New Isolationism - Political Forum

CHUQ · 02-17-2007, 06:21 AM

Is this the beginning of a new isolationism for the US?

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., currently the leading 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are making history this week by leading their party in Congress to the brink of endorsing a virulent New Isolationism. This New Isolationism imposes an impossible standard for deciding when America can legitimately use force overseas to protect its interests and establishes a cognitive dissonance as a benchmark for congressional oversight of foreign policy.

Clinton’s Senate speech on Wednesday mostly generated headlines about her warning to President Bush not to attack Iran without prior congressional approval. Given her name and status in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes, however, the more important graph from that speech was this one:

“We have all learned lessons from the conflict in Iraq, and we have to apply those lessons to any allegations that are being raised about Iran. What we are hearing has too familiar a ring. And we must be on guard that we never again make decisions on the basis of intelligence that turns out to be faulty.” (Emphasis added)

Hillary, Nancy and the New Isolationism - Examiner.com

choclosteve · 02-17-2007, 09:22 AM

Is this a new isolationism or a message to the Bushits to put more emphasis on diplomacy than military. I believe that we are finally waking up to the fact that we need to pay more attention to diplomacy. Bush, before 9-11 had strong isolationist tendencies, and those attitudes lead US into the quagmire we are now in

Brother Oz · 02-17-2007, 09:23 AM

All she said was that they weren't going to attack countries for faulty intelligence reasons. That doesn't mean they won't attack other countries if they believe the intelligence to be strong. Which of course they did for Iraq.

Although in practice, I think the Iraq issue will make America more isolationist. I think Americans didn't realise how much they are hated around the world by ordinary people, not just crazy terrorists. I thin k there is a growing feeling in America that they don't see why they should be the world's policeman, and they just want to be left alone.

george.d · 02-17-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

Although in practice, I think the Iraq issue will make America more isolationist. I think Americans didn't realise how much they are hated around the world by ordinary people, not just crazy terrorists. I thin k there is a growing feeling in America that they don't see why they should be the world's policeman, and they just want to be left alone.

I keep in touch with some former American business acquaintances who have retired outside the US, and according to them believe me when I say the US general public has no clue as to how US policy is hated by other nationalities. I would not want to be an American traveling for pleasure (not the tour groups) in many countries at this point in time.

george.d · 02-17-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

Although in practice, I think the Iraq issue will make America more isolationist. I think Americans didn't realise how much they are hated around the world by ordinary people, not just crazy terrorists. I thin k there is a growing feeling in America that they don't see why they should be the world's policeman, and they just want to be left alone.

I keep in touch with some former American business acquaintances and personal friends who live outside the US, and according to them believe me when I say the US general public has no clue as to how faulty US policy is hated by other nationalities.

I still hear of limited support for current US foreign policy in our conservative community, but nothing like the overwhelming, flag waving fanaticism present even a year ago. Most Americans now realize our leadership has made grave errors employing little responsibility and are confused as to why they can't be remedied. When the public votes to get out of Iraq and leadership escalates that conflict, it creates even deeper resentment of that leadership being far removed from reality. The current shifting of increased tax burden to local levels to further support US foreign policy will eventually do more to estrange citizenry from government policy than a dozen poorly planned wars.

CHUQ · 02-18-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george.d

I keep in touch with some former American business acquaintances who have retired outside the US, and according to them believe me when I say the US general public has no clue as to how US policy is hated by other nationalities. I would not want to be an American traveling for pleasure (not the tour groups) in many countries at this point in time.

You are right and it is a continuing thing, when I worked in the ME, about 10 yrs ago, the average person I talked with could make the distinction between the people and policy. They hated the US then and would imagine it is 100 times by now.

george.d · 02-18-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUQ

You are right and it is a continuing thing, when I worked in the ME, about 10 yrs ago, the average person I talked with could make the distinction between the people and policy. They hated the US then and would imagine it is 100 times by now.

I'm told that difference between people and policy has become blurred after the US unilaterally invaded and occupied a sovereign nation who had not attacked us. We are viewed as a loose cannon now seeking others to help clean up our mess with no apology or admission of wrongdoing while continuing to threaten other nations with war and intimidation. We're now viewed as a bully.

I don't find this surprising as Americans are becoming prone to say 'who cares what (insert country or region) thinks, we don't need them'. I see that on every forum I visit. Misplaced ego and common ignorance have become more prevalent in more Americans as our government continues to accumulate more and more failed policy.

emptypepsi · 02-19-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Oz

All she said was that they weren't going to attack countries for faulty intelligence reasons. That doesn't mean they won't attack other countries if they believe the intelligence to be strong. Which of course they did for Iraq.

Although in practice, I think the Iraq issue will make America more isolationist. I think Americans didn't realise how much they are hated around the world by ordinary people, not just crazy terrorists. I thin k there is a growing feeling in America that they don't see why they should be the world's policeman, and they just want to be left alone.

I am almost for staying the hell out of international affairs and fixing the BS we have created here at home. Sure, the US has screwed up a few things (not that I'm apologizing for the idiot in chief at the moment). But in all seriousness, trust me Oz - it won't be just Iraq that makes this country more isolationist. There is just as big of an attitude problem with other countries than with the US that will lead the country that way, IMO.

For over two years I heard the same talking point over how Iraq "screwed up our ability to rally other nations against a problem", like NK. Well, not disputing that for a second - let's take a broader look at that statement. What does that say about the rest of the world? Doesn't the fact that the U.S. has to poke and prod them into doing something right say a little about their attitude about things? If we're so 'out-there', why would they even bat their eyes at us when we don't take action against a problem? Why can the world not be constructive themselves and let us go down in history as non-action taking, know-nothings?

And then when the US does something, gets their hands dirty, and those same countries want to be the first in line to critique the hell out of the situation.

Foreign-Policy Isolationism? At this point I am close to welcoming it with open arms. I'm not even saying any of this out of belligerence towards the world. I'd only like to see how the world can handle things without us for a change while we get our shit together inside the country.

Slartibartfas · 02-19-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

And then when the US does something, gets their hands dirty, and those same countries want to be the first in line to critique the hell out of the situation.

I disagree as you are far too generalizing.

If you look back you will realize that at least from Europe not much of critique came as you launched your attack against the Taliban in Afghanistan. We saw 9-11 and we also saw that you have to do something about it. In fact Europe even joined you (in the humble military way, it thought it could afford).

No criticism.

Then while the campaign in Afghanistan was still ongoing and not so totally great looking that one could ignore it already for other jobs, your president tried to start another war in the name of "war on terror". This war had as even Americans nowadays probably will without problems be able to admit not the slightest thing to do with terrorism. I am speaking about Iraq here.

Thats where the strong critique came in. We very well differentiated between actions that had legitimations, even though they did not work out that totally well, and stupid agressionist nonsense that did nothing else than not only harm the US itself without the slightest benefit but also harm our own position, after all, we are nearly the neighbors with just Turkey in between.

Dont think we are unable to differentiate. Get used to it, its not about if you do something or not, its about what you do. Or do you call for a blanco cheque for the US. I mean that the other countries have to chear to the US actions no matter how fatal they are? You can not seriously ask for that.

Brother Oz · 02-19-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

I'm not even saying any of this out of belligerence towards the world. I'd only like to see how the world can handle things without us for a change while we get our shit together inside the country.

That's exactly what I meant. The left in America don't think America should interfere with the rest of the world, and the right are pissed off that no-one likes them interfering, and thinks they should sought out their own damned problems.

Quote:

For over two years I heard the same talking point over how Iraq "screwed up our ability to rally other nations against a problem", like NK. Well, not disputing that for a second - let's take a broader look at that statement. What does that say about the rest of the world?

Your missing the point. You don't need to rally the world over stuff like this. North Korea was in 6-nation talks. Because 3 other important countries recognised the danger from a nucler North Korea. BUT what you need to do is rally them to your idea of how things should be done. Take Iran. The Europeans are worried about Iran, they're trying to stop it. And they do this the European way: talks and dealing. Attack with sanctions, defend by offering to remove sanctions. The American leadership thinks this is stupid and innefectual. So they say to teh Europeans "this isn't working, we need to take a tougher line, we need to show we're thinking of attacking". And the Europeans say "Look America, stay out of this, your way just leads to failed states, look at Iraq". It's not that the Europeans don't care, it's that they don't trust the American way of sorting out problems. In the 90s NATO was happy to back-up America in any way it wanted, because they believed it would work. Today they don't think America can solve these problems without creating more problems.