The recent Republican presidential debate and the Kucinich and Boehner actions in Congress concerning Libya have re-opened a debate in America about what the role of military force should be in our country’s foreign policy.
There is now a growing agreement among right wing radical Republicans and liberal progressive Democrats to end the war in Afghanistan; and most of them also support ending our involvement in Libya. There is a growing sense of isolationism in the country today with slogans such as Take Care of Ourselves First, Use Foreign Aid Here, and We Don’t Belong in Other People’s Business. The only surprise in all this is how long it has taken to gain traction. (Let me state for the record that I oppose the war in Afghanistan and support the NATO action in Libya)
Historically isolationism, and in fact anti-war movements, have been strong throughout American history. Ben Franklin said that during the Revolution 1/3 of the colonists were supportive of independence, 1/3 supported the King and 1/3 had no opinion or went whichever the wind was blowing. The War of 1812 was a controversial war that was strongly opposed by the New England states to the point where they flirted with secession. Only the British burning of Washington DC, which caused great outrage throughout the nation, and Andrew Jackson’s victory at New Orleans, which engendered a false sense of victory among the people, ended with that War being remembered favorably. Similarly the Mexican War was strongly opposed by the Whig Party and some Democrats because it was seen as both a way to expand slavery and a portent of sectional division to come. It became historically popular because the US won and acquired so much territory (California, New Mexico, Arizona et al).
The Spanish American War was opposed by the Democrats who felt it was imperialistic and they opposed US acquisition of colonies, e.g. Puerto Rico and the Philippines. There was a great national debate between 1914 and 1917 about World War I; with the anti involvement side winning most votes. The antis only caved in after German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare threatened more Lusitania’s and the Zimmerman telegram caused the scare of Mexico trying to retake the west. Although both candidates for President in 1940 were sympathetic to the Allies in World War II, the American people did not support a war until the Japanese Empire attacked Pearl Harbor; and, Congress did not declare war on Germany until a few days later after Germany had declared war on the US.
Successful wars don’t lead to opposition to future conflicts. The stalemate in Korea and the debacle in Vietnam certainly did. Since then only the Gulf War in 1991 had real popular support and even that had negative votes and voices in Congress.
Today’s new isolationism is an amalgamation of two distinct philosophical viewpoints. The radical right wing Republicans are now opposed to the Afghan war and the Libyan action for two reasons 1)Obama is now Commander in Chief and 2)they see no reason why America should help other people gain freedom or retain freedom. Since they see no role for government in helping people here maintain their rights or their livelihood why should we expect them to care about other people in far away nations. The liberals, who have found their voice in opposition to Libya (they have been reticent about Afghanistan because the commander in chief is now their leader), come from a tradition of non-military intervention. They support freedom for Libya, they oppose genocide in Darfur and Al Qaeda control in Yemen but “no boots on the ground” has become their non-interventionist mantra.
So now the right wing Republicans have returned to their isolationist roots and the liberals to their anti-militarist underpinnings to join in opposing the Libyan action; just as the Republicans opposed Clinton’s use of air power with NATO to stop the genocide in Kosovo.
History clearly shows that economic sanctions, moral suasion, or diplomatic pressure rarely impacts on a well armed dictatorial regime. And, while air and naval power without ground forces has not proven an effective quick way to take out a dictator there is some evidence that it may work. It is certainly worth trying as an alternative to losing thousands of lives sending in troops.
The larger question before Americans is this: are we to give up a role as the world symbol of democracy and freedom? Does the Statue of Liberty stand for the 20th century only? Are we going to become Fortress America or an island unto ourselves? There was a time in our country when our leaders and our people believed that freedom denied anyone anywhere denied freedom to everyone everywhere. There was a time in our country when committed to a better life for all Americans we were willing to likewise do what we could to help all peoples.
I believe we need leaders who look at each foreign problem closely and separately -- the is no one answer fits all. What we don’t need are knee jerk radicals who opposed any policy initiated by the President knowing full well they will reverse their position if the next President is of their party. And what we don’t need are misguided non-interventionists who insist that no matter how egregious a situation is military power is not to be used.
It was Wendell Willkie, a Republican leader, who coined the term seventy years ago of One World; and we have become a smaller, closer world since. The cause of World Peace will be furthered, as it has been, by collective security and nations working together through the United Nations, regional organizations, like NATO and the Organization of American States, and cultural and social world organizations. 191 nations must live in peace or all will descend into despotism and/or anarchy. I favor Peace – that’s something worth standing for and maybe even fighting for.
22 June 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment