Should we go back to being an isolationist country, after Afghanistan?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

After ten years of constant skirmishes and fighting a guerilla war with Al-Queda and The Taliban. Should we as a nation fall back and become a defensive power again. Just like we were before World War One and World War Two. Our economy can no longer handle the rising costs of maintaning a very long and progressive war against an enemy who is so good at blending in, we have a difficult time even seeing them?
My question to lead this debate is that is it possible that the United States of America can go back to being isolationist after decades of having been deemed "The Worlds Police Force"? If we can, how would that look like? If we cannot? Why and what would be the reasoning behind it.

I perfer we go back to isolationism. Leave the affairs of the middle east alone. Let someone else handle the Straight of Homuz. Not concern ourselves with South China Sea. Stop importing oil from the middle east and exploit our oil resource here in the states. Seal our borders just to get a handle on illegal immigration. Pull the last of our troops from Germany and Italy and reassign them back home. Along with 5th Fleet. Those troops station in South Korea I'm 50/50 on since technically we're still at war with the North.

No longer be the major supporter of any UN actions. Withdaw from Bosnia and Kosovo missions. Turn a blind eye if Isreal goes off the hook on some middle east country. Taiwan I believe we're to commited to. Withdraw/limit/do away with foriegn aid to certain countries. Turn Nato over to a prominent european nation to lead. (UK or Germany)

Basically limit US involvement around the world to "nil" impact and focus on rebuilding the US from within. Rebuilding that covers a wide range within the US. With the US military primary focus on defense of the US of A

**juraigamer**

We could if we put enough nuclear power plants and electric cars into the country, until them we fight while they still bleed oil.

**Pacific**

I, and I think a large percentage of the world's population (with a few notable exceptions), would undoubtedly say yes. As you say, from many different perspectives it would seem to make sense.

The problem is that a phenomenon within the US, called the 'Military-Industrial complex', that would like to say otherwise. It doesn't matter that this group of economic and political motivators consist of only the tiniest of demographics within the US, or that it might ultimately be costing the US more money than they are making; this group has tremendous political leverage within Washington. And while it's an extremely uncomfortable thing to consider, I can't imagine the situation improving.

Here is a quote from Eisenhower in 1961 and his farewell speech, which I think was remarkably prophetic:

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

**azazel the cat**

Uh, when exactly has the US been an isolationist country?

You are aware that your navy was founded with the intention of fighting the Barbary States, right?

**Jihadin**

Uh, when exactly has the US been an isolationist country?

Pre WWII

If the mission of the military was to be changed the "military industrial complex" has no say in the matter. They would go on producing in "limited" quantities cutting edge weapon tech

Remember this would probaly take out a huge chunk of defense spending that everyone clamoring about to do

**Surtur**

Jihadin wrote:
After ten years of constant skirmishes and fighting a guerilla war with Al-Queda and The Taliban. Should we as a nation fall back and become a defensive power again. Just like we were before World War One and World War Two. Our economy can no longer handle the rising costs of maintaning a very long and progressive war against an enemy who is so good at blending in, we have a difficult time even seeing them?
My question to lead this debate is that is it possible that the United States of America can go back to being isolationist after decades of having been deemed "The Worlds Police Force"? If we can, how would that look like? If we cannot? Why and what would be the reasoning behind it.

I perfer we go back to isolationism. Leave the affairs of the middle east alone. Let someone else handle the Straight of Homuz. Not concern ourselves with South China Sea. Stop importing oil from the middle east and exploit our oil resource here in the states. Seal our borders just to get a handle on illegal immigration. Pull the last of our troops from Germany and Italy and reassign them back home. Along with 5th Fleet. Those troops station in South Korea I'm 50/50 on since technically we're still at war with the North.

No longer be the major supporter of any UN actions. Withdaw from Bosnia and Kosovo missions. Turn a blind eye if Isreal goes off the hook on some middle east country. Taiwan I believe we're to commited to. Withdraw/limit/do away with foriegn aid to certain countries. Turn Nato over to a prominent european nation to lead. (UK or Germany)

Basically limit US involvement around the world to "nil" impact and focus on rebuilding the US from within. Rebuilding that covers a wide range within the US. With the US military primary focus on defense of the US of A

Why? You basically want the US out of international politics. That doesn't work anymore. It no longer takes a 3 month ocean voyage to send a letter to the King of England. The US built allies and relations and stands to lose far more than it would gain by dropping everything.

**azazel the cat**

Jihadin, did you actively ignore one of the two sentences in my post?

Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

So I guess I'll ask once more: when, exactly, was the US an isolationist country?

**Jihadin**

Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

I'm talking about now

but
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

**ShumaGorath**

We don't need to be isolationist, we just need to not be utterly idiotic in how we prosecute wars. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were bushes pet projects and were politicized and corrupt down to their core.

Just just need to stop doing gak like that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

I'm talking about now

but
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

Yeah. Isolationist. That's why we have california. That's why we exterminated the native Americans. That's why we went to war with Spain. Clearly we were isolationist up until the second world war (not even the first). It's not like manifest destiny existed before that. Barf.

**Tadashi**

YES, YES, YES! At last we're free!

**whembly**

ShumaGorath wrote:We don't need to be isolationist, we just need to not be utterly idiotic in how we prosecute wars. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were bushes pet projects and were politicized and corrupt down to their core.

Just just need to stop doing gak like that.

THIS! ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'll take it a step further... If and only IF, we go to war... then, we need to go balls out on the WAR. None of this "we need to be careful so that we don't hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeling..." or any of this Excessive Force crap. Go MOAB-ish on the objective, achieve it, and get out. Otherwise, don't bother.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Pre-WWII the US was not isolationist; and my question was mostly rhetorical. In addition to the Barbary States, the US Navy was also a big fan of annoying the Hell out of Japan and flexing imperialistic muscles on the Philippines, and getting all up in China's problems, too, and even taking police actions against Nicaraugua.

I'm talking about now

but
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

Yeah. Isolationist. That's why we have california. That's why we exterminated the native Americans. That's why we went to war with Spain. Clearly we were isolationist up until the second world war (not even the first). It's not like manifest destiny existed before that. Barf.

**Jihadin**

Going to war with another country doesn't favor anyone. Putting boots on ground doesn't favor us. Plus I much rather not have some of you all or your kids to experience combat. If we were to go to war well by all means "tomahawk" their bridges, military production facilities, railways, and whatever have you to financialy break them and grind their economy to a halt.

**CT GAMER**

Jihadin wrote:
After ten years of constant skirmishes and fighting a guerilla war with Al-Queda and The Taliban. Should we as a nation fall back and become a defensive power again. Just like we were before World War One and World War Two. Our economy can no longer handle the rising costs of maintaning a very long and progressive war against an enemy who is so good at blending in, we have a difficult time even seeing them?
My question to lead this debate is that is it possible that the United States of America can go back to being isolationist after decades of having been deemed "The Worlds Police Force"? If we can, how would that look like? If we cannot? Why and what would be the reasoning behind it.

I perfer we go back to isolationism. Leave the affairs of the middle east alone. Let someone else handle the Straight of Homuz. Not concern ourselves with South China Sea. Stop importing oil from the middle east and exploit our oil resource here in the states. Seal our borders just to get a handle on illegal immigration. Pull the last of our troops from Germany and Italy and reassign them back home. Along with 5th Fleet. Those troops station in South Korea I'm 50/50 on since technically we're still at war with the North.

No longer be the major supporter of any UN actions. Withdaw from Bosnia and Kosovo missions. Turn a blind eye if Isreal goes off the hook on some middle east country. Taiwan I believe we're to commited to. Withdraw/limit/do away with foriegn aid to certain countries. Turn Nato over to a prominent european nation to lead. (UK or Germany)

Basically limit US involvement around the world to "nil" impact and focus on rebuilding the US from within. Rebuilding that covers a wide range within the US. With the US military primary focus on defense of the US of A

Is it April Fool Day again already?

Too much money to be made to do anything as silly as what you suggest...

**Jihadin**

LOL it might happen when the automatic defense cuts go into play.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

IN my Administration, you'd be the head DoD.

Right on!

**CT GAMER**

whembly wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

IN my Administration, you'd be the head DoD.

Right on!

We have too many economic interests rooted outside the US to ever do what you describe.

Stock portfolios and big buisness will never allow it...

**KalashnikovMarine**

It's a bit of a compromise for the business of the military too, the big money isn't in millions of troops, it's in ships, missiles and planes and we need those even in peace time.

**Amaya**

Better yet, go to a policy of any terrorist activity against America will lead to us nuking you until any survivors grow additional limbs and extra eyes.

Of course if we weren't gakking around in the Middle East and establishing aggressive states in land promised to Arabs we probably wouldn't be having this problem to begin with.

**Tadashi**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm a fan. Keep the Airforce and Navy shored up, leave the Marines alone for the most part and the SOCOM community and pare down the bulk Army significantly, leaving a core of battle experienced and hardened regiments. You can always train up footsloggers and cannon cockers fast quick and in a hurry, laying the keels for new ships and producing new squadrons of fighters takes time. Expeditionary combat forces and SF teams are blue/green and black respectively and quite the tool for crisis management, brushfires that need a quick stomp and disaster relief.

Pull all US military forces out of europe leaving two major transit hubs. Say Rammstein and whichever base we fly out of in the UK (spacing at the moment)

Honor traditional alliances (Taiwan, South Korea, etc) maintain US Naval presence and "freedom of the seas" but otherwise tell everyone to feth off and solve their own problems is they didn't just get rolled by a tsunami or something.

We stop playing world police, still maintain force projection and humanitarian and aid and can drop our military budget.

Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

**KalashnikovMarine**

We're already leaving Japan, well Okinawa at any rate.

**Jihadin**

Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

I thought you were in the Phillapines?

**GalacticDefender**

Mine the moon for Helium 3 I say.

Tis the solution to all of our energy problems.

And by Isolationist, I hope you don't mean abandoning relations with other countries. Because the whole USA, Russia, EU, Japan, etc all work well together when it comes to space exploration. Seriously, if the US and Russia can get past their differences in space, why the feth not down here on Earth?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, the concept of countries annoys me even. I don't see America as the greatest country in the world, nor do I see any other country as the greatest country in the world. There are plenty of other awesome countries, and to isolate ourselves from the world would be a very regressive, dumb thing to do.

**AustonT**

Tadashi wrote:
Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

Bwahahaha! Are you fething kidding? The US wants Japan to amend Article 9 so that they can count on Japan's full fledged support for the war on terror abroad and, of course, the inevitable war with China.
You already have your midget carriers, in sum: what exactly are you on about?

**Tadashi**

Jihadin wrote:
Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

I thought you were in the Phillapines?

I am because its too cold for my mother in Japan (she's a Filipina and I'm a half-blood) - but I'm a Japanese subject.

AustonT wrote:
Tadashi wrote:
Can you get out of Japan? Can we finally amend Article Nine without your honor-less scumbags in the CIA breathing down our necks? If you want to go isolationist, we're going to need Carriers.

Bwahahaha! Are you fething kidding? The US wants Japan to amend Article 9 so that they can count on Japan's full fledged support for the war on terror abroad and, of course, the inevitable war with China.
You already have your midget carriers, in sum: what exactly are you on about?

Yeah, helicopter carriers...I mean real carriers, the ones that can turn Beijing and Pyongyang to ashes and carry up to a hundred or more planes. And Article Nine won't be amended because you still have bases in the home islands - until you leave, most people just won't feel the need to amend Article Nine.

GalacticDefender wrote:Mine the moon for Helium 3 I say. Tis the solution to all of our energy problems.

How about lunar settlement, martian and jovian terraformation-settlement, and switching to deuterium-helium-3 fusion? Oh, and fund slipspace/warp/hyperspace/fold research for FTL?

**SagesStone**

In a way yes and no. Military wise, yes probably should as it'd cut down significantly on expenditure. It's also what likely caused the issue in the first place. Economically no, I sort of doubt the US could likely sustain itself without international trade. As a first world economy it should rely on exportation of technology more than anything else.

If you were to rely internally on resources like oil, I could see the artificial restriction on it cause by it driving the price up further and worsening the situation. What you likely need more is natural resources being discovered and then exported out to more developing countries such as China. It would likely not solve the problem quickly though, any fix will probably take a fair amount of time at this point for it to reach the level it was at before.

Though it may seem sort of cruel to those effected by the tragedy, going after them seems to have been a mistake. Mostly due to how prolonged it has been.

**labmouse42**

Jihadin wrote: I perfer we go back to isolationism.

When have we been isolationists?

Go back through US history and look for a period of more than 20 years where we have not been in some conflict or war. The only one I found was after WW1 (the war to end all wars), where we had 21 years before we WW2.
American Revolutionary..................1774–1783
Northwest Indian War.....................1785–1795
Franco-American War.....................1798–1800
Barbary Coast War.........................1801–1805
Tecumseh's War.............................1811
War of 1812....................................1812-1815
Second Barbary War......................1815
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Don't get me wrong, getting our nose out of other countries buisness is a good idea -- but we not 'going back' to that policy any more than we would be 'going back' to communism if we took up Marx's principals.

**Frazzled**

DAMN RIGHT

Here's a short list of engagements, just off the top of my head we've been involved in since FDR pushed us into WWII with Lendlease and the embargo on Japan.
WWII (duh) still there
Korean War still there
Vietnam War Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand (they want us back now)
Lebanon ( a lot of body bags from there)
Desert War One (still there)
Desert War Two (still there)
Afghanistan (still there)
Cuba
Cold War (still there)
Somalia
Haiti

Please name five countries off the top of your head where US troops haven't been or currently have troops at in the last five years?
And what has it gotten us besides a butcher's bill of body bags? is the world a better place? Are we in a better place? Does the world love us?
Get out. Stay out. Be neutral like Switzerland. Sell what you can, buy what you need, but unless we are directly threatened (in which case introduce them to the wonderful world of the receiving end of fusion weaponry) STAY OUT.

**Tadashi**

Frazzled wrote:DAMN RIGHT

Here's a short list of engagements, just off the top of my head we've been involved in since FDR pushed us into WWII with Lendlease and the embargo on Japan.
WWII (duh) still there
Korean War still there
Vietnam War Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand (they want us back now)
Lebanon ( a lot of body bags from there)
Desert War One (still there)
Desert War Two (still there)
Afghanistan (still there)
Cuba
Cold War (still there)
Somalia
Haiti

Please name five countries off the top of your head where US troops haven't been or currently have troops at in the last five years?
And what has it gotten us besides a butcher's bill of body bags? is the world a better place? Are we in a better place? Does the world love us?
Get out. Stay out. Be neutral like Switzerland. Sell what you can, buy what you need, but unless we are directly threatened (in which case introduce them to the wonderful world of the receiving end of fusion weaponry) STAY OUT.

More US politicians should be like you...you actually understand the phrase "Leave well enough alone."

**Frazzled**

juraigamer wrote:We could if we put enough nuclear power plants and electric cars into the country, until them we fight while they still bleed oil.

Do like Europe and Japan, and how we do now. Buy the oil. Big deal. We can stay involved in international affairs, just not militarily. be like Europe, China, and South America. What a concept.

(alternatively and preferably focus on Manifest Destiny Two This time its vertical! "From Ice cap to ice cap! For Texas!")

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Uh, when exactly has the US been an isolationist country?

Pre WWII

If the mission of the military was to be changed the "military industrial complex" has no say in the matter. They would go on producing in "limited" quantities cutting edge weapon tech Remember this would probaly take out a huge chunk of defense spending that everyone clamoring about to do

Indeed before WWII we were quite isolationist. We also didn't have troops across the globe.