Isolationism

[byu71]

I freely admit I lean to the conservative side. I was talking with a couple of
fiends who lean the same direction. Suprisingly we all pretty much come down on the side of Obama handling this Iranian affair properly so far.

As the conversation carried on further we found we all are pretty much tired of being the worlds protector. Without getting into serious thought, we talked about pulling troops out of Germany and perhaps North Korea.

We just make the statement, work out your own problems and if you attack us we will obliterate you.

Is isolationism a conservative principle or a liberal principle?

[YOhio]

I think we should wait to pull our troops out of North Korea until after we dispose of KJI.

Isolationism as part of a larger ideology seems to vary from presidential term to presidential term. If Reagan is upsetting the Soviet Union and meddling in Granada and GHWB is bombing Iraq, then the Dems are isolationist. If Clinton is sending troops to Kosovo and Somalia, then the GOP is isolationist. And so it goes.

[wuapinmon]

I think we should wait to pull our troops out of North Korea until after we dispose of KJI.

A+!

Bravo, sir.

[Babs]

I freely admit I lean to the conservative side. I was talking with a couple of
fiends who lean the same direction. Suprisingly we all pretty much come down on the side of Obama handling this Iranian affair properly so far.

As the conversation carried on further we found we all are pretty much tired of being the worlds protector. Without getting into serious thought, we talked about pulling troops out of Germany and perhaps North Korea.

We just make the statement, work out your own problems and if you attack us we will obliterate you.

Is isolationism a conservative principle or a liberal principle?

Well, isolationism is, by its very essence, conservative foreign policy. Neoconservatives universally renounce isolationism, though. So it's really kind of backwards anymore. The people we think of as liberals are more likely to espouse the conservative foreign policy approach. The people we think of as conservatives (really, neocons) espouse the liberal interventionist foreign policy.

[Indy Coug]

Isolationism didn't work in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, so why would it work now?

[byu71]

Isolationism didn't work in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, so why would it work now?

The internet didn't work in the 18th and 19th centuries either.

[Indy Coug]

The internet didn't work in the 18th and 19th centuries either.

Neither did plaid pants and polka-dotted shirts.

[SCcoug]

Is isolationism a conservative principle or a liberal principle?

I agree with Y, nowadays it depends on which party is in power and how the opposition can leverage foreign policy to get back in power. I think both parties have constituencies within them that are isolationist.

[I.J. Reilly]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a time when isolationism was a correct policy. Perhaps someone who knows history better than I can remind me of one. I'm well aware of George Washington's foreign entanglement quote, but I'm not sold that it is a strict isolationist policy.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a time when isolationism was a correct policy. Perhaps someone who knows history better than I can remind me of one. I'm well aware of George Washington's foreign entanglement quote, but I'm not sold that it is a strict isolationist policy.

IMO, isolationism simply delays a probem reaching our shores and allows it to grow larger. I am not a proponent of "preemptive strikes" by any stretch, but I think you need to stay engaged in the world simply if to be more aware of the threats and their current status.

[SCcoug]

As the conversation carried on further we found we all are pretty much tired of being the worlds protector. Without getting into serious thought, we talked about pulling troops out of Germany and perhaps North Korea.

We just make the statement, work out your own problems and if you attack us we will obliterate you.

Seems like if you endorse the current liberal trade order we enjoy that is globalization then you need to accept the security that must be present for it to function and spread. I agree that other countries should pull their weight more but most of our current allies can't or won't do that. The US should seek to expand from our traditional western European allies and reach out to the rising economic powers like India and China or Brazil that have the most to gain from keeping globalization going.

[SCcoug]

IMO, isolationism simply delays a probem reaching our shores and allows it to grow larger. I am not a proponent of "preemptive strikes" by any stretch, but I think you need to stay engaged in the world simply if to be more aware of the threats and their current status.

A good example of a different type of "preemptive strike" or "preemptive nation building" that is under reported is the combined joint task force horn of Africa. CJTF-HOA basically combines elements of the peace corp, USAID, training local security forces and has the firepower to go after any bad actors if needs be.

from wikipedia:
Since then, CJTF-HOA personnel have built numerous schools, clinics and hospitals; conducted dozens of MEDCAPs, DENTCAPs and VETCAPs; drilled and refurbished more than 113 water wells; and trained in collaboration with most Partner nation militaries. Additionally, members of the Task Force have assisted with at least 11 humanitarian assistance missions, including recovery efforts after the collapse of a four-story building in Kenya in 2006, the capsizing of a passenger ferry in Djibouti in 2006, and floods in Ethiopia and Kenya in 2006.

It will be interesting to see how successful CJTF-HOA can continue to be over the next few years.

See also: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/cjtf-hoa.htm

[wuapinmon]

IMO, isolationism simply delays a probem reaching our shores and allows it to grow larger. I am not a proponent of "preemptive strikes" by any stretch, but I think you need to stay engaged in the world simply if to be more aware of the threats and their current status.

I feel like American isolationism exacerbated some of the conflicts of the Second World War because we were not prepared to stand against the rise of Fascism during the early 1930's.

Frank Capra's Why We Fight series, sort of discusses some of this, albeit from a one-sided and purposeful position.
[YOUTUBE]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vrwT2K3SwGk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vrwT2K3SwGk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[Jarid in Cedar]

A good example of a different type of "preemptive strike" or "preemptive nation building" that is under reported is the combined joint task force horn of Africa. CJTF-HOA basically combines elements of the peace corp, USAID, training local security forces and has the firepower to go after any bad actors if needs be.

from wikipedia:
Since then, CJTF-HOA personnel have built numerous schools, clinics and hospitals; conducted dozens of MEDCAPs, DENTCAPs and VETCAPs; drilled and refurbished more than 113 water wells; and trained in collaboration with most Partner nation militaries. Additionally, members of the Task Force have assisted with at least 11 humanitarian assistance missions, including recovery efforts after the collapse of a four-story building in Kenya in 2006, the capsizing of a passenger ferry in Djibouti in 2006, and floods in Ethiopia and Kenya in 2006.

It will be interesting to see how successful CJTF-HOA can continue to be over the next few years.

See also: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/cjtf-hoa.htm

Now that's a type of "preemptive strike" I can get behind.