• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern isolationism: a new foreign policy framework

DifferentDrummr

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In a modern, interconnected world, there's no longer any such thing as genuine isolationism. However, that doesn't mean that the U.S. has to continue its self-appointed role as the world's policeman - a role that the American people are tired of.

The following goals are all in keeping with a Jeffersonian model of isolation that's both prosperous and stable:
  • Mutual respect of others' territorial sovereignty, integrity and independence;
  • The fostering and maintenance of friendly relations, fair trade practices, and respect for human rights among all nations;
  • Non-interference in the domestic policies and affairs of other countries; and
  • The maintenance and the promotion of peace, security and stability in North America and worldwide.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In a modern, interconnected world, there's no longer any such thing as genuine isolationism. However, that doesn't mean that the U.S. has to continue its self-appointed role as the world's policeman - a role that the American people are tired of.

The following goals are all in keeping with a Jeffersonian model of isolation that's both prosperous and stable:
  • Mutual respect of others' territorial sovereignty, integrity and independence;
  • The fostering and maintenance of friendly relations, fair trade practices, and respect for human rights among all nations;
  • Non-interference in the domestic policies and affairs of other countries; and
  • The maintenance and the promotion of peace, security and stability in North America and worldwide.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing that people often mock isolationism. WWI and practically most of the wars in the 20th century and even today that followed it would have never happened if countries minded their own business during WWI.
 
jamesrage said:
I find it amusing that people often mock isolationism. WWI and practically most of the wars in the 20th century and even today that followed it would have never happened if countries minded their own business during WWI.
Click to expand...

Even an isolationist nation will go to war if its territory is attacked.
 
I'm looking forward to the release of this book:
"Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project) Hardcover – August 25, 2015
by David Vine (Author)

American military bases encircle the globe. More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. still stations its troops at nearly a thousand locations in foreign lands. These bases are usually taken for granted or overlooked entirely, a little-noticed part of the Pentagon's vast operations. But in an eye-opening account, Base Nation shows that the worldwide network of bases brings with it a panoply of ills--and actually makes the nation less safe in the long run.

As David Vine demonstrates, the overseas bases raise geopolitical tensions and provoke widespread antipathy towards the United States. They also undermine American democratic ideals, pushing the U.S. into partnerships with dictators and perpetuating a system of second-class citizenship in territories like Guam. They breed sexual violence, destroy the environment, and damage local economies. And their financial cost is staggering: though the Pentagon underplays the numbers, Vine's accounting proves that the bill approaches $100 billion per year. For many decades, the need for overseas bases has been a quasi-religious dictum of U.S. foreign policy. But in recent years, a bipartisan coalition has finally started to question this conventional wisdom. With the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan and ending thirteen years of war, there is no better time to re-examine the tenets of our military strategy. Base Nation is an essential contribution to that debate."
Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project): David Vine: 9781627791694: Amazon.com: Books
 
Hard Truth said:
I'm looking forward to the release of this book:
"Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project) Hardcover – August 25, 2015
by David Vine (Author)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip, HT. I will definitely keep my eye out for this one. And of course, I agree with Mr. Vine's claims as you quoted them in the review.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In a modern, interconnected world, there's no longer any such thing as genuine isolationism. However, that doesn't mean that the U.S. has to continue its self-appointed role as the world's policeman - a role that the American people are tired of.

The following goals are all in keeping with a Jeffersonian model of isolation that's both prosperous and stable:
  • Mutual respect of others' territorial sovereignty, integrity and independence;
  • The fostering and maintenance of friendly relations, fair trade practices, and respect for human rights among all nations;
  • Non-interference in the domestic policies and affairs of other countries; and
  • The maintenance and the promotion of peace, security and stability in North America and worldwide.
Click to expand...

Ummm the Republic of Jefferson's day was a orphan child compared the the world powers of that day. Today we are the sole surviving SUPER power with interests across the globe.

I don't see just how the mutual in all these fine and noble phrases works. The League of nations 'fostered' friendly relations, if we press the Saudis or anyone for that matter to play nice on human rights- just what do you think they'll do? How do we foster fair trade?

Just how do empty words and thinking the rest of the world wants what we want without wanting someone else's stack of cheese?

I would propose what some of the American people and a growing number of the world's folks it the use of our forces and money not as police but rather as enforcers. Fact is we care little if crimes are committed in countries with little to offer us. Our success rate in areas that lack something that attracts our corporate interest is pretty bad.

Genocide in Central Africa... vs a tyrant who won't bend to our wishes sitting on a vast pool of oil...
 
notquiteright said:
Ummm the Republic of Jefferson's day was a orphan child compared the the world powers of that day. Today we are the sole surviving SUPER power with interests across the globe.

I don't see just how the mutual in all these fine and noble phrases works. The League of nations 'fostered' friendly relations, if we press the Saudis or anyone for that matter to play nice on human rights- just what do you think they'll do? How do we foster fair trade?
Click to expand...

The same way any two parties bargain effectively. They look for win-wins and compromise where they can't find any. I don't see how wasting American lives on the other side of the planet is any more effective.

I would propose what some of the American people and a growing number of the world's folks it the use of our forces and money not as police but rather as enforcers. Fact is we care little if crimes are committed in countries with little to offer us. Our success rate in areas that lack something that attracts our corporate interest is pretty bad.
Click to expand...
Nobody can police or even enforce the entire planet.

Genocide in Central Africa... vs a tyrant who won't bend to our wishes sitting on a vast pool of oil...
Click to expand...
There are always options other than troops.

Rebel groups can organize, if they haven't already. And if they aren't powerful enough, perhaps the tyrant could meet with an 'accident.' The list of options goes on and on.
 
Hard Truth said:
I'm looking forward to the release of this book:
"Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project) Hardcover – August 25, 2015
by David Vine (Author)

American military bases encircle the globe. More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. still stations its troops at nearly a thousand locations in foreign lands. These bases are usually taken for granted or overlooked entirely, a little-noticed part of the Pentagon's vast operations. But in an eye-opening account, Base Nation shows that the worldwide network of bases brings with it a panoply of ills--and actually makes the nation less safe in the long run.

As David Vine demonstrates, the overseas bases raise geopolitical tensions and provoke widespread antipathy towards the United States. They also undermine American democratic ideals, pushing the U.S. into partnerships with dictators and perpetuating a system of second-class citizenship in territories like Guam. They breed sexual violence, destroy the environment, and damage local economies. And their financial cost is staggering: though the Pentagon underplays the numbers, Vine's accounting proves that the bill approaches $100 billion per year. For many decades, the need for overseas bases has been a quasi-religious dictum of U.S. foreign policy. But in recent years, a bipartisan coalition has finally started to question this conventional wisdom. With the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan and ending thirteen years of war, there is no better time to re-examine the tenets of our military strategy. Base Nation is an essential contribution to that debate."
Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project): David Vine: 9781627791694: Amazon.com: Books
Click to expand...
When a girl, my wife lived for a time in a town near one of those bases, in the Philippines. She claims the most incessant thing she heard as a young Filipina was:

"Do not go near the base"

"Do not go near the soldiers in town"

"Do not associate with women & girls that do"

She claims the native women's take on the base was: "All the people there, Filipinos & Americans alike, are scum".

She's adamant about that until today sadly, even though she otherwise seems proud-as-hey to be an American, and seems to love America equally as much as I do, if not more!

But to hear her tell it, the women there really hated & feared that base, and strictly forbade their daughters even going near it.

Perhaps it might just be that I'm hearing the story from an adult women who's understanding was only that of a child & young teen during that time-period - she left for the university at 16 (over 3 decades ago).
 
Last edited:
Idealizing Jefferson, even in his own time frame has a couple of issues (some more serious than others).

Firstly, Jefferson's emphasis on reducing the presence of America's military has rightly been critiqued as exacerbating its weakness with the British forces.

Second, Jefferson did engage in a minor, but still noteworthy excursion with pirates. He justified it on the basis of attack, but like many of Jefferson's decisions, his mental model frequently clashed with reality.

After Jefferson, it is worth pointing out to another poster that America had almost always sought to expand its influence by military prowess (or at the very least, the threat thereof). It is perhaps a good starting conceptual argument about the downfall of empires, but it was also necessary for the nation's economic sustainability.

We aren't necessarily doomed to engage in military adventures at every instance, however, the basic operations of statecraft propel a state toward expansion of influence by way of economic-military power. We made a useful modification in our empire building, but our attempts were a necessity.

Lastly, we must also live in the world. The thrust of geopolitics is multi-lateralism and international bodies. This is especially true for a superpower. Most of the time, our actions internationally produce a benefit onto us, even if it is supposedly an attempt to aid another.
 
What was then Austria-Hungary considered it an act of war, because a Serbian terror group was responsible.

Of course, by then, Europe was so entangled in a sea of defensive pacts that everyone knew that a major war was coming; it was just a question of what would set it off.
 
American foreign policy has been a debacle since the end of WW1, prior to that we pursued a policy of isolationism and we had practically no enemies- now its completely the opposite. I think we need to get back into that mindset if we truly want peace and stability. Let's stop minding other people's business and concentrate on the problems we have at home.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Rebel groups can organize, if they haven't already. And if they aren't powerful enough, perhaps the tyrant could meet with an 'accident.' The list of options goes on and on.
Click to expand...

Actually a study was done by the CIA which found that arming/aiding rebels rarely works for the US.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In a modern, interconnected world, there's no longer any such thing as genuine isolationism. However, that doesn't mean that the U.S. has to continue its self-appointed role as the world's policeman - a role that the American people are tired of.

The following goals are all in keeping with a Jeffersonian model of isolation that's both prosperous and stable:
  • Mutual respect of others' territorial sovereignty, integrity and independence;
  • The fostering and maintenance of friendly relations, fair trade practices, and respect for human rights among all nations;
  • Non-interference in the domestic policies and affairs of other countries; and
  • The maintenance and the promotion of peace, security and stability in North America and worldwide.
Click to expand...

Number three conflicts with number four.

Number three is a deal-killer, the MIC will never go for it.
 
ballantine said:
Number three conflicts with number four.
Click to expand...

Not really. You can always say, "Guys, we'd like you to do X" without interfering with what they're doing.

Number three is a deal-killer, the MIC will never go for it.
Click to expand...

The MIC has to learn to stop saying, "It's time for another war."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom