Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I Am Now an Isolationist Republican
I was struck while reading Paul Gigot’s Opinion piece, “The Return of the Isolationist Republicans“, with the realization that I recognize myself and do not think I am wrong.
He lays out his premise with typical skill:
What is most striking is how much this isolationism of the right resembles the traditional isolationism of the left. Isolationists in the Vietnam era argued that America wasn’t good enough for the world. We were baby killers and imperialists. This is the view of today’s pro-Hamas left.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out 20 years ago, the conservative isolationism that flourished in the 1930s argued the opposite—that America was too good for the world. Our republican values shouldn’t be tarnished by the bloody intrigues of Europe or Asia. But the new isolationists on the right now agree with the left that the U.S. doesn’t deserve to lead the world. They say we are too degraded culturally and too weak fiscally to play the role we did during the Cold War. They say we are too woke and too broke.
Yes, we are. My youthful enthusiasm for spreading the “American Way” to improve the world was based on my belief that our ideals as a nation and capitalist markets were better than the alternative. I am not a “my nation, right or wrong” kind of guy. When we are in the right, we should try to spread the wealth and principles to people less well off. When we are lost and looking for ways to right the ship, we should not be proselytizing our fads through the force of markets.
I have a few years to go before I will have lived half my life in this century, and it doesn’t seem much of an improvement. Cell phones are tiny and powerful, and I can use them to summon a bag of birdseed or a muffler to my doorstep. At the same time, we haven’t passed a federal budget this century and declarations of war have given way to a limit on how many days a President can attack a random country before he has to give a speech before Congress.
This “perfect war” in Ukraine is a sad harbinger of things to come. We now fight wars with other people’s lives, using accumulations of weapons long paid for (requiring new contracts to replenish!), financed by dilution of the global money supply. Everyone wins! Except for the Ukrainians, suckers relying on Social Security or 401(k)s, and any manufacturing companies remaining in Europe.
I am now an Isolationist Republican.
Published in General
So why not just create peace, get rid of Israel and import all the Israelis to America? If that’s the standard…
my point was they are fighting for their own sovereignty, not ours. I know it’s a foreign concept to the modern westerner, but having a place that is your own that has roots is a big deal… worth fighting over when it is threatened.
Not for many here- some how Russia attacking Ukraine is our proxy war-a curious understanding of the term. It is in fact, Russia’s proxy war-their target is clearly the US. For Ukraine it isn’t a proxy war at all…
This makes no sense.
You should listen to what Putin and his henchpersons say within Russia and not just to what Russian bots say to their U.S. customers.
Then it is right up your alley!
It isn’t a “US proxy war” because we didn’t start it (altho I am well aware that you blame the US for all problems in the world). Russia initiated the war so as to gain strength vis-à-vis the US and to fragment NATO and isolate the US- aims you would further by your preferred policy. Unfortunately, for Putin he gravely miscalculated-not only did Ukraine valiantly resist, but NATO didn’t fragment, but closed ranks. Bogus claims of blank check writing (BTW:who has called for a blank check?- name them) notwithstanding, we need to up our aid- at least in quality- sending a dozen or so obsolescent ATACMS and slow walking F-16s is foolish. Biden has been leading from behind- we need to actually lead.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/on-atacms-for-ukraine-dont-settle-for-a-job-half-done/
I would add one correction to what MiMac wrote. Their target is not just the U.S., but the West including especially the U.S.
Cool story, bro. How do you intend to pay for it?
In fact, it has been the U.K. and France who have been leading in sending long-range weapons that can reach all of the occupied territory of Ukraine. Yes, that France. The ones that Biden finally sent are harder to shoot down than what the U.K. and France sent, but he waited until a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys showed him up.
Actually, we save money! As the linked article shows, we have hundreds of ATACMS with cluster munitions we plan to decommission (a costly project). We can give them to Ukraine and they will decommission them for us.-with Russian help of course.
I guess it makes no sense to read…..
addendum-the “hundreds” is quoted at 360 ATACMS in fact. BTW- we have hundreds F-16s in the boneyard..
How do you intend to pay the cost of not doing it?
This makes no sense, either. But at least there’s symmetry.
Maybe yes, that statement is isolationist, or maybe no.
If the US had sat down with the government of the Ukraine during the week prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, than it might have been possible for an agreement to be reached that made sense.
Per this agreement, Zelensky & company would have made a commitment to immediately cease any and all militant attacks on the citizens of Eastern Ukraine. Also a serious and enforceable stance that no longer would there be discrimination against people for speaking the language of families that they were born into. To make it a crime to speak Russian was a most evil thing.
As it stands, during the coming cessation of hostilities that have lasted some 21 months, the Ukraine might have to surrender parts of Eastern Ukraine. This is a situation that would not have come about except for the ideas regarding that negotiation is:
One: A sign of weakness (Isolationism is considered that as well.)
Two: Not a strategy that would ever benefit Western societies. (And therefore unwise.)
As far as the notion that Russia was the bad actor in all this, Russian officials have accepted the view that since the 2013-2014 interference in Ukraine’s political processes, the USA has been the big bad and corrupt actor.
Then once the war was ongoing, it has been the USA that vaporized the NordStream II pipeline, which transported Russian fuels to much of Europe. It has been the USA that attacked the Russian palace that is home to Putin.
Of course the elephant in the room is the major reason there was no negotiated settlement back in Jan or Feb of 2021 was because without a war, just how the hell would the Biden Admin have laundered humongous arrays of funds to itself? And also how the hell would Sam Bankman Fried taken billions of dollars of investors, funneled them off to Ukraine, and then schlepped a lot of these funds into the accounts of various Congressional members, including Republicans?
###
He never heard of Frederic Bastiat……
How are you going to pay for it?
You need to read…donating the ATACMS will save money, as I pointed out above in response to your initial post (see #100)- but ignoring and reposting is easier ….
to repeat we have 360 ATACMS missiles we are going to decommission- we can save that cost by giving them to Ukraine, who will dispose of them for us nicely…
BTW-m the $900 you link to (while I doubt the accuracy) is water under the bridge-ie already spent. I would pay for it by clawing back some of the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure /green nude el programs….better spent destroying the Russian army than on windmills and battery subsidies….
Probably why the Jews are fighting for the place they have roots in.
Giving away weapons that we don’t especially want because they aren’t shiny and new is not the same as garbage disposal. Government accounting is always at least somewhat creative.
There is cost associated with moving these weapons and we can ‘decommission’ them just fine in the middle of a desert and train people in the process. Assuming we wanted to in the first place. We don’t always use our latest and greatest stuff on our enemies.
It costs less to give away old weapons than new weapons, so yay for that, but let’s [not] lie to ourselves about it unless we are being paid by the GAO.
Why should the United States force Ukraine to surrender? What business do we have forcing that on them? Of course it makes sense to surrender, but that’s not what Ukraine wants to do. Remember that Biden’s first instinct was to let Russia have another chunk of Ukraine and fly Zelensky to safety, but the Ukrainians did what they thought best for their country.
Zelensky and company made no militant attacks on the citizens of eastern Ukraine other than to fight the invaders. The invaders will tell you otherwise, of course.
There is disagreement in Ukraine over whether they went too far with the language policy in Donbas, but I have not heard anyone say they would have made it a crime to speak Russian. That would be going even further than what Russia did in suppressing the Ukrainian language when it was trying to repress it. (From the czars through the Soviets, suppression of Ukrainian was an on-again, off-again thing.) If Ukraine wants all government business to be conducted in Ukrainian, that would be entirely reasonable. I favor a similar discrimination in the United States. It gets more difficult when you insist that the main language of instruction in schools is Ukrainian, but then it depends on what level of schooling. Other countries have had these issues, too.
I would suggest that in these controversies you check what both sides are saying, and not just believe what one side is telling you.
MiMac (View Comment
As you suggest, placing a value on obsolescent weapons isn’t simple- but we are unlikely to be able to use the old warheads for training since we typically don’t train soldiers on weapons we are phasing out. There is no doubt their value to the Ukrainians greatly exceeds their value & utility for us. The cost to us is quite small.
the ATACMS provided were:
a) close to 30 years old.
b) shorter ranged than more recent models & hence of little use in any conflict in the Pacific (thereby obviating much of the claim we are weaker by donating them).
c) had warheads we are spending money to dispose of.
d) We make 500 current model ATACMS per year-so the dozen or so we provided is less than 2 weeks production.
e) We will very soon switch to the ATACMS replacement- the precision strike missile. This missile will have greatly expanded capabilities.
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/army-inching-closer-to-prsm-fielding-with-successful-qualification-test-flight/
Why did we create and build a system of little use? Kind of unbelievable.
Why did we create and build spears & lances when they are now of little use?
Ding Ding Ding- We know the the winner of the Charles Duell Award for 2023!
why a Bow & arrow when we have clubs?
Rifling Major Ferguson ? What is wrong with the Brown Bess?
gas engine Mr Otto & Ford? What is wrong with a horse?
Wings Orville & Wilbur?- why did we make balloons?
Mr Babbage, Mr Jobs, Mr Kirby, Mr Noyce go home we already have an abacus….