There is definitely a middle ground between invading countries like Vietnam and Iraq on the one hand, and being complete isolationists on the other.
Isolationism won't work in the long run, and it throws allies under the bus in the short run. Doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be doing more, but that's not an excuse to just bail on people the way the US recently bailed on the Kurds.
I will say that isolationism is growing on both the left and the right of American politics.
Left wing isolationism goes something like "The US being out in the world does more harm than good", and right wing isolationism is more like "Fuck it, not our problem. The rest of the world can sink or swim".
Given how far our foreign policy blob has pushed us in the other direction and kept us there, a little pushback too far the other way is really the last thing I'm worried about. If that is what it takes to move the Overton window, great
I don't think it's impossible to thread the needle on a better 3rd option. Case in point, I don't think the only 2 choices with Ukraine are make it the next forever war or let Russia conquer it.
Shame on Persuasion for following the narrative to support military intervention abroad. Same old military industrial complex feeding stories to media and “expert consultants” to manufacture consent for violence. Past examples too numerous to list. IT ISN’T DIFFERENT THIS TIME! The Russians and Chinese are not the threat portrayed. We are not morally justified in initiating violent conflict. Hell, given our intelligence community’s actions, our extra judicial drone killings, and covert operations, we aren’t even the good guys. A Democratic president’s violence is no more justifiable than a Republican’s.
That helps, thanks. Wikipedia sort of credible depending on issues. Highly censored. Still, that is egregious at face value. Do you know how many US operatives have been thrown in Guantanamo or killed sans due process? Do you know there is a published money trail linking US DOD to collaborative bio terror research on Chinese as well as US soil? Also, Canadian collaboration with Chinese scientists in this field on Canadian soil? I have seen some of these sources personally. My point being, US is just as guilty. My secondary point would be our international warmongering is always driven by MI financial interests first, with a media generated veneer of some sort of moral authority whereby we vilify the “other”. Substitute Ukraine for Iraq for Vietnam... ad nauseam. In the end who profits? MI complex. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose. Since WWII.
The US is in the process of getting less belligerent on the world stage (see the pullout of Afghanistan) at the same time as China is getting more belligerent on the world stage (see Hong Kong).
The reality of a country like Canada is we'll never be the strongest military power, so we have to choose the lesser evil between a country like the US and a country like China or Russia.
It's not a difficult choice; the US doesn't expect its nationals to be above the law in foreign countries, or expect to have censorship authority over foreign universities. We'll take the US over China any day. I'll see Vietnam & Iraq, and raise you Tibet and Mongolia.
Agreed, on China. Still have no business in Ukraine. Imagine our outrage should Putin put forces in say Cuba? Also, the deep state intelligence creep has gotten to a level that should deeply concern us. Not just spying on bad guys anymore. Actively meddling in domestic politics and gen propaganda (via former CIA analysts furthering MI interests on MSM) to justify international conflict. We may not be at the Uighur level yet but the groundwork has been laid to circumvent our Constitution to attack minority groups domestically. I guess my final point is it doesn’t matter how you label governments or people. It’s the actions that count. If you become what you condemn in others, what are you?
Let me offer a somewhat bipartisan comment. Obama, Trump, and Biden have not been interventionists. McCain and Hillary were interventionists. Both lost.
Hmmm, Libya? Hmmm, Biden’s inaugural bombing in Syria. Hmmm, Obama’s happy drone strikes everywhere? Trump’s arms deals with Saudis to further Yemen atrocities. Trump’s Iran bombing. Hmmm long list extrajudicial kidnapping, torture, murder (sometimes even warranted!) under all the above leaders after Biden’s first post 9/11 sponsored Patriot act and continuing.
Obama did intervene in Libya (he describes it as his "worst mistake"). He (wisely in my opinion) kept the US out of Syria. Trump could have sent troops all over the world, but didn't. By the way, Trump never bombed Iran. As for Biden, ever heard of 'Afghanistan'? I am not a fan of Biden, but he is not an interventionist.
It is revealing that in an article pretending to cover Foreign Policy since 1945, the neither the words "Vietnam" or "Iraq" are mentioned. American has to pick its fights more carefully than in the past. The recent ramping up of US opposition to Putin's probing of the Ukraine is a move in the right direction, as well as also bringing in Europe (reluctantly on their part to be sure). But we cannot engage every one of our scattered bases throughout the world against "bad guys" and have any long-term success, like that which was achieved against the U.S.S.R.
American policy did not succeed against the USSR. We contained Soviet communism, but did not defeat it. Soviet communism fell of its own weight (at least in my opinion).
Europe has more people than the U.S. and a bigger economy. Of course, Europe is morally superior to the U.S. (at least they think so). Clearly, Europe should take the lead in advancing/defending/promoting the liberal international order. However, there is a deeper point here. China is very good at build dams. The U.S. is very good at enforcing PC. The U.S. is in no position to lead anything (other than exporting the poison of PC).
In 1970, the U.S. was a highly effective nation that could and did promote ‘liberal’ (using the European definition of ‘liberal’) values around the world. In the same year, China was a model (the Cultural Revolution) of insanity and highly ineffective (to say the least). Times change. The U.S. is now a model of ineffectiveness and China is a model of effectiveness.
In 1946, the US accounted for roughly 50% of global manufacturing output and around 50% of CO2. US oil and gas production was well above 50% of the world. The US was (by far) the dominant power of the world. Times change. 1946 was 76 years ago.
The global shift in economic output is just one reason, the U.S. can not lead the world as it once did. Of course, the US is hobbled by 'woke', but that is a separate story.
Not surprised this is just a book excerpt. It doesn't actually say much. You don't want the US to "pull back from the world and salve its wounds?" Ok. Not very useful to have a conversation about foreign policy at such a level of abstraction.
I'm surprised, and quite disappointed, to see so many comments here opposing the essay. As I pointed out in response to one of them, we are -- with all out faults -- clearly the Good Guys in relation to our global opponents. Ceding the field to them, then, will only make the world a worse place -- not just for America, but for everybody. Throwing around terms like "Forever Wars" is just sloganeering.
Reading these comments strongly suggests that the era of liberal interventionism is over. One commentor (miles) points out that the left and right are both isolationist these days (for different reasons). He is probably right.
If these wars are so key, then institute a military draft that applies to all, regardless of whether in college or not, etc etc. American wars should not be fought by a force drawn from about 2% of the population. Oh, and their costs should be borne in the present via taxes, especially by the rich who profit handsomely from them.
I take it that by "the debacle of Afghanistan" you mean that it lasted 20 years and not a single person has been held accountable for that disaster. And the same neo-con claque that drum-beat for Iraq is now hitting the airwaves (Bon Jour, Monsieur Frum) wanting more wars to definitely not be fought by their children nor paid for by their taxes.
great thoughts and provocation - thoughts on the perception at home and abroad of the current "leaders" of our society in the USA and how that reality effects this positive idea? thx
There is definitely a middle ground between invading countries like Vietnam and Iraq on the one hand, and being complete isolationists on the other.
Isolationism won't work in the long run, and it throws allies under the bus in the short run. Doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be doing more, but that's not an excuse to just bail on people the way the US recently bailed on the Kurds.
Exactly, this article is so hazy you can't even see the strawman he is arguing against
I will say that isolationism is growing on both the left and the right of American politics.
Left wing isolationism goes something like "The US being out in the world does more harm than good", and right wing isolationism is more like "Fuck it, not our problem. The rest of the world can sink or swim".
Given how far our foreign policy blob has pushed us in the other direction and kept us there, a little pushback too far the other way is really the last thing I'm worried about. If that is what it takes to move the Overton window, great
As long as it doesn't turn into a series of humiliating retreats like Afghanistan.
If the choice is humiliation or double down on a dumb move forever at staggering cost, then humiliation is inevitable.
I don't think it's impossible to thread the needle on a better 3rd option. Case in point, I don't think the only 2 choices with Ukraine are make it the next forever war or let Russia conquer it.
Shame on Persuasion for following the narrative to support military intervention abroad. Same old military industrial complex feeding stories to media and “expert consultants” to manufacture consent for violence. Past examples too numerous to list. IT ISN’T DIFFERENT THIS TIME! The Russians and Chinese are not the threat portrayed. We are not morally justified in initiating violent conflict. Hell, given our intelligence community’s actions, our extra judicial drone killings, and covert operations, we aren’t even the good guys. A Democratic president’s violence is no more justifiable than a Republican’s.
As a Canadian, I can assure you that yes, the Chinese are the threat portrayed. You can also ask any Australian who will tell you the same thing.
You must realize that without credible evidence, you just paint yourself a media tool, or worse, xenophobic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Michael_Spavor_and_Michael_Kovrig
That helps, thanks. Wikipedia sort of credible depending on issues. Highly censored. Still, that is egregious at face value. Do you know how many US operatives have been thrown in Guantanamo or killed sans due process? Do you know there is a published money trail linking US DOD to collaborative bio terror research on Chinese as well as US soil? Also, Canadian collaboration with Chinese scientists in this field on Canadian soil? I have seen some of these sources personally. My point being, US is just as guilty. My secondary point would be our international warmongering is always driven by MI financial interests first, with a media generated veneer of some sort of moral authority whereby we vilify the “other”. Substitute Ukraine for Iraq for Vietnam... ad nauseam. In the end who profits? MI complex. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose. Since WWII.
The US is in the process of getting less belligerent on the world stage (see the pullout of Afghanistan) at the same time as China is getting more belligerent on the world stage (see Hong Kong).
The reality of a country like Canada is we'll never be the strongest military power, so we have to choose the lesser evil between a country like the US and a country like China or Russia.
It's not a difficult choice; the US doesn't expect its nationals to be above the law in foreign countries, or expect to have censorship authority over foreign universities. We'll take the US over China any day. I'll see Vietnam & Iraq, and raise you Tibet and Mongolia.
Agreed, on China. Still have no business in Ukraine. Imagine our outrage should Putin put forces in say Cuba? Also, the deep state intelligence creep has gotten to a level that should deeply concern us. Not just spying on bad guys anymore. Actively meddling in domestic politics and gen propaganda (via former CIA analysts furthering MI interests on MSM) to justify international conflict. We may not be at the Uighur level yet but the groundwork has been laid to circumvent our Constitution to attack minority groups domestically. I guess my final point is it doesn’t matter how you label governments or people. It’s the actions that count. If you become what you condemn in others, what are you?
Mongolia is an independent country, not ruled by China or anybody else. You are probably thinking of the Xinjiang province of China.
"The good guys" is defined here in relation to the other guys, and in relation to the other guys we are clearly the good ones.
Let me offer a somewhat bipartisan comment. Obama, Trump, and Biden have not been interventionists. McCain and Hillary were interventionists. Both lost.
Hmmm, Libya? Hmmm, Biden’s inaugural bombing in Syria. Hmmm, Obama’s happy drone strikes everywhere? Trump’s arms deals with Saudis to further Yemen atrocities. Trump’s Iran bombing. Hmmm long list extrajudicial kidnapping, torture, murder (sometimes even warranted!) under all the above leaders after Biden’s first post 9/11 sponsored Patriot act and continuing.
Obama did intervene in Libya (he describes it as his "worst mistake"). He (wisely in my opinion) kept the US out of Syria. Trump could have sent troops all over the world, but didn't. By the way, Trump never bombed Iran. As for Biden, ever heard of 'Afghanistan'? I am not a fan of Biden, but he is not an interventionist.
It is revealing that in an article pretending to cover Foreign Policy since 1945, the neither the words "Vietnam" or "Iraq" are mentioned. American has to pick its fights more carefully than in the past. The recent ramping up of US opposition to Putin's probing of the Ukraine is a move in the right direction, as well as also bringing in Europe (reluctantly on their part to be sure). But we cannot engage every one of our scattered bases throughout the world against "bad guys" and have any long-term success, like that which was achieved against the U.S.S.R.
American policy did not succeed against the USSR. We contained Soviet communism, but did not defeat it. Soviet communism fell of its own weight (at least in my opinion).
The word 'Afghanistan' was also left out. I wonder why.
No specific reason. I Just didn't want to get into a laundry list of our many failures
CB, I apologize. It was a mistake for me to use the phrase 'I wonder why'.
Europe has more people than the U.S. and a bigger economy. Of course, Europe is morally superior to the U.S. (at least they think so). Clearly, Europe should take the lead in advancing/defending/promoting the liberal international order. However, there is a deeper point here. China is very good at build dams. The U.S. is very good at enforcing PC. The U.S. is in no position to lead anything (other than exporting the poison of PC).
In 1970, the U.S. was a highly effective nation that could and did promote ‘liberal’ (using the European definition of ‘liberal’) values around the world. In the same year, China was a model (the Cultural Revolution) of insanity and highly ineffective (to say the least). Times change. The U.S. is now a model of ineffectiveness and China is a model of effectiveness.
The era of U.S. leadership is over.
In 1946, the US accounted for roughly 50% of global manufacturing output and around 50% of CO2. US oil and gas production was well above 50% of the world. The US was (by far) the dominant power of the world. Times change. 1946 was 76 years ago.
The global shift in economic output is just one reason, the U.S. can not lead the world as it once did. Of course, the US is hobbled by 'woke', but that is a separate story.
Not surprised this is just a book excerpt. It doesn't actually say much. You don't want the US to "pull back from the world and salve its wounds?" Ok. Not very useful to have a conversation about foreign policy at such a level of abstraction.
I'm surprised, and quite disappointed, to see so many comments here opposing the essay. As I pointed out in response to one of them, we are -- with all out faults -- clearly the Good Guys in relation to our global opponents. Ceding the field to them, then, will only make the world a worse place -- not just for America, but for everybody. Throwing around terms like "Forever Wars" is just sloganeering.
Reading these comments strongly suggests that the era of liberal interventionism is over. One commentor (miles) points out that the left and right are both isolationist these days (for different reasons). He is probably right.
OK!!!! We get it: Forever Wars.
If these wars are so key, then institute a military draft that applies to all, regardless of whether in college or not, etc etc. American wars should not be fought by a force drawn from about 2% of the population. Oh, and their costs should be borne in the present via taxes, especially by the rich who profit handsomely from them.
I take it that by "the debacle of Afghanistan" you mean that it lasted 20 years and not a single person has been held accountable for that disaster. And the same neo-con claque that drum-beat for Iraq is now hitting the airwaves (Bon Jour, Monsieur Frum) wanting more wars to definitely not be fought by their children nor paid for by their taxes.
What a disgusting gaslighting article.
I am extremely grateful for your objection!
great thoughts and provocation - thoughts on the perception at home and abroad of the current "leaders" of our society in the USA and how that reality effects this positive idea? thx
Happy to see Raymond Aron acknowledged for his tough-minded lucidity. His realism was never defeatist