The dangers of isolationism. What would happen if the U.S. is no longer the world #1 power.

It’s hard to argue this.

 

Usually because of the abundance of stupidity among their own people. If we elect Trump in November we will know that that is our destiny.

 

You said, NO NEED, how do you know what we will need?

 

So when were you going to provide a list of NATO countries GDP that you claim could support 900 billion a year in Military spending.

 

If Trump is elected, it will be a symptom of the end of empire, not the cause.

 

America first is not isolationism. We should work with other nations for mutual benefit. We are not the worlds keepers. Many would like us to be so they can get their greedy little hands on a world market system regardless if our nation goes into the tanks. One time we "spoke softly and carried a big stick". Under this administration we are for sale to the highest bidder. "Hey Iran, need more money to kill Jews and bomb ships in transport?"

 

Exactly. There would never have been a Trump if the nation were not already in severe decline.

 

And endangering the lives of the American people with the uni-party rattling cages world wide.

 

I think this is the most succinct statement I’ve ever seen on our empire decline.


“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
G. Michael Hopf

I recommend preparing for hard times coming soon.

 

Well I don't agree that NATO countries being militarily strong and the U.S. having bases in Europe are mutually exclusive. I also don't agree that the European NATO countries being militarily self-sufficient would cause our "privileges" to start disappearing.

Next objection: I have been following the war in Ukraine closely, and frankly, it has exposed the Russian ground forces as being third rate, second rate at best. The only advantage Russian ground forces have over Ukraine is sheer size. Russia can absorb far more dead and wounded than Ukraine can. I'm not against giving Ukraine arms, but we must realize that Ukraine can lose this war by sheer attrition. So here is my objection: If Russia does manage to attrite the Ukrainians to a point where Ukraine can no longer fight them, it doesn't mean that Russia will be emboldened to invade a NATO country. Russia's third rate army would have zero chance of success against NATO forces. NATO forces would utterly crush them. And by now, Putin and his generals must know this. Putin is a murderous and detestable dictator, but he is not crazy.

You asked for actions:

(1) Continue to arm Ukraine, but agree to talks with the Russians. "Talks" do not mean "caving in". "Talks" means finding out what might be possible. We can always walk away from the table if no agreements can be found. But we don't know because it hasn't been tried. This war has not gone well for the Russians, so we should give it a try.

(2) Adopt a policy with regard to the defense of Europe. Essentially, it would require European NATO allies to prepare themselves to defend their own land against any threat. They already possess all the resources they need to develop that capability. As a member of NATO, in the event of a Russian invasion, the U.S. would intercede using American forces as a last resort.

(3) Do not get involved in "regime change" wars of choice. We do not have to be the world's policeman, fighting wars in distant lands that are no threat to us, just because we don't like a particular dictator or the way he runs his country.

(4) We need to get our financial house in order. Taxation, spending, and the economy is, of course, a huge topic. It could be done, though. The greatest impediment to that are the Republicans and Democrats in Congress ... self-serving, lying, cowardly, corrupted. And consequently, members of Congress do not think independently, choosing instead to self-neuter themselves by remaining within the safe confines of their little political boxes, regurgitating the same old narratives and talking points. And if we want to get our finances straightened out then we almost have to ....

(5) Reform Congress. We need to bring in term limits. We need to put limits on campaign contributions. We need to get Congress's noses out of the stock market. We need ethics laws that are enforceable and prosecutable against members of Congress if those laws are broken. (Fat chance, right?)

So, to summarize, we don't have to go completely isolationist, but I do think we need to turn inwards somewhat. We have serious problems with our country that we should be allowed to devote our energy and resources to fixing, rather than defending those who could defend themselves and engaging in wars all over the world.

 

While not as erudite as your post I would say both Russia and China would feel greatly beholden and considerably more bold and would be salivating over the taste of the US in their mouths.

 

Exactly! They would take our place, and we would take theirs. Begging the rest of the world not to sanction us because our dictator decided to gas protesters for a photo-op holding a Bible upside down... which is a violation of Human Rights; and the sanctions were a heavy burden on our people.

We have no idea how good we got it now.

 

We won't need foreign bases if we don't get into foreign wars.

 

Of course not. One is necessary for the other.

NATO countries are NOT self-sufficient. And they will never be. NO country is self-sufficient. Not even US. So if we engage in isolationism, they will have to find other alliances. And THAT is the problem.

All Russia needs to take over Ukraine is for NATO to step aside. Which means, not financing them, not sending weapons... They would take over Ukraine quickly.

Very likely, it will. And one way that MIGHT work (for example) is that China next, emboldened by our lack of support to Ukraine, takes Taiwan, and then unites forces with Russia to invade a small NATO country. As they take more and more territory they become more powerful.

This is not something that's going to happen immediately. It will take years for Russia to reconstitute its forces. But

NATO forces would be weekend by our lack of action, and Russia will reconstitute their army in... five or ten years... now war-hardened and experienced thanks to their war in Ukraine, against a force that may have greater technology, but has not seen REAL war, like the Russians have. Russia would have many casualties... but do you think Putin CARES? He doesn't! Even if Russia loses, weakening NATO countries would be a triumph for him.

In any case, this is a different topic. It is VITAL that we give Ukraine all the help we can so they fight OUR war before WE have to.

I read your proposals. In general terms I think I agree with them. I don't see ANY isolationism whatsoever in them. If you could point out which of them you consider even "partially" isolationist, please do so.

 

Where do you get that we have a dictator? Currently we have an appeaser and a sell out but this dictator thing you must have gotten off the View or something. When you aren't reading, a Bible upside down does not make any difference except to atheists. They just hate the idea of a Bible.

 

If we were isolationist, sanctions wouldn't matter. They only matter if we're locked into globalism.

 

Don’t go interjecting logic into these subjects.

 

I'm afraid you jumped into a discussion that includes subtleties that might be a wee bit over your head.

 

Well, whether or not I could be called an isolationist depends on one’s own perspective.

I am not a complete isolationist, the type who says we should have no military footprint in the world, we should end our military alliances, and we should only defend our own shores.

On the other hand, the neocons, those who think “American leadership” is policing the world with our guns and bombs would probably say I was an isolationist.

I prefer to think my position is balanced.

On Ukraine , I think we should continue to support their fight. But the reality is that Russia has the ability to outlast Ukraine. They are not better, but they’re bigger. Both countries are bleeding, but Ukraine is going to bleed out first.

So before that happens, we should engage the Russians in talks and find out what’s possible. Even the friggin Russians have asked for talks!

On another topic, if I was the POTUS, I would seriously consider ending our mission in Iraq. I would tell the Iraqi government that they must completely stop the Iranian proxy militias from attacking our troops or I will end their mission and bring them all home. They would have to be “all in” for support of the mission, including for the safety and security of our troops, or we’re gone. And, if AQ or ISIS reconstitutes and threatens them again, we will not help them. I would not sacrifice young Americans for a country that won’t protect them.

Some might say that is isolationist. They would say that those casualties are worth it to keep our influence in Iraq. But for me, that is too high a price for “influence”, and I would not pay it.

 

How smug. I don't deal in subtleties anyway.

 

I will admit I vacillate on how powerful the US is and how critical it is for it to remain a power. US is Australia's closest ally and yet our largest trading partner - and one that we are building up our military to fight is China.

I feel it's too good to be true that the world escaped a real depression. However, isn't a superpower or an Empire defined as such relative to its competition. China is having a terrible time; Russia is not as strong as we thought it would be. Europe is bumbling along. Who would replace the US?

 

You borrowed too much money and shipped too many primary jobs overseas. No point even mentioning immigration.

I disagree that it's a severe decline (yet). That's what everybody is trying to prevent.

 

It’s is curious how we seem to do things that strengthen the primary competitor to the US and the biggest threat to creation of a new global empire. China. We just can’t seem to help ourselves. We are used to the decadence the height of empires allows, and will do anything to maintain that decadence as long as possible.

Well, many, including myself and this guy hold the position it doesn’t really matter who replaces us. The life cycle of empires is dictated by the empire itself, not outside forces. As this guy compares the life cycle to individual human life cycle, it’s just a genetic predisposition to birth, growth, peak, decline and death.

I was prime in my ‘20’s and 30’s. At 50 I’m in decline. I will continue to decline and die. It doesn’t matter who is born, grows around me, and replaces me when I’m gone. My decline and death is inevitable, independent of actions or inactions of others.

https://www.davidmurrin.co.uk/article/5-phase-life-cycle

This web page does not support copying for pull quotes except for the graphic above. But it’s a good read.

The OP is advocating for continued overextension of power that can’t be backed by domestic resources. It’s debt based now and that means it’s unsustainable long term. We have been projecting power abroad while allowing domestic infrastructure to decay. It’s all predicted by historical empires that went through the same cycles.

Turns out “democracy” doesn’t make empire immune to decline and death. I think @Seth Bullock has the only solution. Stop doing things we know destroyed every empire before us. Focus on fixing internals first. We can’t rely on projecting power abroad to maintain our empire. It’s counterproductive and hastens our demise.

 

Well we don't have handy flashcards with levels of decline on it, so it's not an automatic gauge we can turn to see where we are. Are we Rome 375 AD? Or 410 AD?

The debt and immigration are severe problems, but more than shipping the jobs overseas, we shipped our industry and production capability. Over a period of about 20 years, we stripped down US industrial production so that we can't make computer chips, an industry that the US owned 30 years ago. We can't make most prescription drugs, again, we were a major supplier of them decades ago. From industrial tools to industrial expertise, we've given it all away and even if we had a decades long focused policy of rebuilding them (which we won't for other decline related reasons) it would take a generation just to get back to the equivalent of the early 1990's.

This wasn't from some random "nobody's fault" circumstances; this was due to deliberate US policy over several decades.

I don't know if any of this is fixable, but I would guess not since you would need a consensus that these are real problems and sacrifices would need to be made to fix them. There is no such consensus and I don't see one on the horizon.

 

Ok. All I have to say is that a balanced position is not isolationism. Isolationism is, by definition, a complete hands-off position. We can be hands-off in some cases, but definitely not in cases like Ukraine. Because that would come back to bite us.