American Neo-Isolationism
Published in La Stampa
(Italy) on 24 July 2014
by Paolo Mastrolilli (link to original)
The Americans are becoming ever more isolationist, or at least against the idea of getting involved in new wars. This exerts a strong influence on the choices made by the political class — starting from President Obama — on the role of the U.S. in the world, and therefore global stability, which oscillates a bit anyway. And the chaos in the Middle East is emblematic of this, caused by the conflict in Gaza between Hamas and Israel, which exploded after the failure of the only real foreign policy initiative the administration has taken on with John Kerry's attempt at relaunching peace negotiations.
There are multiple signs that confirm this trend. In 1964, Pew started taking a poll in which it asked Americans whether they agreed with this statement: "The United States should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."* Last December, for the first time in the 50 years this survey has been conducted, an absolute majority of participants, 52 percent, stated that they shared this view. However, during the first half of July, the website Politico commissioned a poll of likely voters in the most contested electoral districts and states for the November midterm election, and the results were even more clear-cut. Only 17 percent said that the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, as compared to 34 percent who deemed the initiatives taken until now to have been excessive. Fifty-one percent maintained that the chaos in Iraq has little or no impact on national security, and 44 percent would like the U.S. to do even less than it is now in order to restore peace. Also, 75 percent want to complete the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. Finally, in Syria, 42 percent want less involvement, as compared to only 15 percent who would like to do more to stop the bloodshed.
The historical precedents of this attitude are not few, from Wilson's refusal to join the League of Nations after World War I to the resistance toward getting involved in World War II.** Today, there are two main reasons for this: the reaction to the invasion of Iraq, and the economic crisis that drives the U.S. to deal with domestic problems. The effects are obvious. Obama was elected thanks to his promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in his recent speech on foreign policy at West Point, he said that the U.S. should only use force "when our core interests demand it ― when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.” For example, the use of chemical weapons in Syria did not fall under these categories, and according to his critics, such prudence has galvanized the president's rivals, starting with Putin in Ukraine.
However, much like China's ambitions or the violence of Islamic extremists, the resurgence of the Cold War is making the U.S. think. Is this neo-isolationism compatible with national interests and security in the long term? The neoconservative Robert Kagan responded to this question through an essay entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," which raised a discussion among the best minds in foreign policy. The temptation is understandable after having shouldered the international balance for 70 years, but "superpowers don't get to retire," especially if they are "the indispensable nation" for defending an order based on, if possible, the principles of liberal democracy, as Bill Clinton used to say.
The debate already goes beyond the midterm elections, cutting across the possible contenders for the 2016 presidential elections. Among the Republicans, Rubio and Perry are pro-interventionists, whereas Paul leans toward isolationism. Among Democrats, Hillary is already winking at Kagan, and even Biden falls along this line, whereas someone like Elizabeth Warren would most likely look inward. What's important for all is never forgetting Roosevelt's statement when Mussolini declared war: "Some indeed still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we of the United States can safely permit the United States to become a lone island, a lone island in a world dominated by the philosophy of force." But "there comes a time in the affairs of men when they must prepare to defend not their homes alone but the tenets of faith and humanity on which their churches, their governments, and their very civilization are founded."
*Editor's Note: This is how the question is worded in today's polls. The wording of the 1964 question could not be verified.
**Editor’s Note: President Wilson was actually a driving force behind the establishment of the League of Nations. The U.S. did not join because the Senate would not ratify the agreement, not because of Wilson's refusal.
There are multiple signs that confirm this trend. In 1964, Pew started taking a poll in which it asked Americans whether they agreed with this statement: "The United States should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own."* Last December, for the first time in the 50 years this survey has been conducted, an absolute majority of participants, 52 percent, stated that they shared this view. However, during the first half of July, the website Politico commissioned a poll of likely voters in the most contested electoral districts and states for the November midterm election, and the results were even more clear-cut. Only 17 percent said that the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, as compared to 34 percent who deemed the initiatives taken until now to have been excessive. Fifty-one percent maintained that the chaos in Iraq has little or no impact on national security, and 44 percent would like the U.S. to do even less than it is now in order to restore peace. Also, 75 percent want to complete the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. Finally, in Syria, 42 percent want less involvement, as compared to only 15 percent who would like to do more to stop the bloodshed.
The historical precedents of this attitude are not few, from Wilson's refusal to join the League of Nations after World War I to the resistance toward getting involved in World War II.** Today, there are two main reasons for this: the reaction to the invasion of Iraq, and the economic crisis that drives the U.S. to deal with domestic problems. The effects are obvious. Obama was elected thanks to his promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in his recent speech on foreign policy at West Point, he said that the U.S. should only use force "when our core interests demand it ― when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.” For example, the use of chemical weapons in Syria did not fall under these categories, and according to his critics, such prudence has galvanized the president's rivals, starting with Putin in Ukraine.
However, much like China's ambitions or the violence of Islamic extremists, the resurgence of the Cold War is making the U.S. think. Is this neo-isolationism compatible with national interests and security in the long term? The neoconservative Robert Kagan responded to this question through an essay entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," which raised a discussion among the best minds in foreign policy. The temptation is understandable after having shouldered the international balance for 70 years, but "superpowers don't get to retire," especially if they are "the indispensable nation" for defending an order based on, if possible, the principles of liberal democracy, as Bill Clinton used to say.
The debate already goes beyond the midterm elections, cutting across the possible contenders for the 2016 presidential elections. Among the Republicans, Rubio and Perry are pro-interventionists, whereas Paul leans toward isolationism. Among Democrats, Hillary is already winking at Kagan, and even Biden falls along this line, whereas someone like Elizabeth Warren would most likely look inward. What's important for all is never forgetting Roosevelt's statement when Mussolini declared war: "Some indeed still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we of the United States can safely permit the United States to become a lone island, a lone island in a world dominated by the philosophy of force." But "there comes a time in the affairs of men when they must prepare to defend not their homes alone but the tenets of faith and humanity on which their churches, their governments, and their very civilization are founded."
*Editor's Note: This is how the question is worded in today's polls. The wording of the 1964 question could not be verified.
**Editor’s Note: President Wilson was actually a driving force behind the establishment of the League of Nations. The U.S. did not join because the Senate would not ratify the agreement, not because of Wilson's refusal.
Next article![]( "Israeli Atrocities and Uncaring USA, UK")
