The New Isolationists
by Melvyn_Fein
 Politics
February 28, 2012 04:04 PM | 1502 views | 1 1 comments | 19 19 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Once upon a time Republicans were isolationists and Democrats were internationalists.  Then, after Eisenhower became president, the parties began swapping roles.  Recently, with the advent of the Gulf and Afghanistan Wars, the Democrats have emphasized their distrust of foreign adventures.

Now we see the Libertarians joining this discussion.  They are clearly intent on re-establishing an America-First mentality among conservatives.  Ron Paul has been the most vocal in this endeavor.  Yet he is far from alone.  Many of those who claim that freedom is their over-riding concern also wish to free us from overseas adventures.

Paul insists that we should not be spending our dollars abroad.  He further argues that countries, such as Iran, should be able to set their political agendas without interference from us.  As he as put it, if we would not appreciate external pressures, why should we inflict these on others?

John Stossel too has advocated a new isolationism.  He has encouraged our government to get out of Afghanistan on the grounds that we have been there long enough.  Besides, our efforts at nation building have clearly failed; hence we should learn our lessons and come home.

At a recent gathering on young libertarians, Stossel quizzed John Bolton about these matters, and when Bolton argued for finishing the job we started, the audience erupted in agonized booing.  These young ideologues felt compelled to express their disdain for international military actions as forcefully as they could.

When Bolton was then asked when he would withdraw from Afghanistan, he replied, “When the job is done.”  To this Stossel responded that we had already provided the ungrateful Afghans with enough blood and treasure.  Why not let them settle their own problems by themselves?

But that was not—and is not the issue.  We did not go to Afghanistan in order to help the Afghans.  We went in order to protect ourselves from further terrorist attacks.  The question regarding when we should leave therefore comes down to when we can be sure we are safe.

Setting a date at which we should leave is not about the cost, in lives or dollars, but about conditions on the ground.  If we leave prematurely, what happens if there is another 9/11?  Worse still, what if Afghanistan provides a staging area for an atomic attack on New York, Washington—or Atlanta?

What will the nouveau-isolationists say then?  The young do not remember the price paid for refusing to stop Hitler before the wehrmacht began rolling.  Nor do they recall that we did not stop fighting the Nazis until they were decisively defeated.

When you are attacked—and we were attacked—you do not stop defending yourself until the enemy desists.  The radical Islamists are not trying to kill us because we interfered with their self-government.  To the contrary, we are seeking to dismantle their infrastructures because they are trying to kill us.

Only ideologues—or those with a death wish—refuse to recognize who started what.  Only they insist that we set time limits on self-defense.

If the rest of us listen to them, the time will come when we will not have to spend money on military activities—because we will have been defeated.

Comments
(1)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Laura Armstrong
|
February 29, 2012
Thank you for the thoughtful blog Dr. Fein. I found myself last week agreeing for the first time ever with Geraldo Rivera when he said, "Once upon a time I knew why we were there in Afghanistan, now I don't."

This president has neglected this effort, leaving it up to a military that does go to the ends of the earth to take it to the bad guys. After ten years and many thousands of bad guys attrited (if that's a word) it's finally time to declare victory there and bring the big units home. Let Afghanistan be an operating ground for SpecOps and a test range for the drones. After this latest fiasco with the accidental kuran burnings, it's more than obvious that any Muslim country, especially one as backwards and unwilling to modernize as Afghanistan, is NO LONGER worth our blood and treasure. Note I said NO LONGER. Nothing should diminish the lives lost and sacrifices already made.

Right now, bad guys from Iran, Syria and other Muslim countries protest outside the gates of our embassy in Kabul and outside our base at Bagram. In just a few short weeks, these guys will be hidden in the countryside, laying IEDs for our troops. As the rules of engagement go now, they're free to protest before the cameras, posing as Afghani countrymen. If we were really there to win, we'd be taking them out NOW, enemy combatants. But instead Obama apologizes! When presidential policy gets this screwed up, it's time to bring them home. Not isolationist, but pragmatic.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides