The United States has gone back and forth between adopting isolationist and internationalist policies over the twentieth century. Isolationists believe the United States has no business meddling with foreign countries' affairs, while internationalists believe we should get involved in order to spread democratic ideals and/or preserve national security. We witnessed examples of isolationism in the early stages of the twentieth century, starting with our reluctance to get involved with rebuilding Europe after WW1. The United States opted out of joining the League of Nations because of isolationist opposition in Congress (History.com).
We then saw more internationalist ideals being adopted in a post World War 2 America over a heightened concern for the Soviet Union and communism. For example, the United States supported South Korea to prevent the spread of communism in the northern half of the country. This eventually led to the two sides fighting in what is known as the Korean War (Archives.gov). Although there are benefits to internationalism which I will get into, I believe it isn't the United States responsibility to be this "world police" figure that tries to keep the peace. Nobody really likes us anyways, and our attempts to interfere in foreign affairs have backfired immensely.
To be clear, I think the United States should be isolationist for political reasons. Economically speaking, internationalism is a good idea. I am all for America engaging in business with foreign markets. For me the line is drawn when we put our own lives at risk in the name of "justice" over another countries' problems. Internationalists tend to believe America's democratic government structure should be used as a blueprint for other countries to adopt. The problem with this is, internationalists are split on how to get other countries to do such a thing, "Liberal internationalists support democracy promotion through international organizations, diplomatic channels and multilateral efforts, whereas neoconservatives feel comfortable with using brute force in promoting democracy (dailysabah.com)."
We re-learned the issues with that most recently in our involvement with the Middle East. According to the US Department of Defense, we lost over 4,000 American soldiers in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" from 2003-2010 (defense.gov). Not only that, America faced heavy criticism over their use of drone strikes in the Middle East, which would often be used in civilian occupied areas. It was hard to find a definite number for civilian casualties at the hand of US ordered drone strikes, but I did find a site that determined there were approximately 245-303 civilian deaths due to strikes in Pakistan (newamerica.org). A big issue lies here though, what happens when conflicts abroad affect our economic relations abroad? Do we have a right to take action then? I still do not believe we do. War should not be fought over economic gain, or because you want to topple a government in a far away land. War should be waged when there is a real threat to our citizens here, at home.
America would benefit from adopting a more isolationist ideology in the 21st century. By avoiding involvement with issues overseas we can promote peace within our own country. The government could shift more of its focus over to the needs of its own people. One of our founding fathers, George Washington, said "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible." Like my statement earlier, Washington was not an advocate for full on isolationism like North Korea for example. Instead, he wanted to engage in commerce with other nations while not being bound by political relationships. Meredith Friedman explains this clearer, "The fact was, there were no genuine isolationists. The debate was actually between two internationalist strategies. The clash between these two camps has been ongoing since the founding of the United States (mauldineeconomics.com)." This is an important distinction she made and it still holds true. There is no true isolationists, I am no true isolationist, that would be pretty extreme.
Our balancing act between isolationist and internationalist policies has changed over time because there is never one true answer to such a tough question. There were times when one may have been better than the other and vice versa. But, its no surprise that the world powers are the most internationalist while the less powerful tend to be isolationist. America would not be the super power it is today without being internationalist, but it could have avoided several needless disasters by staying out of other countries' affairs. As for which policy is distinctly American, its both. During the revolutionary war, it was our Founding Fathers who convinced France to form an alliance with us and help supply our military efforts. However, after the French Revolution our Founding Fathers realigned with Britain over their old ally in order to protect its own trade relations (mauldineeconomics.com). These policies change with the situations at hand, and right now I believe it is in our best interest to be more isolationist.
Works Cited:
"League of Nations" https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/league-of-nations
"US Enters The Korean Conflict" https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict
"Isolationism versus internationalism: Which course to take in foreign policy?" https://www.dailysabah.com/op-ed/2020/01/30/isolationism-versus-internationalism-which-course-to-take-in-foreign-policy
"Casualty Status" https://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf
"The Drone War In Pakistan" https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/reports/americas-counterterrorism-wars/the-drone-war-in-pakistan/
"George Washington Farewell Address" https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/democrac/49.htm
Comments