Muscular Isolationism?
Ambassador Eikenberry let loose on Hamid Karzai the other day, giving voice to collective American anger and disgust with the Afgan mess and, by extension, the entire duplicity and triple-dealing on the part of another ungracious aid recipient Pakistan. Americans favor withdrawal after a decade in Afghanistan, but they are torn; on the one hand, they have dealt crushing blows to both the Taliban and al Qaeda and have given Afghan women and the oppressed a shot at something better than theocracy, and feel that a stable Afghanistan is within reach and would justify the vast cost in blood and treasure incurred thus far. On the other, they feel that the training wheels have been on as long as they can, and now it is up to the rider to crash or ride. In the event of chaos after our departure, a new doctrine of 'more rubble, less trouble' will inevitably characterize the next response to a terrorist attack on the U.S. originating from the Hindu Kush, without much worry whether such reprisals "destabilize" the region, or "do nothing to promote stability". Been there, done that summarizes the current collective American feeling.
In general, we are seeing on the Republican side a new muscular isolationism, perhaps even a Jacksonian spirit, of hoarding our assets, cutting foreign aid, ending nation building, and only responding to clear and present dangers, and doing so in an overwhelmingly lethal manner, without much worry about nation-building in the aftermath. We know in our heads things are never so simple, and wars are not really won until a defeated or demoralized enemy also accepts the victor's political demands, and yet in our hearts we are sick and tired of intervening and then spending lives and money on those who hate us.
Politically, we are starting to see the emergence of a weird partisan flip-flop. Republicans are reverting to a new isolationism that the hard left supports; the one for purposes of national interest, the other in shame that American action abroad is purportedly wrong and amoral. In contrast, the once avid war critic Obama who damned Iraq, Guantanamo, tribunals, renditions, preventive detention, Predators, wiretaps, and intercepts—and quite openly demagogued those issues for partisan advantage in both his senate and presidential races—now has followed the Bush-Petraeus plan in Iraq, escalated in Afghanistan, started a third war in Libya, and on the sly is using assets to bomb targets in Yemen, while suddenly voicing support in the abstract for Arab democratic unrest.
So we see those in 2006 who opportunistically reviled Bush for partisan purposes on Iraq and the war on terror—Clinton, Kerry, Obama most prominently—now trying to muster support for a Bush agenda in the Middle East.
Stranger than fiction.
- Comment (61)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
You beat me to this post, Victor. I'd been storing it up all day.
An era of American isolationism is, I think, at hand. It's been coming for a while. Usually I find myself reporting to Americans from abroad, but this is a message I'd like to try to pass on from America to the rest of the world: You're about to get what so many of you say you want--an American retreat from the world stage. It will probably end as these periods of American isolationism usually end. But that's up to you.
Apr '11
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
I think this is inevitable. The rules of engagement on the battle front means that our enemies will never be brought to their knees where we can then impose our political will. They only scatter to the known safety of a hospital, cave, bordering "friendly" country, mosque, etc where they are comforted by our divided loyalties here at home, knowing that they only need to wait it out.
In past wars, the enemy always made the miscalculation that the US would not have the stomach for a prolonged and bitter fight - only to find a mobilized nation, unified and willing to fight to the end. Nowadays, that calculation is actually the safest bet and I imagine enemy strategy is based on this reality!
Edited on Jun 22, 2011 at 6:23amSep '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
The irony is something to see. Uncle Barak has found foreign policy to be strangely unaffected by his own well of personal charisma.
I tend to be isolationist myself and have a lot of trouble reconciling our current crop of conflicts into any coherent, understandable theme. This was true when W was in as well, but when you compare the transparency and leadership of Bush trying to convince the nation to follow him to war against Obama's puny efforts, the contrast is astounding to me.
Why Libya and why not Syria? Why not Iran or even China for that matter! With the domestic fiscal crisis these things seem like sideshows far away with tenuous payoffs and painful investments.
Mar '11
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Hooray for muscular isolationism! It is the good-hearted stuff that gets the US into trouble, because so often it is virtually impossible to achieve. Or most certainly very expensive.
If Nation A supports terrorists against Nation B, Nation B should feel entitled -- if it can pull it off -- to topple the government of Nation A, and then leave Nation A to sort itself out. Had I had my way, in Iraq the US would have commenced withdrawal the day after it found Saddam Hussein. That alone would have provided a salutary lesson to any successor regime, and to many other trouble-making regime.
The way things are at the moment, with Hamid Karzai regularly bad-mouthing the US, I am reminded of Tom Wolfe's fine essay: 'Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers'.
Aug '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
The accountant's ledger book has no agenda, and like gravity, draws us down to earth. Or you could say it's the brick wall of reality we're running into after decades of delusion and debt. We've allowed bad leadership to infest our highest ranks of government, from finance, to defense, to economic and social policy. Now the bills are coming due.
We can choose certain economies now, or have them forced on us later when events dictate immediate action.
Edited on Jun 22, 2011 at 6:30amMay '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Rubble does make trouble. Is Somalia anything but trouble?
The only way to have a "Bomb them, and bomb them some more" policy is to not have a republic. The American people will not allow a foreign policy that is just bombing populations into the stone age.
Personally, I would love an imperial foreign policy, and a republican domestic one. Alas, not only can you not have that in the real world, it seems we are moving towards the reverse each day.
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
I think that you mistake Barack Obama. His only real concern is his re-election, and it is through that prism that he views Afghanistan and even Libya. He was pushed into the latter by the likes of Hillary Clinton -- on the presumption that our involvement would last days, not months. My bet is that he gets out of Afghanistan in the hopes of shoring up his fraying coalition.
The Democrats tend to think that interventions are justified -- if and only if our national interests are not at stake and the United Nations sanctions the intervention. The Republican position should be that interventions cannot be justified unless our national interests are at stake.
The real debate should turn over this crucial question: What are our national interests? My own view is that -- in a nuclear age and a time in which our economy is closely intertwined with the global economy -- our security interests abroad are quite extensive, and there is no substitute for prudence. I thought the Iraq venture worth it. I have never thought that we could permanently redirect Afghanistan. When viewed from the perspective of security, you have to pick your fights with care -- and win them.
Nov '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
So... what about genocide?
Apr '11
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Just in time for a sharp jump in the number of failed states (Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe, Congo, CAR, Kenya, Guinea, Haiti, Côte d'Ivoire, Afghanistan the next ME or N. Africa country to melt down completely, Pakistan?, Mexico?, Nigeria?), burgeoning gangster government (Cambodia, Myanmar, North Korea, Venezuela, Turkmenistan), the death of Keynesian Social Democracy, the advent of new regional hegemons (Iran, Turkey, China, Venezuela) and the rapid growth of militant Islam. The neo-cons, the leftist R2Pers, and the military industrial complex will not go gently into that good night.
Jun '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Ho Chi Minh when asked about the significance of the French Revolution was quoted as saying "too soon to tell." The same is probably true about our intervention in Iraq. None of us will be around long enough to know one way or another.
The lesson I take from both Iraq and Afghanistan is that the US should never intervene directly in a tribal feud. Our use of the Northern Alliance to topple the Taliban was a brilliant move at a minimal cost. In retrospect placing American troops on the ground to support the Karzai governmen looks to me like a costly mistake. If the Pushtun are the Taliban and the Taliban are Pushtuns, it seems to me that indirect support for anti-Pushtun/Taliban factions would be the better strategy. If fratricide is the national pastime in this so-called nation, let them have at it.
Aug '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
if the USA withdraws from these conflicts, will they fester until the new "powers" in China and India deem it necessary to protect their corporate interests ?
After all, if blood for oil was ever going to be a successful meme, it needed the proof that only a China could provide.
Will we being experiencing schadenfreude as we sit on our hemisphere far from the fires or will the lobbyists for multinational corporations be badgering Congress to "protect our interests", or both ?
Is the Pentagon reflexively pitching in for further commitments , seeing a drop in funding per a new peace dividend ?
The dysfunction and chaos caused by Hussein can't begin to equal Iran's meddlesome terrorism and sponsorship of unrest. While they attempt to usurp the Soviet counterpart position, their Shia death culture adds an edge not seen in the bland evil of collectivism. Why did we choose Iraq to vanquish rather than Iran ? Because of our past support of the Khomeini regime ? But then we sided with Iraq against Iran ....I'm confused.
Apr '11
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Instead of Jacksonian Isolation have you considered the possibility of the desire to leave the mess in the world behind as being "Toynbee-esque?" I'm thinking of his notion of the "Withdrawal and Return" of once dominant civilizations. If ever there was a case to be made for taking some time off to "Get Your Head Right," I would say Britain and America are the two prime candidates. Both have a muddled if not self-destructive view of what kind of society they aspire to be and their stumbles in the world reflect that confusion.
Dec '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Hey, Prof. Rahe:
When no less than VDH starts coming over to the dark side of muscular isolationism inhabited by scalawags like me and Rep. Paul the interventionist wing of the conservative movement better start doing some reflection.
I dearly hope for that delicious schadenfreude.
Sep '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
I believe, as I have stated before, that the War Powers Act is the law that makes these weird flip flops possible. If Congress had to actually declare war before we went into countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore have responsibility for the military action carried out there, then I believe we would either get involved less often, or that our policies and strategies once there would be much different.
I can see muscular isolationism work only if we truly bomb the hell out of those who do us harm to such a degree that not even the most insane radical Islamist would dream of terrorizing us. As I do not believe that we would ever do that, I do not see isolationism working.
Short of that, I would like to see us cut foreign aid back drastically. And while we are at it, defund the United Nations.
Aug '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
I believe muscular isolationism is a form of calisthenics.
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
I suspect our answer will be "too bad." I am predicting this, not endorsing it.
Aug '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Midge - after a period of calisthenics can we evolve to aerobic observance of much lesser impact ?
Sep '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I suspect our answer will be "too bad." I am predicting this, not endorsing it. · Jun 22 at 8:12am
I am very nearly immune to the claim of genocide at this point. It has been pulled out so frequently and used with such disdain for the truth that I can no longer believe it. Familiarity breeds contempt in this case.
How can, for example, a people (like say the Palestinians) be victims of a genocide when their population is growing at a rate far in excess of their "oppressors".
Genocide has entered the post-factual, post-objective-truth world where nothing means anything.
Nov '10
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I suspect our answer will be "too bad." I am predicting this, not endorsing it.
More often than not it's something along the lines of "never again."
May '11
Re: Muscular Isolationism?
If you will remember, we chose S. Korea instead of China and the USSR. We chose Cuba instead of the USSR. We Chose Viet Nam instead of the USSR. We chose Iraq instead of Iran because of Russian support for Iran.
Since WWII, we have chosen to fight through proxy instead of confronting the actual source of the problem. This is a direct result of nuclear proliferation. We are allowing it to happen again when we allow a nuclear Iran.