I’ve been reading articles by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute for some time. My very unscientific observation is that most US citizens with 2-3+ overseas’ living experience under their belts absolutely savor articles like the one in the Taipei Times today. Stated differently, the libertarian approach to US relations with the rest of the world is something we want implemented more than anything. If only more Americans went abroad for a few years…
Here’s a quote from the article and the link:
Washington should withdraw all 230,000 service personnel guarding against phantom enemies in Europe and protecting well-heeled friends in East Asia. And the US should begin withdrawing them now rather than in 2006, and finish in two or three years rather than in 10.
The Cold War ended nearly two decades ago. America’s friends face few conventional threats and are capable of defending themselves.
An invasion of Europe by Martians is about as likely as by Russians. In East Asia, the dangers are more real. But South Korea has 40 times the GDP and twice the population of the North. Japan understandably looks at China with unease, but Tokyo should construct a defensive force capable of deterring Chinese adventurism. Taiwan is an obvious potential flashpoint, but no sane American president would inaugurate a ground war with China.
Isolationism once again. Didn’t it take WWII and Pearl Harbor to move USA away from isolationist practices. There are dangers too if we don’t project our interest overseas. The question has always been what is the proper balance between imperialism and projection.
Of course given the past fews years, USA could do diplomacy some good in pulling back the military just a little.
Me, I prefer Bogie, who “[didn’t] stick his neck out for anyone” in Casablanca (until the chick entered the picture). I think the Bogie character in To Have and Have Not wouldn’t get involved, either (until he was short of cash).
The troops that need to be will be moved. Germany understands precisely why this is happening as do the other nations involved. We would love to have more help “policing” the world and we would certainly have appreciated a number of nations getting off our backs regarding Iraq. (no one asked them to support the effort, just stay out of the way) but we will need to be around the world until the day we decide to stop importing and exporting anything.
Be of good cheer, things are improving. This move was long awaited and much needed. It will prompt some sensible shake ups and increased cooperation in many nations who will also be forced to think more seriously about their defense needs. Hyperpacificism is just as much an overreaction as excessive militarism. Just like excessive, obsessive love and hate, two sides of the same coin and just as equally to be avoided.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Isolationism once again. Didn’t it take WWII and Pearl Harbor to move USA away from isolationist practices. There are dangers too if we don’t project our interest overseas. The question has always been what is the proper balance between imperialism and projection.
Of course given the past fews years, USA could do diplomacy some good in pulling back the military just a little.[/quote]
I agree with your final analysis, that is, if it is your position that the point of contention is the degree of isolationism you personally believe is appropriate. I don
i wonder if the “american was isolationistic before 12/07/41” isn’t just a bit of a myth. considering how the munitions manufacturers led the US in WWI it is america should have been more “isolationistic” (isn’t such akin to “peaceful”?) teh second go round.
there were elite in the US actively helping the axis as well as the allies. lindberg, ford, prescott bush were all with germany.
our very perception of WW2 has perhaps been distorted over time. go back and read stuff from '38 or so. the very reason for germany to link up with japan was to “contain communism”. what red blooded american hasn’t fallen for that one a couple of times in his life.
True or False: america was drafting guys before dec 7, 41?
America was by no means “isolationist” in regards to the Caribbean and Latin America pre-1941. Exactly how many times were Marines sent to “restore order” in Central America and the West Indies during the first half of the 20th century?
Not isolationist in regards to the Philippines, Hawaii, and many other Pacific islands, either…
True or False: America was drafting guys before dec 7, 41?[/quote]
True. The Civil War saw the first draft. I believe that the first draft was in the CSA, though. In the North, if you had the money, you could pay someone to take your place.
There were quite a few immigrants that enlisted. Many units that contained German immigrants were known for breaking easily…which was unfortunate for Hooker at Chancellorsville as these units were on his right flank (which was the one crushed by Gen. Thomas Jackson in one of the greatest movement of troops ever seen).
Most of the Eagle Discharges in my collection are of men born in countries other than the US.
"Ahh, ahh, I watched Helen of Troy last night. What if we did the same thing in Korea. We could withdraw, leave a massive wooden Buffalo on the beach and … ahh … ahh… hide in Japan. The next day we pounce on the badies. What do you think of that?
Which state? A draft would have been unenforceable in border states like Arkansas and Virginia where nearly half the population was Union and ratification of joining the CSA barely squeaked by in the legislature. I’m assuming it would have had to have been somewhere in the Deep South, South Carolina most likely candidate.
Very good question. How was the draft dealt with in the border States? The draft did not work well as monied people were able to buy their way out, doctors certifying healthy males as unfit for military service and instead okaying imbeciles, or just not reporting for duty. Many States argued vehemently against the draft. This left immigrants as the largest pool to draft from. I will look it up when I get home tonight.