McCain slams GOP hopefuls' 'isolationism'

IMO, Senator McCain is exaggerating. It is a big leap from asserting that U.S. military intervention should be focused where critical interests exist and outright isolationism. To suggest that the U.S. military should focus its interventions in areas where critical interests or allies are threatened is not isolationism. To imply that military intervention is not necessarily the most effective or efficient approach for facilitating political change is not isolationism. To reaffirm that the Constitution is the source of authority for all American policy, including military decision making, is not isolationism.

Furthermore, Senator McCain's remarks on President Reagan are highly revisionist. President Reagan did not use military force to try to bring about political change in the Soviet Union. He used pressure from leveraging U.S. economic strength, offering a clear political message, pursuing an aggressive strengthening of American military capabilities, assisting friendly forces fighting communist insurgencies/dictatorships, and leaving an opening for conciliation. His was not a rigid "take it-or-leave it" approach. His was not an undisciplined approach that wasted American military power in areas that were of peripheral or lesser interest to the United States.

McCain is offering up a straw man. No one is saying we should completely ignore world events but by the same token we need to pull back and reassess where our vital interests lay and give our armed forces time to recoup and recover. I think our armed personnel have paid quite enough wartime blood and time away from their families in the last 20 years. Its time to bring them home and decide what our next moves are.

With Reagan, we had a significant national interest in taking on the USSR and their surrogates. While the propoganda of focusing more on the "spread of freedom" than on "Our national interest" was absolutely necessary, and good tactically, it wasn't necessarily the reality of the situation.

Its why I would've supported us being more supportive of the Green Revolution...there was significant national benefit to helping out there. To a lesser extent I feel the same with regards to Egypt. Its not as much the case in Lybia.

There's a middle ground between pure isolationist and being the world policeman. But the first, important, consistant litmus test should ALWAYS be whether or not AMERICA'S interests are served better by intervening or not. If the answer is "no" then we should not act.

apdst said:

WW2 didn't help the American economy.

Click to expand...

This is ignorant at best.

I am split on the issue. It is not good to let things go badly in other areas but perhaps the USA giving blood and treasure for others should be postponed for a decade or two. Currently the world seems to treat the US as spoiled child may treat a doting parent..."OH Dad will take care of it..Mom will buy me one of those..etc"

Paschendale said:

Isolationism is a suicidal position in the modern world. We are all too interconnected, with information, trade, and culture. We cannot be alone. It's impossible. Thinking that we are different than everyone else in the world is what ruined our international image, what set up the toxic financial climate that lead to a worldwide depression. We live in a global world. It cannot be denied.

Click to expand...

China seems to be managing their isolationist military role just fine. It hasn't hurt their economy. I'm sure they laugh at the USA daily for our military involvement that provides solutions for whom? Iraqis? Afganis? Now Libyans? I don't think so. The US keeps getting involved in regional disputes and tax payers pay for it. What does china pay for? Nothing because they know the USA will intervene and pay for it. They are much smarter than we are.

The USA has forgotten how to win a war. They just want to be Robo Cop.