A Theoretical Question about Isolationism

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Is there allowed for a non-American to express his view on this too? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think American isolationism would be very good now for the next decades (excluding trade). The main reason basically that the image of US and its troops is destroyed in most regions, it is seen as an aggressor (even though intentions i.e. in South Korea is otherwise) and thus the US military just seem to put fuel on the fire whereever it sets it foot and this benefits nobody.

The best for the world, would be if it would happen over a decade or so, so that other institutions would be more ready to take over the security responsibility (EU, Arab League, African Union etc.), but no country has the right to demand so, so if US for some reason would go into isolationism quicker the rest of the world should pick up the glove.

As to what would happen, it becomes speculation, but I would think it would differ from region to region. In Europe it would be more or less status quo as EU is powerful enough to provide security to its nations and to the Balkans (despite earlier failure). In Southeast/East Asia it would definately lead to a more powerful China and I guess Taiwan, Philipines and Australia would be worried about it. I don't think it would result in any wars (except maybe an invasion attempt in Taiwan) in this region since China seems to value both peace and trade. In the middle East it would probably gradually lead to the overthrow of some governments and it could also lead to wars. This is a region in which it would be best for it to happen very gradually, but as earlier stated nobody could demand that. I guess Africa is left to its own already so there all the forgotten wars/conflicts would continue. Latin America I have no clue about.

Trade is, on the other hand, a completely different issue. Stop of US trade would be a totally different issue. I have been involved in a few projects that have evaluated risk factors for different critical functions and without revealing to much a sudden stop in imports from US would in many cases lead to much larger negative consequences than most people can grasp. Modern society is built up with a lot of interdependencies and international trade is one of the major ones.

[lehighguy]

Why do we need troops in a country to trade with them? Germany has no troops in France, yet they trade quite a bit. I don't understand.

[ QUOTE ]


Why do we need troops in a country to trade with them? Germany has no troops in France, yet they trade quite a bit. I don't understand.



[/ QUOTE ]

We don't. In fact, I believe we trade with more countries where we don't have military than those where we do.

I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point. If you're asking me a question, or questioning something I posted, will you rephrase it, please? Sometimes I'm a little dense. And I've been known to have a brain-fart or two now and then.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[lehighguy]

"IMO, once we've isolated ourselves, the rest of the world is going to retaliate. They have to. Whether they'll come right out and admit it or not, the rest of the world depends on the US economy, protection and financial aid. Our new policy shuts down all of that. The shutdown directly affects their economies and well being. It now becomes a matter of "national security" (sound familiar?), their survival."
-You

I don't see how say pulling our troops out of Germany or Japan would result in them cutting of trade with us.

[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.

[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.

[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]

>>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.

[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]

[h11]

We know the US has not told the truth. We have no similar reasons to distrust the terrorists. And what they say is logical. They say they want to rule "arabia" free of western influence. Why exactly don't you believe them? In addition, we have the example of the terrorists in Lebanon. Once the US marines and Israeli army got out, they calmed down. They did not follow us nor did they follow the Israelis.