Posted on Jan 14, 2015
CW3 Operations Officer
3.42K
45
13
2
2
0
A lot of conversation on the news about America's policy against terrorism in the wake of the Paris attacks. How should America proceed? I'll bring up a few points, which could be debated but humor my attempt to oversimplify these opposing views, to guide the discussion:

1) Interventionism: A key tenant to this philosophy is that in order to keep America safe, America must disrupt terrorist organizations overseas. This philosophy also believes that our military actions overseas are not creating more terrorists (we are their enemy because we are who are not because of what we do) and if left unimpeded terrorist organizations will only flourish. In time, our operations will sufficiently strengthen our allies' ability to fight terrorist unilaterally and debilitate the terrorist organization's ability to operate.

Isolationism: A key tenant to this philosophy is that our operations overseas are creating more terrorist and we have the capability to stop terrorists from attacking America from a defense posture. Another key tenant to this philosophy is that we are playing into the terrorist hands by engaging in protracted COIN/CT operations that deplete our national resources and divides the US populace. The only solution to the terrorist problem is a home grown solution from within the Islamic world.
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 11
Capt Richard I P.
4
4
0
Edited >1 y ago
CW3 (Join to see) Great topic. I would re-phrase "Isolationism as "non-interventionism" personally.

I'm in favor of the foreign policies promulgated by our founders and in compliance with the constitution: trade with all, employ military force to maintain open Sea Lanes to allow trade with all, and to defend the republic directly. Avoid entangling alliances and foreign wars.

Ergo the constitutional authority for Congress to fund and maintain a Navy (and Marine Corps) and to raise and pay armies (note the plural) and call out the militia in times of war.
(4)
Comment
(0)
LTC Program Manager
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
Well said.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
COL Vincent Stoneking
2
2
0
Neither. The U.S. Should take actions that are in its self-interest (as defined by itself, not the media, the UN, etc.). In some cases that will argue FOR intervention abroad. In some cases that will argue AGAINST "entangling alliances."

Having a position that we ALWAYS respond to the actions of others in one way or another robs us of the strategic initiative. And is Considered Harmful™.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Team Leader
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
The anti-American radicals are already here. We've been letting anyone, and everyone, into this country since inception. The folks who want to do us harm already live in American suburbia. They've educated their children in Extremism 101.
For one, we can stop the ambivalence. Amnesty for illegals has been granted, so let's zip the borders. Ever applied for a secret clearance? I have. Took me 3 months for approval, and my ancestors were here in the early 1700s.
We need to intervene? We do it personally. No more providing funding and weapons for shady "allies".
This is a political game, with the average American being used as pawns, in a global chess match. Whether we identify as "isolationists" or "interventionists", the fact is: we can put up or shut up. And right now, we have quit barking. Our tail is between our legs and our bite is gone, collectively.
Considering the climate of this site, I'd bet most of us would rip a bastard's face off before he or she could detonate a bomb, splattering our babies' intestines all over the school sidewalks.
But, folks, it's not the politicians who are going to bury their loved ones. It's us...and it's been us all along. We've just been too caught up in labels to realize it.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close