Across the political spectrum a new brand of isolationism is becoming politically popular uniting both the libertarian end of the Conservative spectrum and Progressives.
It is new dawn for Fortress America in which our jobs need to be protected behind our walls and in which we should cede any international leadership roles to other powers (Russia, China, the EU as a whole, international terror groups …).
Participation in trade treaties … bleed our jobs and transfer our wealth.
Military spending as a fraction of GDP is back down to near historic lows while China and Russia both invest mightily in military modernization and the world minimally remains in a very transitional and chaotic state … and calls for disengagement from the world stage and further decreases in military spending have great support.
Is this new Fortress America a more viable concept in today’s world than Isolationism was in the early thirties?
Well, we’ve heard it said recently that the world still needs a “strong America”. You could point to specific examples and make the case either way, but it’s difficult to refute that pulling out of Iraq was as big a blunder as going in in the first place…
Why cede international leadership to anyone else? Why not just go without international leadership at all, except as countries agree to it?
And military isolationism and economic isolationism are two completely different topics. Any given person can be for or against either, both, or neither.
That’s very deceiving. Put some actual numbers on that, because someone reading that might easily think that Russia and China are spending more in this area than the US is. Last time I looked (it might have changed, so maybe you can update us) the US was spending more than the next 20* largest military spenders combined. See here.
I don’t see a movement toward a Fortress America. I see a movement to stop the giving away our economy in bad treaties and demand other countries to contribute to the world economy in the way that we do.
It’s not difficult at all. Firstly, we were asked by the elected government to leave. Is it your contention that we should have just stayed there regardless? Secondly, the so-called Islamic State arose in Syria during the civil war there. Started by Iraqi al Qaeda drop-outs, yes, but our being in Iraq would not have made a difference. We might have stopped them getting back into Iraq, but that’s not even clear. It was the Iraqi Shi’a leadership who, refusing to share powers with the Sunnis, that invited them back in.
The OP is linking up a whole bunch of different themes and getting the wrong answer: trade policy, the immigration issues, the economic and military rise of China, squeeze on US budgets, etc.
The US is not going to relinquish it’s place in the international hierarchy.
And if those weaker countries ask for our help, and we have or come to an agreement with them, then we should help those weaker countries. Having a big expensive military with the ability to project force just encourages us to get involved in places like Iraq, where nobody wanted us.
Yes, the so-called Islamic State arose in Iraq. Not sure what I was thinking there… It came to full flower in Syria, but it’s roots were in Iraq. So, yes, the Iraq invasion is what lead to the formation of that group in the first place. I don’t think that can be disputed.
I think the OP is overstating the back-lash, but it should come as no surprise that there would be SOME backlash after the disastrous results in Iraq and even Afghanistan (the so-called smart or good war).
Not only is it deceptive in that the US is outspending the next 10 or 20 nations combined, calling military spending as a fraction of GDP being back down to near historic lows isn’t paying any attention to history:
ISIS is just part of a long line of Islamic fundamentalist terror groups that obviously long precede the invasion of Iraq. Did the invasion of Iraq help birth this particular version with this particular name? And did instability in Syria give it its particular opportunity to flourish and grow? Sure, I can grant both. But popular groups using violence in pursuit of imposing Islamic fundamentalism upon more secular and modern elements in the Arab world long predate the Iraq invasion and do not owe their origin to it.
No question in my mind that the invasion of Iraq was dumb and played into the hands of the fundamentalist movement. No debate that military force can be used when it need not be and when its use does more harm than good. But to me it is equally clear that the ability to use military force prevents the need to use it in many cases and that the United States being able to respond in several theaters at once is still necessary. (And yes America is still, even at its dramatically decreased levels, still the big spender. That said the United States has much less a share of global military spending than it has since before 911and it alone has many potential theaters.)
Indeed Dissonance I am using history since the United States became a world power: since WWII.
The connection between the themes is apparent in the insurgent popularity from multiple sides of the spectrum. Be it from the progressives, Trump, or the libertarians, the populist themes are variations of “America First”/isolationism in both economic and foreign policy spheres. Those themes pretty much consistently are traveling in the same circles even as everything else in those circles vary.
Because those themes apparently are linked in the minds of many American isolationists/populists/nativists, and of pundits like Pat Buchanan and candidates like Donald Trump.
Could it be possible to have a middle ground? Could the US military be focused on dealing with direct threats to America without having to be seen as the world’s biggest bad-ass? Yes, it would require some changes to the way business operates: on a level international field instead of “just do like we say and nobody gets hurt”, but to be seen as a partner in global commerce instead of the bully would almost certainly mitigate external threats considerably.
It is a false dichotomy that the only practical alternative to the status quo is isolationism. In fact, it is not entirely clear whether true isolationism would even be workable. I like bananas, cinnamon and silk, and they should be traded for fairly, not via threat-of-violence discounts.
Sure, it’s likely some fundamentalist Islamic militants would have risen from the turmoil in Syria, but the particular brand that arose in Anbar province during the Iraq war is by far the worst we’ve seen. It’s hard to imagine that something like the Daesh would be around today, and it almost certainly wouldn’t be in iraq as well as Syria. SH might have toppled during the Arab Spring-- who knows-- but Daesh was in response to an invasion and perception of the US taking sides with the Shi’a dominated government afterwards.
I can only speak for myself, but I’ve been wanting us to scale back military spending from long BEFORE 9/11/01. We are constantly involving ourselves in wars all around the globe and mostly to no good consequence. If you have a ginormous military, there’s a good chance you’re going to use it.
