Interventionism or Isolationism?

2015-01-14T06:16:47-05:00

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.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2015 6:27 AM

2015-01-14T06:27:21-05:00

I would think interventionism would be the best way to proceed to accomplish what needs to be done. The best course of action is to disrupt them in their four corners and keep them out of ours. It will never change we will always be their enemy because of who we are.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jan 14 at 2015 8:32 AM

2015-01-14T08:32:52-05:00

Living like an Ostrich does not work for me.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 14 at 2015 8:37 AM

2015-01-14T08:37:12-05:00

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member 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.

Response by MSgt Michael Durkee made Jan 14 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-01-14T08:55:00-05:00

It is important for us to show our resilience and support our allies in a strong show of force. While there are many that would say, "Not in my backyard", they aren't the ones tasked with the boots on the ground mission of walking the walk, and truly standing for what is right.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2015 11:24 AM

2015-01-14T11:24:11-05:00

The left and RINOs like to call those of us that say close the border as isolationists. Stopping foreign aid also does not make us isolationists. I call it pragmatic, but that in no way means that we shouldn't be part of the world economy. At one time we refused to do business with countries whose leaders participated in human rights violations. Now, we seem to send them foreign aid which only benefits the rulers and not the people in crisis.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jan 14 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-01-14T11:36:29-05:00

I think the best road to take here is a middle road. That is we need to pull back from the world a little, for myriad reasons, but we cannot simply hole up in isolation either. The days of large scale wars are most likely over. The major powers do not want a conflict with one another because no one would win, even if they could claim victory. The answer there is statecraft, which we need to get better at as a nation/government. With that being said, we need better military forces prepared for the kinds of fights we are most likely to find ourselves in. That brings us to the interventionist portion. There are many problems in the world that we cannot simply ignore as they upset political and economic stability. But if our last 2 wars teach us anything it is that we need to have a "light footprint" and be able to quickly and concisely deal with threats as they arise. By doing these things I think we can decrease our spending, better ensure global security and stability, and maintain our status as a global power.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2015 9:05 PM

2015-01-14T21:05:07-05:00

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.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jan 14 at 2015 9:36 PM

2015-01-14T21:36:52-05:00

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™.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jan 14 at 2015 9:56 PM

2015-01-14T21:56:46-05:00

I vote other.
1. I feel that there are many countries that are not large enough to have their own military, poor enough that they don't have a well equipped military, and those that are rich enough to "buy" the American Military as their own mercenaries.
2. I feel that that politics tends to "buy" allies....they are our friends as long as we continue to provide money....
3. There are MANY social ills in our country that could really use help here at home.

With that being said..... some of me says "stay out of a sovereign nation's business...THEY need to pony up their own help. We do NOT need to be the world's police in every engagement. Part of me says that if we DON'T engage, we may loose allies due to hostile take over. Another part says that there are 2 MASSIVE boarders for the USA, 1 which causes HUGE issues, enormous welfare/public assistance issues, and other problems inside our borders..... There is a fine line as to who we need to help, who we need to let sort out their own issues, and taking care of our own. It irks me to no END when major celebrities push thousands/millions of dollars to the war torn/poverty stricken/3rd world nation of _____, when they could help people of OUR nation....

Response by CMC Robert Young made Jan 15 at 2015 9:16 AM

2015-01-15T09:16:47-05:00

Truly a thought provoking topic!!The problem is that because there are so many considerations, it's not as easy as simply saying we will follow one track or another.

We don't need to be the 911 force for every problem that erupts in the world. It's exhausting. It unfairly asked America to shoulder the burden for anybody who is UNWILLING to shoulder it for themselves. Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason. We simply cannot be everywhere, every day to do everything for everybody. But, we must be willing to offer assistance to those who CANNOT of their own accord do for themselves.

However, we have a choice to make about about fighting the enemy. Their hatred predates recent history, and has existed for a millenia. We will not change their view of western Judeo-Christian free market democracy. For them, it is counter to their religious philosophy. There is nothing stronger than "Blood & Faith" to quote LTC Ralph Peters. We ARE going to fight those who would seek to do us harm. The decision needs to be made about where. If 9/11 SHOULD have taught us anything it is that we are no longer protected by two oceans which isolate us from the remainder of the world. To counter this continuing threat, we must understand two things.

First, we must acknowledge that we ARE at war with Islamist extremists among others. They know it and act accordingly. They repeatedly make plain language statements to that affect. The fact that we still do not recognize that we are at war doesn't change it. We MUST confront these people where they are, because they have made in known that they intent to confront us where we are. I would rather fight and die in a foreign land to ensure my children don't live in the chaos that is any number of terrorists dominated hot spots we see on the news daily than to simply wait for these terrorists to return to America (It's highly likely many either homegrown or foreign imports are already here waiting for their time to strike). They're here and more are coming. They speak it in social media every day!!

Second, it is important to understand that where a strong presence is absent, a vacuum is created, and some force will move to fill that space. Our absence from the world stage will offer unparalleled opportunities for our enemies to act in a manner not in our best interest.
China is stiff competition, but their struggles still outpace their resources/assets/capability which continues to leave us as the world's only super power. We largely have the capacity to project power where we want, when we want, and how we want (the DIME approach for any NDU SJPEME grads). We MUST do this when it is appropriate in our nation's interest, and we MUST do it without reservation or hesitation. It is the ONLY way to ensure that we positively influence the world in a way that advances our national interest.

We must see the big picture, and act in a way that supports our long term national goals. There is no way to be either Isolationists or to be Interventionalists. We MUST balance both in a comprehensive, intelligent and forthright manner. It is the only way to preserve America.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Jan 15 at 2015 10:16 AM

2015-01-15T10:16:38-05:00

Isolationism hurts trade, as well as not interacting in a military capacity.

Non-Interventionism in my opinion is the best way to go. We should be working on our country and our people and only reacting to a realistic threat being conducted on our soil.

Since I am sure it will come up, yes 9-11 was conducted on our soil, but have we found and removed these individuals? Have we properly punished those that planned it? Or are we still at war with an idea?