Often those who critique the monolithic US war machine and its ever expanding policy definition of US interest are labeled as isolationist or pacifist. Even more so those who look at countries like Libya or Iraq and do not say to themselves “We must find a way to overthrow their government and ‘free’ these people” are deemed not only as isolationist but immoral. Rather than take their critique’s seriously this is a way of attacking a strawman. The reason this is done is because when one looks at the totality of US history and its previous attempts to “expand democracy across the world” you would find a lack of success at such a rate that the ends no longer justify the means. You would be left to conclude it as a failure. Though there are several reasons that many Middle Eastern countries have contempt for America and the West a lot of it has to do with the fact that we are over there and they don’t like it. This is to say that if American presence in the Middle east was reduced to as close to zero as possible much of the problems having to do with the view that America is a imperialist nation would disappear. The middle east is in a vastly worst state post US involvement, in many parts due to US involvement.
President George W. Bush when remarking on President Donald Trump’s push to reduce the number of US troops around the world said, “an isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world,” adding that “we are becoming isolationist and that’s dangerous for the sake of peace.” A common definition of Isolationism is a nation who asserts that its best interests are served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. Usually by refusing to participate in global commerce, political agreements, and foreign entanglements. In economics an isolationist nation would not be for free trade; in fact they would restrict the free purchase and sale of goods between other nations despite the economic windfall of mutually beneficial exchange. Historically many isolationist states either fell behind economically and were eventually too weak to defend their borders or lacked in development because they did not have the opportunity to learn from new ideas that were spreading across the globe. This is one of the main reasons the label of isolationist can be seen as a pejorative. An alternative foreign policy would be non-interventionism. Former President John Quincy Adams recommended a non-interventionist foreign policy when he wrote, “America … goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” Another way of putting it is that it is not the job of America to find villain’s to defeat, nor is it the job of America to be the policeman of the world. Is this not how things have always been? Regional powers handle regional situations in their “hemispheres of operation”. This is the very reason we had the Monroe doctrine in this hemisphere. The Monroe doctrine argued that any intervention in the politics of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the United States; It was a declaration of the US as hegemon of the America’s. Reciprocally, the doctrine declared that the U.S. would recognize and not interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal affairs of European countries.
Yet before long the Monroe Doctrine blended with newly found ideas of Manifest destiny changing the original meaning of the doctrine. “Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined in 1845, is the idea that the United States is destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent (and beyond).” As a result of the blending of the policies the Monroe Doctrine came to mean that the United States would not tolerate the presence of any monarchical polities in the Americas. This led America on a mission to expand its own “influence” further than the Americas.
John Quincy Adams also stated that if America did not continue its policy of Non-interventionism it was doomed to become the “Dictatress” of the world. Non-interventionism offers as an alternative a foreign policy of minding our own business on the global stage, while still participating in friendly relationships and agreements of an economic nature. Societies themselves are complicated enigma’s to think that a government could go out and intervene in an already established society and overtake it and create a new society in their own “image” is one of the most outlandish and dangerous ideals a person of power could hold. Yet the so-called men of prominence seek to go out and remake Afghanistan, or Iraq in the Western image which is antithetical to the supposed values of freedoms America proclaims. If the US practiced a foreign policy of Non-interventionism many of the overseas battles that we have fought and wasted taxpayer dollars on would have been avoided all together.
As stated above when one examines the track record of US interference in the Middle East the case for the continued war effort becomes increasingly dim. Just look at Libya for example. The current state of Libya is one of prior centuries; not only has the growth of their economy been retarded but the freedom of the people themselves has diminished. And this turn of events is true for example after example. The only sensible way forward would be to reduce US presence overseas and to limit the ability of US politicians to find reasons to start new wars. This is to say we need further protections against the government’s ability to continue to oil the war machine.
As Lysander Spooner said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”.
Be First to Comment