American Foreign Policy

[cwjerome]

I recently read a book from one of my favorite authors, Niall Ferguson. It was a very different take on American foreign policy compared to another book I read several months ago called "The Empire Has No Clothes" by Ivan Eland.

In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.

Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.

There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.

Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.

As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.

 

[conjur]

It's what I've been saying for months up here. We are seeing history repeating itself. We are seeing the Mises Effect. Intervening in a situation that was the result of a prior intervention often leads to the opposite desired result.

The history of interventions by the U.S. reveal this in copious amounts of fvck-ups that require greater spending. This country's foreign policy is feeding the fire. Trouble is, the gov't and the ideologues that have run it for decades have nearly bankrupted the country and piper is demanding his due.

 

[NoSmirk]

Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

One of the main reasons for WWII was because of our intervention in WWI. Had we stayed out of it, Germany would have had more of a bargaining chip at the end of the war compared to what actually happened. But because we entered and helped give a quicker defeat of Germany, France got cocky and decided to make Germany pay. That result wasn't foreseen when WWI was going on but that doesn't change the fact that the world would be drastically different had we not entered WWI.

WWII is a different story, however. Japan was a threat to us. Many in the US government saw it and we were actually largely prepared for it. The only problem we made was our failure to predict that they would attack Pearl Harbor. Hell, they wouldn't have even done that had we not shut off their flow of oil. Instead they made desparate attacks to get more of the life blood of their war machine. So you could make the case that in WWII, because of our intervention (stopping the flow of oil) with Japan, we were attacked. That certainly doesn't justify their attack and their failure to declare war on time (the translator really fvcked up on that one) but it just goes to show you that intervention can have horrible unforeseen consequences.

 

[Kalbi]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

That's right, politicans from both parties said fvck it who wants to join WWII let Hitler have his way...until Pearl Harbor. Then both parties realize you can't appease dictators...you have to kill them. Imagine if we killed all dictators in history starting from Stalin down to Kim Jong Il, how many people would be alive and how peaceful the world would be. The world would be bitching about killing babies (abortion) instead of killing each other. Russia would pwn Europe, Korea would be One, the Middle East *might* be peaceful, Cuba would be a bomb ass spring break spot, oil would be $1/gallon, Africa might have a chance, etc.

 

[NoSmirk]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

One of the main reasons for WWII was because of our intervention in WWI. Had we stayed out of it, Germany would have had more of a bargaining chip at the end of the war compared to what actually happened. But because we entered and helped give a quicker defeat of Germany, France got cocky and decided to make Germany pay. That result wasn't foreseen when WWI was going on but that doesn't change the fact that the world would be drastically different had we not entered WWI.

WWII is a different story, however. Japan was a threat to us. Many in the US government saw it and we were actually largely prepared for it. The only problem we made was our failure to predict that they would attack Pearl Harbor. Hell, they wouldn't have even done that had we not shut off their flow of oil. Instead they made desparate attacks to get more of the life blood of their war machine. So you could make the case that in WWII, because of our intervention (stopping the flow of oil) with Japan, we were attacked. That certainly doesn't justify their attack and their failure to declare war on time (the translator really fvcked up on that one) but it just goes to show you that intervention can have horrible unforeseen consequences.

Well no kidding, but what is unknown is the consequences if he would have NOT intervened in WWI or II. You can point to the negative consequences of our actions in those wars, however, you cannot deny that those negatives could be vastly overshadowed by the benefits? Besides, I think you are missing a key point.. Germany decided to start WWI, not the United States or France.. Starting a fight, getting your ass kicked, and then using that as an excuse to start another fight does not somehow indicate that the person who kicked your ass the first time is somehow to blame for the 2nd fight.

 

[Kalbi]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

One of the main reasons for WWII was because of our intervention in WWI. Had we stayed out of it, Germany would have had more of a bargaining chip at the end of the war compared to what actually happened. But because we entered and helped give a quicker defeat of Germany, France got cocky and decided to make Germany pay. That result wasn't foreseen when WWI was going on but that doesn't change the fact that the world would be drastically different had we not entered WWI.

WWII is a different story, however. Japan was a threat to us. Many in the US government saw it and we were actually largely prepared for it. The only problem we made was our failure to predict that they would attack Pearl Harbor. Hell, they wouldn't have even done that had we not shut off their flow of oil. Instead they made desparate attacks to get more of the life blood of their war machine. So you could make the case that in WWII, because of our intervention (stopping the flow of oil) with Japan, we were attacked. That certainly doesn't justify their attack and their failure to declare war on time (the translator really fvcked up on that one) but it just goes to show you that intervention can have horrible unforeseen consequences.

Well no kidding, but what is unknown is the consequences if he would have NOT intervened in WWI or II. You can point to the negative consequences of our actions in those wars, however, you cannot deny that those negatives could be vastly overshadowed by the benefits? Besides, I think you are missing a key point.. Germany decided to start WWI, not the United States or France.. Starting a fight, getting your ass kicked, and then using that as an excuse to start another fight does not somehow indicate that the person who kicked your ass the first time is somehow to blame for the 2nd fight.

Haha, well said. Doesn't it seem like anti-war people make it seem like the future is now? I think you said it best when you mentioned that the policies of this administration cannot be fairly judged until all the chips fall. Metaphorically I still think the chips are in the air. I was too young, but I've heard from older people that the anti-Reagans of the 80s had their pessimistic views on Reagan politics, but it lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall, fall of the Soviet Empire, and a booming 90s. Imagine if Carter was relected and succeeded by a similar douche...

 

[NoSmirk]

I think thats the point, the chips are still in the air. If you judged Clinton for example based solely on what his Administration 'accomplished' when they were in power, one would argue he was probably one of the worst Presidents in history.. Now, 5 years after he is out of office, we are starting to realize his inability to get anything done policy wise MAY have been the best thing that could have happened. Had Clinton actually 'accomplished' socialized healthcare for example, things in this country could be much different (For the worse I would argue).

 

[tommywishbone]

Vomit. We are the rotten. We are the disease.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, he says it would be a good thing if we took over but he doubts we have what it takes. End of story, no?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's amazing how uninformed and generally uncritical the "young" posters are.

No one in their right mind gives Reagan "credit" for the fall of the Berlin Wall, fall of the Soviet Empire, and a booming 90s. The foreign events were largely driven by the fundamental flaws in the economic and political systems. Reagan essentially ran a parallel program of economic folly. The primary reasons we survived; 1) we had better credit, 2) Volcker tamed interest rates, and 3) it pays to motivate people to produce. Some credit could go to Reagan for the last item, but most of the motivation predated Reagan and ALL of the legislation he signed came from a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Imagine if Carter was relected and succeeded by a similar douche...

1) The Soviet Union would have still crumbled.
2) Assuming Volcker's successor was either Greenspan (or like Greenspan knew not to muck up what Volcker started) . . . the foundation for good economic growth would largely be the same.
3) Oh, yeah . . . Carter had an energy policy focused on conservation that embraced new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. The tool that followed abandoned energy independence as a goal, but wasted billions trying to outduel George Lucas.
4) The natural corollary to #3 is standing on the sidelines during Iran/Iraq. Maybe it's a stalemate again but Saddam would have likely suffered . . . maybe even being deposed. Choose your poison . . . Iran as THE regional power versus no Gulf War I or Bush War 2003.

I think the OP "attempts" to foster discussion about "intervention vs isolation" but I'm not sure either of the references is balanced enough to inform the ignorant. A better read would be an "interventionist by necessity" like Thomas Friedman. In essence, we have to meddle today b/c we've ALWAYS been meddling.

Any time you "act," those actions will have unintended (yet often predictable effects). A thoughtful individual factors the probability and VALUE of intended and unintended outcomes to determine what actions make sense. A zealot acts on instinct and impulse. Unintended consequences are irrelevant. They then explain the outcomes by saying their actions made the situation better than it would have been otherwise. Naturally, it's essentially impossible to prove or disprove their argument b/c once you tinker . . . there is no "Undo" button.

Let's take a principle position on an event . . . Tiannamen Square. As a "true believer" in fundamental human rights, the US would deny China MFN status until . . . well . . . who knows?!

What would be the status of textiles and other manufacturing in the US? How about Walmart? Would China be able to build their war machine without hundreds of billions in US trade? How about competing globally for limited energy resources? Would China have embraced market reforms without MFN and the potential growth to follow? I don't know the answers to those questions. But the notion that fundamental sociopolitical reform would come to China after MFN helped drive the approval (along with some business lobbies). Has the policy been worth the price?

At some point you have to take an "accounting" of what your policy has produced. Defenders of intervention in Iraq (Bush War 2003) keep moving the goalline b/c the early "outcomes" didn't materialize (except for removing Saddam from power). They now hang their hats on "transforming the Middle East" . . . just like Reagan conquered Communism. Does it make sense to endorse such an open-ended proposition when even the near-term goals are suspect? How long do you support fake democracy in Eqypt as a stepping stone to the real deal?

Homegrown democracy is the ONLY one that works . . . historically. Aside from Turkey, all we have to judge is really Iran (Lebanon is just messed up). Yet, the very moment Bush opened his mouth with "Axis of Evil", Iran was lost. The moderates were already on the defensive but Bush was the hardliners unwitting ally.

Cuba is another example of policy that is hopelessly misaligned with progress towards the ultimate goal.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: conjur
It's what I've been saying for months up here. We are seeing history repeating itself. We are seeing the Mises Effect. Intervening in a situation that was the result of a prior intervention often leads to the opposite desired result.

The history of interventions by the U.S. reveal this in copious amounts of fvck-ups that require greater spending. This country's foreign policy is feeding the fire. Trouble is, the gov't and the ideologues that have run it for decades have nearly bankrupted the country and piper is demanding his due.

So is it largely a money thing for you? Do you think it's possible that our "investments" overseas since, say 1980, have saved us money in any way?

And the bigger question is, what evidence do you have that keeping closer to home will resolve previous "fvckups?"

 

[Genx87]

there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right

Actually I believe many in the far right will side with isolationism over using our military in foreign lands. Expanding our powers, opening our economic borders, influencing global politics, playing world police is a very recent and liberal trend since the end of WWII.

 

[Genx87]

The history of interventions by the U.S. reveal this in copious amounts of fvck-ups that require greater spending. This country's foreign policy is feeding the fire. Trouble is, the gov't and the ideologues that have run it for decades have nearly bankrupted the country and piper is demanding his due.

History has shown a very fine line between our overzealous global policies and isolationism causing the exact same effects.

Our isolationism helped to create two World Wars. Our meddling since WWII has created regional conflicts.

One thing is for certain however. Europe has not had the ability to wage war on itself or neighbors since the end of WWII. One of the reasons I believe is the fact we had thousands of military right in the heart of Europe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Kalbi

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

That's right, politicans from both parties said fvck it who wants to join WWII let Hitler have his way...until Pearl Harbor. Then both parties realize you can't appease dictators...you have to kill them. Imagine if we killed all dictators in history starting from Stalin down to Kim Jong Il, how many people would be alive and how peaceful the world would be. The world would be bitching about killing babies (abortion) instead of killing each other. Russia would pwn Europe, Korea would be One, the Middle East *might* be peaceful, Cuba would be a bomb ass spring break spot, oil would be $1/gallon, Africa might have a chance, etc.

The American public was very much against going to war in Europe. FDR however knew the true costs of not getting involved. I think the cutting off of oil was to get a reaction out of Japan with the hope it would open a gateway for us to enter the war in Europe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

One of the main reasons for WWII was because of our intervention in WWI. Had we stayed out of it, Germany would have had more of a bargaining chip at the end of the war compared to what actually happened. But because we entered and helped give a quicker defeat of Germany, France got cocky and decided to make Germany pay. That result wasn't foreseen when WWI was going on but that doesn't change the fact that the world would be drastically different had we not entered WWI.

WWII is a different story, however. Japan was a threat to us. Many in the US government saw it and we were actually largely prepared for it. The only problem we made was our failure to predict that they would attack Pearl Harbor. Hell, they wouldn't have even done that had we not shut off their flow of oil. Instead they made desparate attacks to get more of the life blood of their war machine. So you could make the case that in WWII, because of our intervention (stopping the flow of oil) with Japan, we were attacked. That certainly doesn't justify their attack and their failure to declare war on time (the translator really fvcked up on that one) but it just goes to show you that intervention can have horrible unforeseen consequences.

Well no kidding, but what is unknown is the consequences if he would have NOT intervened in WWI or II. You can point to the negative consequences of our actions in those wars, however, you cannot deny that those negatives could be vastly overshadowed by the benefits? Besides, I think you are missing a key point.. Germany decided to start WWI, not the United States or France.. Starting a fight, getting your ass kicked, and then using that as an excuse to start another fight does not somehow indicate that the person who kicked your ass the first time is somehow to blame for the 2nd fight.

If we did nothing and I mean not send Russia supplies and help England stave off Germany. I have a feeling eventually the Germans would have captured Moscow, sent the Soviets east of the Urals and then finished off England. Japan would have finished SE asia, China, and invaded the Soviets from the east making them landlocked and useless.

We would have been in command of the western hemi for awhile. Not sure if Hitler would have the balls to come after us without first reogranizing the occupied lands that would allow his war machine to compete with us.

I think the war would have dragged on for quite a long time because eventually we would have got involved and that means somehow getting to England and restablishing the ability to hit German industry. It would have cost a lot more in lives than the way it went down and who knows if we could have really done it.

 

[Todd33]

I'm an isolationist at heart for many reasons. Good post though, an honest discussion. I'll check back later when I have more time.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Genx87

there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right

Actually I believe many in the far right will side with isolationism over using our military in foreign lands. Expanding our powers, opening our economic borders, influencing global politics, playing world police is a very recent and liberal trend since the end of WWII.

Good point. But at the end of WWII we were a superpower. With that comes certain new situations and responsibilities that we didn't have before. Also, we were locked in a struggle against communism, which sort of forced our hand internationally.

Today, we are a lone hyperpower. Again we are faced with new situations and responsibilities, and again we are facing another ideological foe, much like after WWII. This is a debate worth having, and I'm especially interested in the positions within the conservative arena... and what conservatives think about "Colossus" after reading the book review (linked in OP).

 

[prometheusxls]

CW,

I looked at your post and the Niall Furgeson book review. It seems pretty interesting and I will probably pick up a copy. I agree more with Eland that our involvements have caused a number of problems over the years. Both the taliban/Ossama and Sadam were CIA funded and trained at one time. Osama to fight the soviets, Sadam against Iran. So now we are seeing the blow back from those episodes.

The problem with having such a large and powerful standing army, contributing so much of our GDP toward the military industrial complex, the willingness of a volunteer army, and the fact that our forces are so much more powerful than other countries is that war is increasingly seen as an easy option. The economic, political, and social options for military action need to be fully considered if we want to convince our selves we are making the best possible decisions regarding the use of our military. Our recent choices are hardly the best. In Afghanistan you have a country that is in total economic chaos their major trade is poppies / drugs. In Iraq we have a fractious and tense political climate with 3 socialy and geogrpahicly isolated factions which seem to hate each other and are having a hard time just forming a government. While these were easy military wins the comlicated situations really precluded the in + out strategy that is favored. My point, our current military is quick lighter, faster. They are designed to be in and out in 72 hours or whatever. They are great at tearing down, but are not well suitred for either lengthy occupation, or nation building.

If you look at the numbers of terrorist incidents world wide it shows a dramatic increase in the numbers of terrorist attacks per year since 2001. If the point of the war on terror was to stop terrorism, it is a complete failure. If the point of it was to provoke terroists to attacks over there so we can kill them before the have a chance to plot and strike us here then it may be working. Economicly speaking and all things being equal provoking an attack that is possible in the future and making it guranteed today is a dumb move.

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I recently read a book from one of my favorite authors, Niall Ferguson. It was a very different take on American foreign policy compared to another book I read several months ago called "The Empire Has No Clothes" by Ivan Eland.

In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.

Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.

There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.

Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.

As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Kalbi

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

Bush's Presidency can't be judged now, because the results are unknown. Its easy to simply point to the # of dead people and call it a failure. The true results will come when we see what effect our policy has made on the middle east 10 years from now, 15 years from now.. And how many terrorist attacks we have had, etc. If number of dead was the deciding factor in victory or defeat, then WWI and WWII were horrible defeats. Remember there was a strong isolationist movement in the United States during World War II as well, many thought we should not get involved, we should mind our own business, etc. Well, that got us a whole lot of dead Americans, and a lot of holes in our Navy.

That's right, politicans from both parties said fvck it who wants to join WWII let Hitler have his way...until Pearl Harbor. Then both parties realize you can't appease dictators...you have to kill them. Imagine if we killed all dictators in history starting from Stalin down to Kim Jong Il, how many people would be alive and how peaceful the world would be. The world would be bitching about killing babies (abortion) instead of killing each other. Russia would pwn Europe, Korea would be One, the Middle East *might* be peaceful, Cuba would be a bomb ass spring break spot, oil would be $1/gallon, Africa might have a chance, etc.

Wow, you truly believe that such a utopian vision could spawn from that much bloodshed?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Genx87

there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right

Actually I believe many in the far right will side with isolationism over using our military in foreign lands. Expanding our powers, opening our economic borders, influencing global politics, playing world police is a very recent and liberal trend since the end of WWII.

Good point. But at the end of WWII we were a superpower. With that comes certain new situations and responsibilities that we didn't have before. Also, we were locked in a struggle against communism, which sort of forced our hand internationally.

Today, we are a lone hyperpower. Again we are faced with new situations and responsibilities, and again we are facing another ideological foe, much like after WWII. This is a debate worth having, and I'm especially interested in the positions within the conservative arena... and what conservatives think about "Colossus" after reading the book review (linked in OP).

This is true however we made the choice to become a superpower. We could have dissolved our military and went back to being isolationist while Communists overran Europe and Asia. The difference was we decided to take on a more liberal mindset and use our political, economic, and social power to stave off communism.

I am not a classic conservative and probably more a JFK liberal. I used to believe in isolationism but dont believe in a world this connected it is a viable solution.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Genx87

there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right

Actually I believe many in the far right will side with isolationism over using our military in foreign lands. Expanding our powers, opening our economic borders, influencing global politics, playing world police is a very recent and liberal trend since the end of WWII.

Good point. But at the end of WWII we were a superpower. With that comes certain new situations and responsibilities that we didn't have before. Also, we were locked in a struggle against communism, which sort of forced our hand internationally.

Today, we are a lone hyperpower. Again we are faced with new situations and responsibilities, and again we are facing another ideological foe, much like after WWII. This is a debate worth having, and I'm especially interested in the positions within the conservative arena... and what conservatives think about "Colossus" after reading the book review (linked in OP).

This is true however we made the choice to become a superpower. We could have dissolved our military and went back to being isolationist while Communists overran Europe and Asia. The difference was we decided to take on a more liberal mindset and use our political, economic, and social power to stave off communism.

I am not a classic conservative and probably more a JFK liberal. I used to believe in isolationism but dont believe in a world this connected it is a viable solution.

I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

 

[piasabird]

It doesnt matter who is right or wrong, it appears to not be doing much good to continue our support in Iraq. I think it is foolish to think we can force our Christian founded democracy on people in Iraq. I have always thought this war was flawed in its premise since the beginning. If people in Iraq want to live like animals and go into Civil War we should let them do it and kill each other in the process. Just pack up and leave and quite before we spend even more money. A good business man needs to know when to give up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It doesnt matter who is right or wrong, it appears to not be doing much good to continue our support in Iraq. I think it is foolish to think we can force our Christian founded democracy on people in Iraq. I have always thought this war was flawed in its premise since the beginning. If people in Iraq want to live like animals and go into Civil War we should let them do it and kill each other in the process. Just pack up and leave and quite before we spend even more money. A good business man needs to know when to give up.

This is not a thread about Iraq.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

This sorta brings up another dynamic. The isolationist minded conservatives seem to base their rationale on mainly pragmatic grounds, while the more interventionalist conservatives -like me- tend to have a more principled outlook.

I am not a Wilsonian type idealist however. It's just that being a "hyperpower," we have the means to promote our interests. It just so happens that we also have a moral righteousness as well.