Extravagance and stupidity abound and only fools forget there is a price for everything.
Syria, Egypt and Turkey are going to be written off because they are too expensive to keep onside. It is not a question of isolationism versus internationalism. It is a question of banruptcy or viability. The USA is not going to survive if it is extravagant for a few more years.
Can it be that the writer of this article missed the part of the recent news that stated “members of both parties are on” bozo’s butt for allegedly ignoring the intent of the War Powers Act? Quite a large mistake to have missed out on the ramifications of having both parties against the One.
So unless you support every single military action the US gets involved in you’re an isolationist? So there is no limit to the number of wars we should undertake? We should not even discuss it or consider the possibilty that we are over stretched in terms of military engagement? Hogwash. In my opinion we have a completely insane mideast policy and the Libya action is way out of line. As others have said, we need much more isolationism now.
I don’t know about the rest of your but I cannot afford our current foreign policy. I say YES to a more isolationist policy. Those of YOU that wish to send our military around the world can fund it.
Sorry, but the word that springs to mind is “moronic”. Hell yes, we need more isolationism. Can you show me where on the ballot we the people voted to become the world’s “meals on wheels,” “Rent a cop for free,” “Fannie Mae we give you more money than we have,” institution?
The Constitution is pretty clear that the President isn’t supposed to be a particularly “strong” position. As chief law enforcement officer he/she’s supposed to enforce the laws passed by Congress (ahem, like immigration for instance), not “sponsor” legislation, not try to “influence” legislation and certainly not to “ignore” legislation.
As CIC of the military he is supposed to command the military not to decide when and with whom it goes to war unless there is a sudden attack that needs immediate response.
Putting “Obummer” on the same side as Nixon doesn’t point to hypocrisy, only to consistency, those who ignore the laws of the land tend to flock together. Remember, Tricky Dick was no friend of the second amendment as left us the wonderful EPA to contend with.
On second thought, two words come to mind about your article, “Truly Moronic”.
“…….But no more disturbing than the hypocrisy of Republicans like Speaker John Boehner who in the past called the War Powers Act unconstitutional and voted to repeal it, but are now blasting Obama for refusing to abide by its terms.”
Do you not see the difference between not agreeing with a law and blatantly ignoring it?
As for meddling in foreign entanglements, we’ve not been any good at that since WWII. We don’t have the collective stomach required to literally destroy enemies any more….gots to win them over and all that crapola.
The only way we should be involved in any mideast hellhole is via long distance bombing with utter destruction as our stated goal.
An excellent series of replies to a poorly reasoned essay. How uplifting to drink in the common sense stance of my fellow citizens. Ah, if only a few of you were in the halls of government to provide some leadership centered on the well being of the governed!
To my fellow countrymen, the role being pursued in Libya is an exercise to further undermine the rule of law in the United States. This administration acts with the approval of the United Nations, and openly defies the War Powers Act and Congress. It’s just another step by the international globalists, of whom President Obama is a proud member, to dismantle the United States in favor their New World Order. Unlike the author and his editors, you all see this issue much clearer. We instinctively know the nation is under siege from within, by leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle. How about an essay on allocating military assets to secure our domestic borders? Looking for a timely peg to make it newsworthy; law enforcement now says it is groups of illegal immigrants setting the wild fires in southern Arizona.
This rubbish from Rodash is another puff in the giant smoke screen of the global elitists. He should have vetted his theme with a trusted colleague before committing to the page. Or, maybe he is in league?
Non-intervention is NOT isolationism. We can be involved with the world without sacrificing our blood and treasure for people who don’t deserve it. No one is looking to turn this country into Albania or North Korea. However, it’s high time we brought our troops home from most of the countries they are in. It’s not 1945 anymore. It’s not 1965. Heck, it’s not 1985.
The cold war is over. It’s time for many countries to stand up for themselves. They’re sovereign nations. Sovereignty begets responsibility. Recognizing that we can’t afford to be all things to all people isn’t a return to isolationism. It’s an acknowledgment of our current state. It’s reality.
If “Bomb Libya, run secret ops in Yemen, turn Iraqis in Jeffersonian democrats, save Afghans from themselves, run ‘counter-terrorism’ operations in Pakistan, pick up the military tab for the Europeans in perpetuity, and allow Saudi Arabia to fund 80% of Mosque construction in the U.S.” is the answer, I’d sure like to know what the question was.
Mark Steyn’s recent article “Too Big to Win” brilliantly describes how the U.S. has for decades had a leadership class with utterly no concept of what our vital national interests are. This article sheds no light on what those might be. “American exceptionalism” is surely the last feeble concept that should find its way into a discussion of American foreign policy. We have an exceptional Constitution and that’s a known fact. But since every court in the nation and the rest of the political elite of this country has agreed for at least the last 70+ years that it can be ignored for purposes of expediency, it’s safe to say the political elite have, in fact, no concept of why the U.S. is exceptional.
Does anyone seriously believe that ten more years in Afghanistan will lead to a result any different from pulling out in one year? Or by the 4th of July?
When the senior commander in Afghanistan thought it wise to dress up like Peter O’Toole when talking to the natives that’s just embarrassing. Any message he had for any local should have been delivered by him in the uniform of a United State Army general officer. Yet, this was, and presumably is, a man who will have significant input on the question of whether we should stay in Afghanistan. God bless the man for his clarity of mind on actual war fighting in Iraq. As a policy maker, however? Part of the problem.
Puhleez. It’s not a question of exercising America’s power or not. I can choose to start the engine of my car and start it moving if I want to. The important question is not Can I move my car? The important question is Are there any good places for me to go to and do I have the means to get me there and in one piece?
. . . have agreed . . . .
More Radosh rubbish, we shuold never have been in Liyba and we should leave Afghan and Iraq because we have nothing left to accomplish there, if the governments can’t stand on their own by now they never will.
bring them home, put them on the southern border.
I have joined the ranks of the isolationists after seeing our youg people maimed and killed by people who have no regard for human life. They steadfastly cling to their ‘religion’ and thank us for lives and money spent by just blowing up something else. These people have contributed practically nothing to modern society and maintain their illiterate societies as they did centuries ago. Laws and agreements dreamed up by some, either in the US or internationally, prevent our troops fom winning. Our arrempts to civilize the ‘victims’ by rebuilding schools, hospitals, etc. are to no avail. The people we are fighting take, take, take but never change.
I don’t know the answer to the dilemma. I feel the US is rotting from within and, unfortunately, most citizens just don’t care.
["Now is not the time for an American retreat."]
With few exceptions since Post WWII, the U.S. has ‘retreated’ from it military and political interventionism without the final chapters having been etched in stone…or even on paper….thanks to being one of the principles of the UN blueprint for the world.
Furthermore, since WWII there has not been a legitimate sovereign nation that has posed an imminent threat to our economic or sovereign borders. Had our nation stayed out of all the global geopolitics while honoring its real sovereign nations alliances who likewise stayed out of geopolitics, we most likely would not be where we are today….to include the Islamic Jihad circumstances. As a consequence today, nobody either respects us nor do they fear us….especially, as we sit in near economic collapse and have never conclusively provided long term success militarily around the world since WWII.
Korea, the Islamic world, China, Russia, Israel/Lebanon/Palestine, Pakistan/India, North Africa, Cuba…….much of Central and South America and even much of Europe.