In a recent article from the Cato Institute, scholar Justin
Logan responded to claims made by Charles Krauthammer regarding 'Isolationism'.
For those who don't know what Isolationism means, it is the view that the US
needs to start minding its own business and stop getting involved in conflicts
across the globe. Krauthammer is
considered an Internationalist, while Logan would be considered an
Isolationist.
According to Krauthammer[1],
freedom across the globe isn't something that occurs naturally. It is stabilized
by a strong power. Britain was once the dominating world power, but now the
United States is burdened with keeping peace. He believes that without the
protection of the United States, chaos would follow. And with recent events
like radical Islam, North Korea, and terrorist cells across the globe this may
in fact be true.
In Logan's article, he first criticizes the term
"Isolationist" because it was used as a smear word for those opposed
to military intervention. According to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Walter
McDougall, America’s “vaunted tradition of ‘isolationism’ is no tradition at
all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially since Pearl Harbor,
hurl at anyone who questions their policies.”[2]
Also, with ongoing wars and issues in Egypt, Syria and other countries,
Americans are starting to ask, why are we getting involved? It is through
excessive spending and casualties that Americans appear to be turning to a more
Isolationist view.
Now, back to the Internationalist view. They claim that if
the US were to withdraw forces from around the globe chaos would follow. Terror
threats would increase and attacks would occur more often. They claim that
isolationism doesn't work and the only logical thing to do is to engage in
foreign conflicts. The issue with their belief is that America has never
embraced isolationism, making it impossible for someone to say that it doesn't
actually work. Internationalists typically point to the time period when the US
was reluctant to join WWII, but is that one period of reluctance proof that
isolationism doesn't work? Also, when the US gets involved in a civil war in a
foreign country, one side will always come out our enemy. The more fights we enter, the more enemies we
will make.
I am not saying that the US is responsible for its enemies.
It is of course the choice of those who oppose us to act. But when we are
flying drones into Pakistan to kill 'militants,' and civilians are killed,
people have a reason to be angry. According to Columbia University[3],
between 75 and 155 civilians were
killed in Pakistan in 2011 by drone strikes.
If the world does in fact need a global leader, why the
United States? With the economic burden we have today, the US cannot continue
on its path as being the peace keeper across the globe. Ever since WWII, the US
has been spending more money on defense and been has known few years of peace. In
the graph above, the red dashes indicate wars the US has been engaged in, while
the blue line indicates defense spending (as percent of GDP). In the 68 years
since WWII the US has been involved in 5 wars. In the previous 152 years before
the US was a global superpower, we engaged in 5 wars. That averages to every 13.6 years the US is
in a war in the modern era, compared to every 30.4 years before superpower
status.
It appears that the internationalist position held by
Krauthammer doesn't really work. The US may in fact be able to stabilize
certain countries, but ever since we have achieved this status, chaos has
followed us. So much for ensuring global stability.
