xepherys

I'm curious what other TFP Poli folks have to say on this topic. For those of you that don't know this, prior to World War II and the ensuing Cold War, the US was a very isolationist country. In many ways this worked well for our principles and desires as a nation. However, the tragedy of WWII, the development of nuclear armament and the Cold War pushed the US, somewhat unwillingly, into the global foray. This has been our way now for 60-some years. During this time we've become a global power, economically, militarily and politically. We have the means and resources to be the "world police" and "world humanitarians" spreading medical and financial aid, food to the poor, and military might to weak nations worldwide. This has been a great boon for us, and has also bitten us on the ass many a time. So my question is this:

What would be the benefits and/or ramifications of the US becoming an isolated country again (as much as can be done in the modern world). What are the possibilities of this happening and what else would need to occur?

Personally, I think that the only ramification to us would be global dislike for us NOT helping (despite that fact that people hate that we stick our nose into others' business). The world at large, however, I think might suffer greatly in the face of such an event. I'm not sure such a thing is even possible in our modern world, but it would certainly be an interesting social experiment (on a truly grand scale).

Ustwo

Being sucked into another world war would be fun too.

By being an isolationist you are just hoping that you can avoid the next conflict, but if they get too big you get sucked in anyways.

Example, we could just ignore Iran, and let Europe (ha) deal with it, but then when this continues and we are faced with several nuclear armed radical islamic states it may be far worse than nipping it in the bud now.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

xepherys

Ustwo, I agree with you for the most part. What I wonder, though, is if the damage from the US perspective isn't reversible to some degree. I mean, the extremists seem to be in two camps. Those that feel we're the devil and they will do everything they can to destroy us and those who think we are meddling infidels and just want us out of their business. Hell, there are muslims that are not sick, crazy individuals that feel the latter. If we removed ourselves from global politics entirely, and stopped trying to save the world from tyranny, communism and the like, could we perhaps garner some respect (or at least less hatred) from others? The answer may very well be no. We may have put ourselves into an irreversible situation. It's ponderable...

xepherys

As for the point of another world war, this is something I've given a rather large amount of thought to lately. I'm starting to believe that the next large, semi-global conflict will be based in religion and not politics. The Muslims seem to be gunning for it. While I didn't follow the story, I know initial reports of the bombing in an Indian Hindu holy city the other week spoke to the fact that it could've also been Islamic terrorists. If it really becomes the Muslims vs. The World, and we're fighting a holy war globally like we are fighting a political war now in Iraq, I think things would not only get murky, they'd get downright dirty. If we have a WWIII anytime soon, it will truly be like nothing that has ever been witnessed on this planet.

The_Jazz

Religions have been fighting among each other since they were invented. A new religious war wouldn't be anything new, but I don't see any sort of global conflict like you're envisioning. There are quite a few Islamic nations that are very pro-US like Turkey and Egypt and Jordan. There are certainly vocal folks in these countries that don't like the US, but there are people here that don't like the French, a traditional ally going back to the 1770's. Holy wars or not, I just don't see the US (or the rest of the West) fighting organized Middle Eastern nations. We'll certainly have to deal with their citizen terrorists, but Syria or Iran would be foolish to try to take on the US directly. WWIII in these terms will probably never be a declared conventional war. In those terms, it could have already started.

As far as isolationism goes, I can't imagine that it's even feasible given the economic interests that we have around the world. The US of the 1920's and 30's didn't have nearly as much wealth tied up abroad as we do now. An American retreat from the world stage would shift the balance of power in to many economically important areas (Nigeria, Pakistan/India, Saudi Arabia and Japan just to name a few). The military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us all about would also scream bloody murder since US pullback means less weapons needed. GE alone could take a hit big enough to sink it if we suddenly stop ordering weapons systems.

After 9/11, I got an email from a friend of my fathers who spent several years working for a "contractor" in Afganistan after his retirement from the Army. He bascially said that the way to win over the Afganis was economical - educate their children, get people good job, respect their customs and religion but help pave all the roads and give farmers a reason to grow something other than opium poppies. I wish I could find it, because I would create a thread to post it in and open it up to discussion.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

xepherys

The_Jazz

Those are awesome points. I agree that it could be very detrimental. However, even an isolationist country needs to have the military might to protect itself. Also, what of foreign interest in the US. If we phased that out for more domestic interest in our own country, could we not be economically sound? How does a semi-closed economy work in today's world? Could it work at all? I just feel that we sell of too much of ourselves to foreign investors, and while that may be necessary to some degree, I think it's gone overboard lately. The Saudis have FAR too much interest in us, I believe.

joshbaumgartner

A very interesting question xepherys, and it probably would take a lot more than a post to answer well.

Since its end of isolation at the dawn of WWII, the US has indeed stepped into more and more of a global role. Our economy and our international relations have become more and more dependent on this role as well. To retract to an isolationalist position would necessarily mean some big changes in those areas.

Isolationism is successful for a number of countries, but it relies on a few factors, including respect for the nation's existance by the world powers of the time, a fierce self-defense posture, a generally self-reliant and balanced economy, and an abandonment of any real bid for world power status. Switzerland and Sweden are good examples.

The US already has world power status, is it even possible for us to 'go isolationist'? I would assume that to mean a withdrawl of the military to our borders, and a return to exclusively bi-lateral trade and diplomatic arrangements with other countries (withdrawl from NATO and the like). Participation or observation in bodies like the UN might remain but we would not accept obligations such as troop deployments or meddling in internal affairs. Certain questions would arise...

1) Could the US withdraw its military without compromising the immediate stability of the world community? I.E. would North Korean invasion of S. Korea and other such situations become imminent if we pulled out?

2) Would the US be able to remain a significant player in the world economy (a necessity to retaining its economic well-being) if it were to withdraw from being a strong power militarily and diplomatically in the world?

3) Would the US be more or less capable of meeting active, developing, and future threats to its security if limited to US deployment?

4) Would threats to the US decrease given its decreased global signature (withdrawal making it much less of a target).

5) Who would step up to fill the vacuum the US leaves (Europe? China?), and would the US be content to allow the path of world events to be driving by other world powers?

Realistically, I don't see it ever happening. Even if it was a good thing to do, those in power wouldn't be able to resist using the strength of our country to insert themselves in situations beyond our borders. Liberals in general will always seek a dynamic foreign policy of engagement, and conservatives may talk about isolation, but in the end they too will actively serve their own goals by throwing around the weight of America on the world stage. And neo-cons, well of course they are blatantly imperialistic, so of course you won't have it happen with them either.

But it is still fun to ponder...

Willravel

Isolationism = dependence on ones self. That would benifit the US in more ways than I can imagine.

joshbaumgartner

I don't necessarily follow. I mean self-dependence is obviously an important component of isolationism, but you can be self-dependent and yet also involve yourself liberally in foreign affairs to the point where it would be impossible to call yourself isolationsist.

All else equal, I would agree, self-dependence would be great. However, the question is that given the current situation, could we become self-dependent without a significant degradation of our quality of life, and would that degradation be worth the benefits of self-dependence.

The_Jazz

I don't think that self-dependence is possible in today's global economy, especially when you start talking about resources that the US just does not have. Self-dependence MIGHT be possible in strictly military sense, but true self-dependence would require withdrawl from multiple treaties and organizations and the abandonment of virtually all overseas bases. That means the European bases, Japan, all the various Middle Eastern bases and others scattered around the world. That sort of base closures would devastate local economies (the same as it does domestically) and leave a short term base housing shortage and overly large military. We'd also most likely have to cut back on defense spending, which would make quite a few defense contractors hurt, and there would be significantly fewer cooler "toys" for the military to play with. Recruiting would most likely stagnate, mostly because all the branches wouldn't need additional personnel.

Let's not forget the power vacuum that we'd leave in Korea, the Japan Straights, Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Western Europe.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

What do you mean by "involve yourself liberally in foreign affairs"? That usually implies interdependance on some level, which is something we have too much of right now.
Well, we'd have to make a 180 to be self dependant. We'd need a self sustaining economy that sees regular growth without any foriegn interference. We'd need to be able to compensate for inports such as oil or food. We'd need to be sure that our relationships with outside countries showed that we really weren't on anyones bad side. But, if by some mericle we could do this, the US or any other world power would be better off.

xepherys

As a note to this aspect, this is already occuring. The US Army has been closing bases around the US, restructuring divisions and looking at what strategies they can use to remove troops from the world, specifically Germany, Japan and Iceland right now. In fact we will have a nearly 100% withdrawal from Iceland by year's end. And since we are obligated to supply Iceland with it's defense, this will mean some political maneuvers will be forthcoming. Once we eventually leave Iraq/Kuwait (or severaly limit our numbers there) we will have a significatly lower global military footprint. I don't see it stopping with Germany/Japan/Iceland either.

roachboy

isolationism is not an option.
neither is american unilateral military adventurism.
both are wholly obsolete, though the latter continues to twitch about as a function of the character of american "democracy" which only allows for no-confidence votes one day every 4 years.
false binary based on choices outmoded.

not sure what the alternative would be, though, simply because nothing coherent has been tried yet. something has been tried--the clinton model of multi-lateral agreements and a kind of inept usage of the military is a variant of the bush model of bilateral agreements and lunatic military action (lunatic because launched without a plan, because inept on a kind of mind-boggling scale.) so something has been tried---two ways of trying to figure out how to deal with globalizing capitalism, one geared slightly more toward a different status for nation-states, the other in preservation of the existing ideologcal notion of nation-states--both hobbled because the systems that are emerging outstrip thinking rooted in the older political order, older ways of thinking--but are still in the making, so nothing is certain.

and that is what freaks people out--nothing is certain.
in that context, isolationism is nothimg more than an incoherent fantasy of running away.

but this is a difficult process, trying to figure out how to think about a socio-economic configuration--or vast interlocked systems that would comprise--loosely---a configuration. i dont see anyone anywhere who fully has their head around this. so this globalizing capitalism--this multiplicity of processes--unfolds as if inevitably because the main actors think it is, and everything happens across great uncertainty with folk making up views of it as they go along.

i think this is why the cliche exists: may you not live in interesting times.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Nimetic

My initial thought was that the US is quite isolated already, on a number of issues from proliferation to human rights, an international court, Kyoto etc.

At the same time - the US is quite widely disliked according to one recent survey.

But your points are more complex than that. Your points relate to US international activities... rather than mindset...

Overall, what I think many would like to see is one of two things - that either the US

a) reduces it's political and military activities globally, or
b) increases it's cooperation with international bodies and it's cooperation with
international treaties (and proposed treaties)

I'm basically saying that the US activies and mindset are (currently) widely out of balance. In my view.

Halx

I'm a big fan of a major reduction in foregin affairs. I believe that in sticking our nose in other peoples' business, we've not only gained more enemies than is healthy, we've neglected our own interests. While some of our actions were thinly veiled attempts to protect our own interests economically, we're still not fixing anything.

Our global influence has gone to our head, making us think we can and should do anything we want or need in order "make the world better." Our current slant on everything is that we are doing what we have to do because we're the only ones who will get it done and it HAS to be done. If it doesn't get done the whole world will go to shit.

The flipside means we focus on education, conservation of resources, economic development, investing in technology, and just generally making life better at home. I'm all for this self-indulgent change of pace. Unfortunately, we have too many people thinking we're doomed if we don't go over to country XYZ and start whooping ass. There's too much Us vs Them going on in the media to even relax.

Anyways, that's my take.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

docbungle

Isolationism (for the U.S) is a fantasy.
Of all nations, we would be the least able to survive in such a fashion.
Any serious attempt to go that route would result in absolute global chaos.
You can't just think about how it would effect us; you must think about how it would effect the rest of the planet.

__________________
Bad Luck City

host

Here in the U.S., we borrow $25 billion per month to "buy" 14 million bbls. per day of oil, and we burn it, along with the 7 million bbls. per day that is produced domestically.

We borrow another $40 billion per month to purchase cheap, manufactured goods produced in Asian sweat shops at "slave" level wages. We spend an additional $45 billion per month to finance and equip our military and our intelligence apparatus.
Our government also borrows approximately $45 billion per month, issuing new bond obligations in exchange for those funds.

Combined federal debt and trade debt is now about $13 trillion, more than the total of a year of GDP for the entire country.

With no plan on the table to slow this out of control borrowing and consumption trend, and no way to stem the diminsihing purchasing power of the dollar that we witness happening, as the debt increases, what are the realistic options, other than the increasingly aggressive projection of it's military power, does the U.S. actually have available to it?

Peaceful, moral, alternative solutions are much more pleasant to consider than the certainty that, on the course that we are on, the dollar will "tank". The only question is whether the U.S. will play it's only card, it's offensive military capibilities, BEFORE...or AFTER the dollar "tanks".

There will be an "all out" attempt to use the U.S. military to "save" the American "way of life". The alternative is to sink, after a shock or two to the dollar, into an era where a barrel of oil costs several hundred dollars, unemployment is more than 30 percent, the U.S. is at the mercy of foreign debt holders,
and...unable to sell it's treasury bonds, military operations become unaffordable.

Dismiss advocacy of using the military now...to hold the purchasing power of the dollar up...first by demanding that all other countries submit to admitting U.S. weapons inspectors who will search in every other nation to find and identify defensive and offensive weapons and programs, and determine (dictate) which weapons each country will be authorized to keep, and which will be confiscated and/or destroyed, and you end up guaranteeing that it is used later...when it may not be as well financed and maintained to be intimidating enough to discourage our boldest adversaries, as it is now. Infrastructure in one or two resistant countries will probably have to be signifigantly
damaged as they predicatably resist the edicts of the U.S. inspection program. These countries may heavily damage several U.S. urban centers and inflict heavy losses on our military.....before these unco-operative nations are subdued,
but our losses will be "acceptable" compared to the benefits of the outcome that can be achieved.

The longer that we delay implementing this inevitable plan, the higher the risk grows that the dollar will fail and the price that we pay to achieve the above result, grows much higher, both to the U.S. and to the countries that resist.

The U.S. will assert itself militarily...with much less loss of life, on all "sides" if the above described "move" comes from a position of relative strength, as we enjoy now.

Lofty, moral, opinions that influence "indignant" and dismissive reactions to my proposals are a "luxury" that those who offer no alternative that deals with the actual trends in U.S. requirements for foreign oil, manufactured goods, and continued toleration of foreign suppliers, financiers, and holders of U.S. debt, of our untenable situation, will not possess for long.

Halx, I remember the "fanfare" surrounding president Johnson's signing the first $100 billion federal annual budget in 1964. Now, $400 billion of the $2800 billion 2007 budget will be spent, juts to pay the interest on the $8 trillion debt.

Offer a realistic plan. You're a young man. You've got a much bigger stake in the outcome of thie crisis than I do. You've got to live with the consequences more than thirty years longer than I will have to. In my life, I've paid 19 cents per gallon for gas, bought several new cars and bought and sold three homes. I've spent my adult years....until now...with the confidence that next year will probably be more prosperous and peaceful than this one is.

Discussion is a good thing, especially if it includes real answers to real problems. Solutions that may not be pleasant, but take all critical factors into account, work with the resources that are available, and properly assess the risks and rewards, after all other alternatives are explored, and found to be wanting, may be the best that we can do, even if they seem to be immoral or illegal.

I'm a realist, hoping for timely and less extreme, realistic alternatives. Anybody.....????

xepherys

I think you miss the point... moving towards isolationism pushes us to not worry so much about the rest of the world... that's why it's an isloationist view. Global chaos? No way Jose! There are plenty of other economic powers that are happy to pick up where we leave off... maybe it'll take two or three of them to match our void, but the players are out there, China, Japan, England... and there are plenty of buyers and sellers to take our place as well.

Charlatan

Unless the US ceases to conume oil at the rate it does, it will never be able to be isolationist. It has consumed nearly all of its own reserves and *must* import oil or let its economy grind to a halt. The next big need will be water.

Isolationism, as Doc Bungle suggets, is a fantasy.

Since 1801 (when Jefferson sent the US Navy to Tripoli to protect American interests from the Barbary Pirates), the US has been involved in various military actions abroad to protect their interests. This will continue to the case until the US ceases to exist.

The US, while rich in natural resources will always need to go somewhere to import resources (and goods they can't afford to manufacture). Whenever this occurs, there is always the possibility of "friction" with foreign powers.

Check out this link for a complete history of all American battles on foreign soil: LINK

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ASU2003

I think the US needs to focus more on domestic issues. Immigration, poverty, jobs, ownership of resources, and a bunch more. Some days I wish we were like New Zealand, Australia or Scandanavia.

Yes, there are some problems in the world. Should we do something about Dafur? What about Iran? Is Iran really a bad place, or are we brainwashed by the media and government? Pakistan has a nuclear bomb, but we aren't worried too much about them. Pakistan also had an earthquake and couldn't help it's population, kind of like New Orleans here.

I agree that religion is going to play a big part in the next world war. I'm not sure if there is a way for muslims and jews to like each other. There is so much propaganda and actual violence on both sides that something will happen sooner or later. And now that the US needs the oil from the middle east, we are going to get brought into it as well.

We can't continue to spend money at the rate that we are, so either the rest of the world will become peaceful and improve to a basic western standard of living, or there will be disagreements and violence because we are different.

rainheart

I disagree. I believe that following the defeat of Germany and subsequently the collapse of the USSR following the Cold War, the US was forcibly pushed into becoming the staging ground for creating a worldwide corporatocracy (popularly misconceived as 'globalization' which has the false connotation of bringing peace and stability to the world). Given the reliance on fossil fuels however, US energy policy became dependant on foreign oil. Thus, US foreign policy had to be reshaped accordingly. Thus, many sanctioned coups and military interventions ensued with various false pretexts. The US is not the "world police", it is a superpower which uses strong-arm tactics to force its way into securing resources to finish its agenda, and subtle manipulation and public perception management to influence the opinions of its populous. Ultimately I believe this is because the majority of the United States populous has failed democracy.


I belive the ramifications are simple and predictable. The United States will pop the defense spending budget and therefore pop a huge amount of control, decline as a world power and become the subject of the new superpowers that rise in succession to it. Unless a miracle happens and the hunger for dominance subsides.

flstf

It seems to me that Europe, Japan, and possibly China have a lot more at stake in access to foreign Muslim oil supplies than the U.S. It would be interesting to see how they would deal with that part of the world without the U.S. involved. Even if we could become self-sustaining, when their economies collapse I suspect that we would become heavily involved in some sort of worldwide conflict eventually.

Halx

Ok, our dependency on oil is one of the many holes we've gotten ourselves into by focusing too much of foreign policy instead of development of technology. It's not even the deficit.. it's the need for more and more oil. Even if we could pay for all the oil we're borrowing, we'd still need more and more, which forces us into more foreign campaigns. It's not my job to surmise WHY we do this, though i can toss up a few ideas.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

dksuddeth

are you confusing dependence with foreign trade?

being able to supply most of our energy needs would not necessarily make us isolationists. We would still need to compete globally, or be passed up by the rest of the world.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Cut off most if not all international trade. Isolationism is very specific about that. Not just energy or food or goods, but everything.

Charlatan

It's just not practical.

What is your market going to do for the materials it requires to make computers (some elements can only be found outside the US), what about things you've grown used to like bananas?

What will the buying public do when prices have to go way up because the manufacturers can't keep prices low by exploiting cheap labour outside the US?

The cost of living in the US would skyrocket.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

It might not seem practical, but between the econemy continuing to be in a slump, jobs going overseas, our frightening reliance on energy and goods from outside the US, we need to learn to be self reliant in case of an emergency. What if terrorists bombed oil distributers in the Middle East? We'd have to rely on Alaska, Canada, Central America, and the Soviet States (what are they called now?) for our oil, all of which cost a lot more. We'd be in serious trouble. Reserves in the US for oil are a joke compared to our usage. If we were to learn how to use the energy available to us, wind, hydro, solar, biofuels, nuclear, hydrogen, all in congruence with each other, we could breath a sigh of relief and no longer persue oil interests globally. I'd be willing to sacrafice bananas if it meant stabilization and the ability to be self reliant in an emergency. We are stretched too thin.

Halx

To cut off trade, would be like shutting yourself in your room. However, there are countries out there who just like to trade 'cause it's great for their economy. I sure like my bananas. There's no need to get involved with military forces in areas of the world that offer us very little aside from... oil.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Charlatan

The other thing to remember is this... if the US isolates itself, does this mean that all of it's businesses will also take part?

Three off the top of my head:

MacDonald's
Coca-Cola
Microsoft


These corporations have businesses in every continent (maybe with the exception of Antarctica). They represent the USA as much as they do global capitalism.

While I would find it very interesting to see the US pull it's military back to it's borders, it should be noted that the main reason they are there to begin with has little to do with protecting the homefront, and everything to do with protecting it's economic interests.

Again, I suggest you check out this link for a complete history of all American battles on foreign soil: LINK. The vast majority have everything to do with protecting US economic interests.

The US has never really been isolationist rather they tried to stay out of other people's business as long as it didn't interfere with theirs.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

we get most of our oil from mexico, don't we? also, by cutting off relations with countries around the world, all we would see is another 1920s depression as jobs would just disappear. We'd have to industrialize all over again.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Charlatan

Canada is your biggest supplier of oil by far.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

I stand corrected. Thank you good sir.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Mojo_PeiPei

I wonder how far reaching and devastating any attempt at American isolationism would be. Taiwan, or most of Asia for that matter. The Middle East? Africa, I mean sure it's shitty there now, but who knows.

Any attempt at isolationism would be a ginormous step backwards and against our interests in nearly every aspect.

Also to say that America has in the past been isolationist is largely ignorant of history. The only thing that lends to the illusion of this is boundaries and power players in the context. Sure America wasn't the shit in the 19th century, doesn't mean we weren't dicking around in Central America, parts of Asia. Even pre-WWI or at it's offset before our involvement, our trade disparities between the alliances, read billions for England/France, and somewhere around 30 million for Germany, don't tell me that political lip service equates to action.

In one of my classes focusing on American foreign policy, we spent much time talking about isolationism vrs. involvement, a lot came up about how the history of it all. America has never been "isolationist", at least not in any practical sense, it is a platform, in power politics meddling and involvement is a constant and a necessity. By review it is not hard to deduce that people by and large like the concept of isolationism, it comforts them, therefore it has, and will be exploited.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.