Donations from Active Duty Military...

What is isolationism to you? Is not being involved in the internal politics of foreign nations a bad thing? I don't see how being a "non-interventionist", as I see it, is a bad thing. Getting involved in the internal politics of foreign nations leads to complicated alliances and affronts. How does this benefit our national security or well-being in general? I believe it gets us into trouble more often than it helps.

I understand that having tactical placement of bases in key positions of the world may improve our national security, but it really doesn't seem that the extent to which we have them is necessary or prudent.

It wasn't popular when Paul suggested it, which was my point. It was uncommon because most (including the "experienced" Hillary Clinton) bought into the war.

If the US pours so many resources into a region I'd imagine eventually we could turn any mistake into some degree of success. Instead of focusing on taking care of the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans, we decided to push them to the back burner and start a new war that had nothing to do with national security. It had little to do with terrorism, because there are many more countries that are more involved in terrorism. We are approaching 4,000 more deaths, with many times more serious injuries. And an untold number of civilian deaths in Iraq.

The only reason I can think that we went into Iraq is for a long term makeover of the middle east, where changing Iraq into a pro-US base of operations for continued involvement in the middle east was the goal. If this was the goal, it is a long-term and costly project that has weakened and will continue to weaken our national security. Can we really afford to poor trillions of dollars into transforming the middle east? Will China continue to loan us that kind of cash?

China and Russia aren't sitting still while we throw all of our chips into the middle east. Our borders are porous and could use an extensive military presence. Our dollar is taking body blows and is being seriously undermined, largely because of our involvement in Iraq.

"Success" in Iraq will have been very costly and, IMO, the stability of that success will never quite be what we'd like it to be. Not to mention, we may not like what Iraq does with democracy unless we continue to play a significant role in their internal politics. All while our internal politics are going to pot.

Our own nation is in dire need of reform and many of the resources being used abroad could be used at home.

So why do you think in 7 years Iraq will have been a good investment?

 

Warning - this is long. I apologize up front. I don't usually like to Fisk on the forum. But this is a topic I have a fairly detailed opinion about.

I think it is naive, and counter to ALL of our historical lessons, to think the United States can ever again isolate itself in terms of interests and the elements of national power (diplomacy, information, military, economics - DIME). The last two times we tended in that direction (turn of the last century and post WWI), millions of people died globally. And when we isolated ourselves from Southeast Asia, because the "progressives" won the media war, millions more died. We isolated ourselves from Rwanda. Hundreds of thousands died. We isolated ourselves from Darfur. Slow burning tragedy unfolding there. The break apart of the former Yugoslavia required US leadership to avert a much larger tragedy there. The UN is a farce. NATO is barely able to handle small-scale operations in Afghanistan. The US is, by default, in charge.

If your parents die, and you are most capable of taking care of your bratty siblings, you are in charge/responsible whether you like it or not. And whether THEY like it or not.

Those are called relationships. They are quite often troublesome. We usually stick with them because they benefit our interests.

Which, by the way, is the real rub. Folks who advocate isolationism don't believe that US national interests should involve the welfare/internal politics of other sovereign powers. In a perfect world, I take care of my sh!t, you take care of your sh!t - we're good. Alas, the world is neither perfect nor filled with altruism. If you travel much, especially if you've lived among other cultures, you know that these other countries understand the give and take of these relationships FAR BETTER and are FAR MORE ASTUTE at MANIPULATING them than are our doe-eyed isolationists.

Utopia, Reality. Reality, Utopia. Talk amongst yourselves.

Lots wrong with this sentence. First, it's strategic placement, in strategically crucial locations. Second, our national security relies on the wise use of ALL FOUR elements of national power - DIME. If the M is weak, then the other four elements have MUCH less chance of succeeding. And an M that can't react globally in a reasonable time frame is a weak M. If your competition knows that you are a paper tiger, your diplomatic efforts will fall on deaf ears.

Oh, it was popular, in the sense that the Hollywood crowd and the media were against it. Many of the Liberals and isolationists in Congress went with it because, so close to 9/11, they didn't have the stones to say what they really thought.

More to the point, though. Most Congressmen and -women understand the futility of isolationism and the requirement to inject US power in to situations where our national interests and national security are at stake. Call it a lie, call it bad intel, call it just being duped. But the WMD argument plus the FACT that Saddam had ALWAYS harbored terrorists who were willing to do his bidding convinced many that national security was at play.

OK, I'm going to be harsh here. Wake up! This is the cheapest, most blood-free five-year war we've ever waged! Do you honestly think we've poured a ton of resources at this? We've cut the size of the USAF and Navy during this war. We've not raised taxes, we've not significantly increased the size of the military. The VAST majority of Americans have ZERO direct interaction with the war. ZERO! And the vast majority of the civilian deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi. And they are getting very sick of it. And they are NOT blaming the US, although the global anti-war crowd disagrees with those who actually are living and dying there. The Iraqis see American soldiers building schools and roads and fixing sewer lines and helping to establish orderly public services. They see their own countrymen destroying much of this effort. Don't hide your eyes from the truth on the ground. This thing is turning. The only thing that can keep it from turning out in our advantage is our own isolationist/anti-war crowd beating our politicians down again all in the name of their own personal idealism.

Ding, ding, ding.

Yes - I think you've got it.

Ohhhh.....you were so close. That's such a boilerplate slogan, it's tough to know where to start. Engagement in volitile regions of the world that ends in an entire country living a better life precisely because we intervened CANNOT be counter to our national security. What do you think AFRICOM is all about? Altruism? Do you think it's coincidence that radical Islamists are causing or at least aiding almost 90% of the trouble on the African continent, including much if not all of the famine and disease? Oh, and there's a bit of oil in Nigeria. And China is ALL OVER Africa. And if you think the Chinese are altruistic in their international relations, you're kidding yourself.

Is Iraq against our national interests, but Africa (because it strokes politically correct heartstrings) in line with them? IT IS THE SAME FIGHT.

Afford it - yes. China loan us money? Good question. But we shouldn't abandon our role in the world based on our inability to reform our own nannystate. Cause that's where your REAL money gets spent. Dwarfs the defense budget.

So....China and Russia are planning to invade? Our borders will ALWAYS be porous - have you been there? This is a policy problem, not a military problem - red herring argument. The dollar has nothing to do with Iraq. The dollar is weak because we borrow too much and produce too little.

Never is. It's called reality.

OK, two completely different thoughts here. First, I personally think it is (and has been) a mistake to insist on mirror-imaging Iraq's government on our or the British system. Liberalize the economy first, and let a growing and active middle and upper class design the kind of democracy that Iraq needs - not the kind that necessarily works here. The word "democracy" is a distraction. What we're really talking about is a form of government that values personal liberty and follows democratic ideals.

Second, our internal politics are just fine. The media blares on about everything, and the country is voting along pretty stark lines at the moment. However, there are no riots. There is no gross and rampant fraud. Incumbents peacefully concede and hand power over to the newly elected. There is a very real chance that a woman or a black man will be elected President in November. If not, then a Republican who is probably the most palatable Conservative in a long time to most Liberals. Our internal politics are messy, by design, and just fine. Stop hyperventilating.

Dire? No. But we certainly need reform. We have always needed reform. We will always need reform. Dynamism is what makes America great. Stasis is the first sign of decrepitude. Reform is dynamism. But it's not dire. It's just media hype. Sells advertising, don't you know...

Our first real foothold in the Middle East (influence, intelligence, peace keeping)

A weaker Iran and Syria (terrorism, Israel's stability).

A base from which we can deal with the volitile Caucasus region, which we will all be talking about in 7 years.

The start of the moderation of Islamic fundamentalism. (This is more of a hope, but worth the investment)

 

And your point is?

 

We can't be held responsible for shielding the world from evil - the globe is too big and evil will exist wherever free will exists - at least in this world. No matter how hard we try we can't stave off evil by force.

I think it is wrong to treat the rest of the world like bratty children and to assume that we are the only capable caregivers. I think it is also wrong to forcefully take money from US citizens and spend it on things that many US citizens think we shouldn't spend it on.

I really don't think Saddam was the biggest perpetrator of harboring terrorists or that he was a significant threat to the US. It is true that many jumped on the bandwagon, but how does bandwagon jumping justify the Iraq war?

Umm.... how many billions have we spent on this war?

We just totally disagree.

We better right our own ship - we aren't as indestructible as so many seem to think. I don't think an interventionist foreign policy is necessary, especially when we can't get our own sht straight.

You're holding us up to pretty high standards. We should be happy we aren't lawless like so many African countries. Our country is eroding from the inside but you and so many want to see the glass half full. We've had prosperity for so long you seem to think we won't face hard times while I believe hard times are a very real concern. But that's a downer, why bother? F reality.

I appreciate you putting your opinion out there. I don't agree with a lot of it. Others may to varying degrees. It does seem we'll continue intervening around the world as you wish.

 

It's not as "crunch" or any of US would wish, but it will continue to happen. Which is why it's so frustrating. We are EXPECTED to do this and ridiculed if we don't or are too slow to do so.

 

Perhaps. I'm certainly not betting on anything, and just between you, me, and 369 other readers, I think overthrowing the entire Iraqi government was a mistake. But we have to live in the now, not in the what should've been.

Truman was vilified in the late 50s, but real history (vice media sensationalism) has painted a far more favorable picture of him and his policies.

A lot of the anti-war harpees will have to completely respin their comments if they don't succeed in killing our success in Iraq - like they did in Vietnam.

That's a popular opinion, and an interesting characterization. You can make the $$ work out however your world view directs you to do the math. There's a lot of ground between even the worst current estimate and a trillion dollars.

Unfortunately, international relations and homeland security don't have definitive victory parties - you really never absolutely know just how "moderately successful" you were because there's no way to know what might have happened.

At the base of it, the VAST MAJORITY of anti-war sentiment is anti-Bush sentiment in sheep's clothing. And if we leave Iraq without a favorable political solution (not perfect, just favorable), then it will be largely to discredit Bush and prevent a lot of very powerful anit-Bush people (many, many in the media) from having to publicly eat crow - cynical but I think undeniable.