Isolationism Now!

The default state of any country should be [political and military] isolationism. There is no reason whatsoever for nation-states to have political ties in a world of free trade, other than for temporary alliances in the case of imminent emergencies that will actually be helped by those alliances. There is no need for "trade deals" if there are no concessions to be made.

Therefore, the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the interventionists and imperialists. And they have failed to make their case. It is difficult to imagine that current adventures have lowered the frequency of future terrorist attacks against the United States enough to justify their cost, particularly when compared with the likely frequency of terrorist attacks in the absence of interventionism.

Not only that, but we've been fighting terrorists abroad and they *still* seem to have managed to get pretty close to carrying out an attack on a scale similar to 9/11. If we've really been weakening them steadily, either we're doing it darned slowly or we should have been having a 9/11 attack every month prior to the start of the Iraq war. Instead, we've had Bali, Spain, London, London, all since the start of the war. Great job we're doing. Not only has the frequency not gone down, it's in fact gone UP.

Meanwhile, we have people like Kling making this war look like a war on Islam. Not that many Muslims don't already believe it is. How are we going to win a war like that if people believe the intent is to wipe out their religion? People who would never have fought us before are now fighting us. Someone PLEASE explain to me how any of this could POSSIBLY be better than bringing every one of our troops home?

Now for a more economic perspective. Using the military to protect the interests of US firms and allies abroad externalizes the cost of security for those firms and allies. The result is far more business being done in unstable areas than is economically efficient and allies with less of their own military spending than is economically efficient. We get cheaper oil and Israeli and South Korean products, but only because the US taxpayers are footing the bill for security.

One argument for the present adventures conflates Islamic militants with the Nazis. The major problem with that is that Hitler actually had popular support while until the US invaded Iraq there was agitation for reform *against* Islamist governments all over the Middle East. Who, exactly, is supposed to be the Islamist Hitler candidate who's gonna go rolling across the Middle East and threaten all of civilization in the future? Comparing even all of the attacks since 9/11 with the Blitzkrieg is kind of ridiculous. Even any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon Islamists could acquire doesn't compare, particularly when balanced against the arsenal of the Israelis. We're not exactly talking city busters here. More like "few blocks" busters. Even with those it's not like after using them the Islamists could occupy anything. They can just kill people; hardly anything like the capabilities of the Nazis.

It's time for the sleeping giant to go back to sleep. We've been up since WWII and it's well past our bedtime.

Share this