A Theoretical Question about Isolationism

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Why would an isolationist foriegn policy mean we couldn't trade with others?



[/ QUOTE ]

Valid question.

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.

They'll try to bargain. We don't concede - after all, what're they gonna do, attack us? They quite likely would.

Pick a trading partner and, if Shaun will OK this mini-highjacking (you can PM him), I'll try to make a case as I see the problems we'll have with that country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise an interesting issue. Could we completely withdraw militarily and from a foreign policy standpoint, and have any hope of retaining economic policy? I am not sure. I would like to believe that we could, but I'm afraid that we have wrapped ourselves so deeply in these tangled alliances, there is no way out.

I would not be concerned about an isolationist military strategy...that would be fine with me, honestly. But, I would be VERY concerned about the economic impact, because we cannot maintain our current way of life without foreign trade.

[theweatherman]

your still saying that isolating ourseleves militariallywill mean economic isolation as well. An isolated military presence would not lead to a drop in economic power abroad, uinless the military is keeping a float unsound practices (cough cough).

The rest of the world would be hard pressed to reltaliate since trade is a two way street, we get no goods, they get no money. There is little advantage to all out economic isolation, but i do see it as a great thing for limited industries. By isolating key industries (ie manufacture and agriculture) we can support the working class with jobs and further reduce our need to extend power abroad. This will lead to less people getting pissed off at our ruination of their country and thus make us safer from the terrorist boggey man.

[ QUOTE ]


You raise an interesting issue. Could we completely withdraw militarily and from a foreign policy standpoint, and have any hope of retaining economic policy? I am not sure. I would like to believe that we could, but I'm afraid that we have wrapped ourselves so deeply in these tangled alliances, there is no way out.

I would not be concerned about an isolationist military strategy...that would be fine with me, honestly. But, I would be VERY concerned about the economic impact, because we cannot maintain our current way of life without foreign trade.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know exactly how you feel. I wish we could just pull our boots, boats and planes out of the majority of places we have them. I get the impression the DOD is quietly working in that direction. And for two reasons, I think.

Our all-volunteer military works. We've got the absolute, without a doubt, finest overall military on the planet. The problem is they're stretched too thin. They simply can't cope with what's asked of them. Using the Guard and Reserve forces as backup has been going on for a long, long time. But never to the extent it is today.

There are a host of countries that could easily get along without our bases and direct protection. There are a number of strategically located bases we must keep. I know there are a few lists somewhere in the Pentagon. More than a few scenarios have generated them.

Sadly, what it seems to get down to is the economic impact you mentioned. The amount of money we spend on our military outside our borders is staggering. No country wants to lose it. Hell, you've seen the hardball politicians and "concerned citizens" play right here at home when a local military facility, no matter how small, gets on the cut list. Our "tangled alliances" are on both sides of the waters.

So, IMO, the answer to your question is, regretably, no. Not in one fell swoop, anyway. And not without making compensation somehow.

[Shaun]

Just to clarify the original question, we would still be able to trade freely as long as other nations were still interested in that.

[ QUOTE ]


Just to clarify the original question, we would still be able to trade freely as long as other nations were still interested in that.



[/ QUOTE ]

That's not clarification. You've added a condition.

Another small point: In your OP you said we suddenly agreed to pullout. I thought you'd mis-stated and meant, suddenly decided. That would mean a unilateral decision by us and unilateral is more than just frowned on by the rest of the world.

Even if we somehow miraculously got other countries to agree with our military pullout, I don't think we can maintain trading partnerships because you've also stopped all our direct and indirect monetary support. You've started the snowball down the hill.

We simply cannot isolate ourselves. As much as I'd like to - frequently. It's not only not practical, we have this "humanitarian thing" about us. There's no way we aren't going to help when tsunami's and earthquakes happen. We will not let Israel cease to exist. We will not let China take over Taiwan. And the list goes on.

But your premise made for interesting discussion.

NT

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
We simply cannot isolate ourselves. As much as I'd like to - frequently. It's not only not practical, we have this "humanitarian thing" about us. There's no way we aren't going to help when tsunami's and earthquakes happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read the OP as saying individuals would be prevented from helping, only that the government would not provide aid. How much Tsunami relief was donated by private US individuals as compared to the "official" government contribution?

[zipo]

The idea of American isolationism is very appealing, actually.

Adopting a posture of total non-intervention and neutrality, like Switzerland, is something I would support strongly - and I know the number of Americans who think this way is increasing.

We need to stop being the worlds police force - immediately, and focus on domestic issues and trade with friendly nations. Of course this policy would include the doctrine that we respond with massive and catastrophic force against any nation sponsoring terrorism against us at home.

It's time we stopped setting ourselves up as targets for the ignorant and bigoted. Let the world solve its problems without us.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of American isolationism is very appealing, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]
So appealing, it has been tried before. How well did it work out the last time...?

[zipo]

>>So appealing, it has been tried before. How well did it work out the last time...?<<

Times are different now. Currently, whenever we intervene, we are reviled and hated.

When we intervened in the Balkans in the 90's and prevented the mass murder of muslims and pacified a potentially explosive situation while Western europe sucked its collective thumb, what benefit accrued to us? They hate us - Orthodox Christian Serbs, Bosnian muslims - everyone.

When we tried to intervene in Somalia - what happened? They slaughtered our boys and cheered as they dragged their corpses through the streets.

We have 40,000 troops as a 'trip wire' protecting the people of South Korea from invasion by the north. What appreciation do we get for this? Anti-american riots, US troops spat upon, anti-US propaganda.

When are the citizens of this country going to wake up? All we are getting for our altruism and humanitarianism abroad is hatred in return.

It's just time to get out.

[ QUOTE ]


I didn't read the OP as saying individuals would be prevented from helping, only that the government would not provide aid. How much Tsunami relief was donated by private US individuals as compared to the "official" government contribution?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I said anything about individuals. If my words implied it, that was unintentional.

Individuals, philanthropic foundations, The Salvation Army, The Red Cross, etc., will always find a way to help people suffering from a disaster. They also help in situations that don't qualify as a disaster. Their purpose has nothing to do with government policy and I hope they'll always do what they feel is right.

I usually have faith in their stewardship of the money they are trusted with. I can't quote the dollar figure any of them have contributed in comparison to what our government kicked in. I believe most of them, if not all, publish the numbers, proudly. It wouldn't be hard to total the numbers and compare them. Probably, the private donations, in total, are much higher.