A Theoretical Question about Isolationism

[zipo]

>>Is there allowed for a non-American to express his view on this too?<<

Of course. The more the merrier [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

But as a practical matter, the new American isolationism wouldn't be total.

We would of course continue our relationship with Great Britain and Australia, and Japan as well. An attack on any of these nations would meet with American response.

Politically, it would be difficult to abandon Israel, but that would be desirable. The Israelis have more than enough capacity to defend themselves against any attack from muslim nations, although such defense would not be restrained or moderated. Muslim nations should be careful about what they wish for here (i.e. withdrawal of American military support), as the Israelis on their own will be much less inclined to dialog and restraint in the face of aggression.

Taiwan is also a difficult issue, but the downside of a confrontation with China trumps our commitment there. Taiwan would be on its own, unfortunately.

Europe would also be on its own - they have more than adequate resources to defend itself against any threat from Russia or from pressures from islamic immigration that will emerge in the next 20 years or so. In any case, we need to totally abandon any mutual defense assistance in the case of Europe (with the stated exception of Great Britain).

Having said this, US withdrawal from its role as world 'policeman' will result in more conflict worldwide, not less. America just needs to accept the idea that this is no longer her problem.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]

Politically, it would be difficult to abandon Israel, but that would be desirable. The Israelis have more than enough capacity to defend themselves against any attack from muslim nations, although such defense would not be restrained or moderated. Muslim nations should be careful about what they wish for here (i.e. withdrawal of American military support), as the Israelis on their own will be much less inclined to dialog and restraint in the face of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree (I agree with Zipo on a Middle East issue? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]). It is the reason why I wrote that for the Middle East (jews as arabs) it would be best if it happened gradually since the US currently is keeping pressure on both sides in a few of the conflicts there and thus sudden power vacuum could lead to wars. However, it is not US' responsibility to have that role, neither does the US seem to make any progress on solving the underlying problems so longterm the current policy is just a postponing of conflicts.

[ QUOTE ]
Taiwan is also a difficult issue, but the downside of a confrontation with China trumps our commitment there. Taiwan would be on its own, unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on this is that Taiwan would be pushed into some sort of Chinese union, keeping some autonomy.


[ QUOTE ]
Europe would also be on its own - they have more than adequate resources to defend itself against any threat from Russia or from pressures from islamic immigration that will emerge in the next 20 years or so. In any case, we need to totally abandon any mutual defense assistance in the case of Europe (with the stated exception of Great Britain).

[/ QUOTE ]
Many Europeans are a bit silly when it comes to this, since they do not want to support US policy but still they want NATO to be an important factor. Europe's policy should be a European mutual defence agreement, IMO, probably one that excludes Britain since Britain isn't seriously interested in taking part.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said this, US withdrawal from its role as world 'policeman' will result in more conflict worldwide, not less. America just needs to accept the idea that this is no longer her problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

More conflicts, short term, undoubtly, but also an opportunity to find solutions. I.e. the current regime in Saudi Arabia represents no future for the region, a more Turkey-like society could develop if US influence was reduced.

[zipo]

>>However, it is not US' responsibility to have that role, neither does the US seem to make any progress on solving the underlying problems<<

We agree here too. My head is spinning [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Triumph36]

No, it would not be beneficial - the aid is to keep trade running smoothly, and the military is to ensure petty conflicts don't become larger. This is a gross oversimplification, but so is the original question.

As for the claim that the United States should close bases around the world - huh? You're not getting those bases back once you close them. They're a huge strategic advantage. I suggest some people re-read their Thucydides - Athens essentially ran a protection racket after it won the Persian War. The United States followed that example after World War II.

[zipo]

>>No, it would not be beneficial - the aid is to keep trade running smoothly, and the military is to ensure petty conflicts don't become larger<<

Well, I agree that in the simplest terms, the objective of US policy isn't hegemony, it's stability - keeping markets relatively free and open, and aiding in development to promote same.

The problem is that where we intervene, we get blowback - this even happens where our aims are relatively altruistic (e.g. the balkans, somalia). Honestly, the US almost singlehandedly prevented genocide in the Balkans and prevented a major conflict that would have embroiled all the balkan nations, greece, and turkey - and we did it with a minimum of bloodshed and collateral damage. And we are still hated for it.

With a relatively isolationist policy, we would still maintain good trade relations with the EU and pacific rim. We would just have to abandon the middle east, central asia, and africa, and korea.

The problematic area would be latin america - but we could let that region go too provided we secure our borders adequately.