As in the past two excrudescences of isolationism--one in the Thirties and the other in the late Sixties and Seventies--the root cause is the perceived failure of an American war.
In the bitter aftermath of World War I as it became ever more evident that the Great War (as it was often called in those days) had not fulfilled its goals of "making the world safe for democracy" or having been "the war to end war," Americans in large numbers turned against involvement in the brewing turbulence brought about by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. We saw ourselves in essence as being too good for the rest of the world.
The debacle in Vietnam particularly when coupled with the events falling under the general term of "Watergate" served to convince many Americans, particularly those of the Vietnam generation, that we Americans had somehow sinned against both ourselves and the rest of humanity. We came to the ludicrous conclusion that we were not good enough to involve ourselves with others. That we, our government and its policies, were so inherently "evil" that somehow our interaction with other nations would pollute them, drag them down to our level.
We were, of course, as wrong as a mountain lion chirping. The US was neither "too good" nor "too evil" to engage in the great game of nations. Policies may have been wrong, or based on incorrect appreciations of reality, or oversold to the public, but neither the sending of troops to Europe in 1917 nor our interjection into the multi-party internal wars of the Vietnamese were unjustifiable at the time the decisions were made.
The American withdrawal from the world in both the Thirties and again forty years later had no good effect on either the peace or the stability of the international political system. Indeed, a very strong argument can be made for the proposition that in both cases the plague of isolationism and its impact on US policies served to make the world a far less stable and a far more blood drenched place.
Because neither the W. Bush administration or its Obama successor has managed to define, let alone communicate, to We the People the reasons we have been fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan or the better state of peace we anticipate our sacrifices will bring into existence, it is not surprising that a "pox on all their houses" attitude has taken a firm and growing hold on the popular mind. Given that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld regime went about the complex task of waging war in ways that were totally boggling to the historically informed mind--and, as a necessary consequence, brought both prolongation of hostilities and results which have been far from satisfactory--the appeal of isolationism has been made all the greater.
President Obama after months of labor did deliver the troops necessary to bring about an acceptable semblance of "not losing" in Afghanistan. It is regrettable and likely to spur a further growth of isolationist sentiment that he did not explicate his decision in terms relevant to defining either the nature of the enemy or the consequences of failing to achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not-losing" in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of operations. An explication of goals, consequences, and the nature of the better state of peace for ourselves, the Afghans, the Pakistanis, and the rest of the world would (and still will) provide a partial antidote to the isolationist virus.
At bottom it must be recognized that We the People have rarely been totally comfortable with the idea that we are citizens of a Great Power. We have been unwilling to acknowledge that Great Power status places both obligations and limitations on a nation which may not be particularly pleasant to contemplate.
It would be far easier if we were an imperial power; if We the People really did want a government which would extend its writ across the globe--by force of arms if need be. But, the reality is that few among us harbor any delusions of imperial grandeur despite what the political Left both here and abroad might think and say--or as the impetuous words of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might have hinted.
The same poll shows that We the People have an accurate assessment of the power and ambitions of China. The notions of Chinese ascendancy and American isolationism are, obviously, incompatible--really mutually exclusive.
Isolationism would be guaranteed to assure the Gnomes of Beijing (and the very able Vladimir Putin) gaining that most precious of international assets--influence. Those within our midst who want us to "mind our own business" ought to ask themselves if they really want to live in a world where the major actors, the Great Powers of the next several decades, will be China, Russia, and that non-state pretender to great powerdom--Islamist jihadism. The isolationists within us have to ask themselves as well, "Do we want out children, grandchildren to live in that world?"
Ask, and the question brings its own answer.
2 comments:
Good post. The problem, as you note, is that neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has been able to articulate a vision and rationale for what they are doing.
The real sticky point comes with the next administration. Even if it can present a vision and argue it convincingly it may be too late. No nation can thrive without a positive view of the world, itself and the future. For the past thirty plus years all the American visions have been essentially defensive in nature--and no nation prospers on the global stage by defense alone.
Post a Comment