Fallacies of isolationism exposed: Internationalists claim that "isolationism" causes incidents like Black Tuesday, but their faulty logic -- and the value of minding one's own business -- is easily demonstrated. (Isolationism).
While political circumstances change, arguments against "isolationism" never do. Following are some common fallacies promoted by the internationalist cartel. Q: With advances in military technology, our geography no longer isolates us from the rest of the world. Since supersonic aircraft and ICBMs can reach American shores from overseas, doesn't that mean we must keep our troops deployed worldwide? Q: But with the internet, television, and air travel, the modern world is more interconnected than ever. How can we think of sealing ourselves off in some "fortress America?" A: The same technology that allows other powers to build air forces, navies, and fleets of ICBMs to threaten our shores allows us to erect defenses against them, if we but summon the political will to do so. Because of the internationalist mindset in Washington, our elected leaders expend vast resources to maintain our overseas military establishment to protect allies like Japan and to police obscure trouble spots like the Balkans -- and then plead a lack of funding and resources as an excuse not to create antimissile defenses to defend our own homeland from attack. Military involvement overseas at once depletes precious resources in the defense of non-U.S. citizens (none of whom pay taxes to the American government) and creates resentment and added incentives for hosti le foreign powers to attack the United States. A: We are truly more interconnected than ever, but this is due to increased trade and communications technology -- private-sector innovations -- rather than to increased political involvement. This is the critical point that disingenuous proponents of political and military interventionism always try to finesse. George Washington recommended in his Farewell Address that our "great rule of conduct ... in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thus political "isolationism," more accurately called non-interventionism or neutrality, is a very wise policy, and must not be confused with cultural and commercial isolationism such as that formerly practiced by Japan and Korea, which has never been an American trait. Political interventionism benefits only the politically well-connected and antagonizes the general populace. One need look no further than Saudi Arabia to see a country whose ruling elites owe their power and prestige to American backing, and whose subjects are becoming increasingly embittered and radicalized against the United States as a result. The recent revelation that 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers were in fact Saudi nationals therefore comes as no surprise. Trade and other forms of private-sector exchange, by contrast, tend to empower the non-elites everywhere; the rise of cell phones across the Third World to replace inefficient state-run telephone systems is but one example of this. Q: We have a mission to liberate oppressed peoples throughout the world, and sometimes force is necessary to depose the enemies of freedom. In any case, isn't it in our best long-term interests to convert the rest of the world to democracy? A: If we wish to promote genuine freedom worldwide, which undeniably is in our national interest, example will win more converts than force. Q: The world is such a turbulent, dangerous place. If we don't take responsibility for peace keeping as the world's only superpower, who will? A: A "peacekeeping force" is a contradiction in terms, since peace is by nature a voluntary, not coerced, condition. As a result, military "peacekeeping" operations often end up exacerbating the problem they were intended to solve. For example, because of the Korean "police action" 50 years ago, the two Koreas remain in a state of war. How many North Koreans are grateful for the perpetuation of Communist tyranny, which has probably cost millions of additional lives in the "Hermit Kingdom"? Other well-known peacekeeping debacles include the Somalia intervention, which ended up costing the lives of U.S. and other foreign military personnel, not to mention thousands of Somalis killed by peacekeeping forces; Bosnia, where UN peacekeepers stood by while thousands of civilians were massacred; and Iraq, where, more than 10 years after the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein remains in power, and the Iraqi people now suffer under the boot of both their homegrown dictator and UN-mandated sanctions and intermittent bombing. What's more, today's peacekeeping regime is controlled not by champions of limited government but by international socialists, who apply peacekeeping selectively to conform with their political agenda. Thus peacekeepers were sent into Moise Tshombe's Katanga in the early 1960s to prevent independence from Communist Patrice Lumumba's Congo. The UN also moved decisively to support the left-wing terrorist KLA rebels in Kosovo. But don't look for peacekeepers to step in to help quash a leftist revolt, such as Colombia's FALN or Peru's Tupac Amaru and Shining Path. Q: But what about our national interests, such as the oilfields of the Middle East? Isn't protection of petroleum supplies, trade lanes, and other economic concerns crucial to our survival? A: Our so-called interests that we are supposed to defend, e.g., oil, can be found in many parts of the world -- including areas of the United States where our government has refused to permit drilling. Unfortunately, we have moved away from a policy of national self-sufficiency in petroleum and other crucial commodities to one of dependence on unstable and often hostile foreign regimes. As for the oft-cited cheapness and abundance of Middle Eastern oil reserves in comparison to American oil fields, we must take into account not only the market value of oil extracted from the sands of Arabia, but also the massive human and economic cost of maintaining a permanent military force in the region, and of fighting the occasional war to defend it. Q: But what about Pearl Harbor and, more recently, September 11th? Weren't these events brought on by our isolationist tendencies? And shouldn't we respond when we're attacked? A: The problem with interventionist policies is that they lead to unexpected, long-term consequences. Our imperial expansion into the Philippines and across the Pacific brought us into direct rivalry with imperial Japan; but who could have foreseen the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines when America first annexed these territories? Moreover, our incessant warmaking in the Middle East has radicalized lots of Muslims, certainly a factor that led to recent terrorist attacks against the U.S., including those on September 11th. Once attacked, we must defend ourselves. But we ought to understand that the more enemies we make, the more likely we will suffer future Pearl Harbors and September 1 lths. The best way to avoid making enemies is to mind our own business and bring our troops home. Q. How would minding our own business guarantee that someone would not pick a fight with us? A. In the real world, there can be no guarantee. But minding our own business would at least reduce the likelihood of our being dragged into a war. Meddling in other people's business has the opposite effect. Another means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it -- that is, to be strong enough that aggressors would not dare attack for fear of the consequences. As George Washington warned in his first annual address to Congress: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." Our lack of military preparedness in 1941 undoubtedly contributed to Japan's decision to launch the Pearl Harbor attack. On the other hand, Switzerland's military preparations dissuaded the Nazis from attacking that country in their push eastward. More recently, it is very possible that the September 11th terror strikes could have been prevented if our intelligence services had been better prepared. Q: There are so many problems in the world--poverty disease, despotism, civil war. Don't we have an obligation to use our power for good? A: The Utopian desire to use force to "make everything all right" has ever been at the root of the abuse of power, both nationally and internationally. The world will always be an imperfect place, as long as fallen man has dominion and flawed human nature determines the course of events. The wisest course, therefore, is to allow the respective nations of the earth to work out their problems themselves. After all, we cannot pretend to understand all the languages, tribal envies and vendettas, ideological and religious controversies, and geographical constraints, among the many factors that contribute to human misery. To the extent that the private sector, through medical and technological advances, can alleviate the human condition both at home and abroad, it should be applauded and encouraged. But when the shooting starts and political forces are set in motion, we must mind our own business. After all, our ancestors came here to escape the problems of the Old World; why does our present generation of leadersh ip insist on immersing us in problems that aren't our concern and which we can easily avoid? |