The time is right for U.S. isolationism
November 11, 2005 ~ 7:18 p.m.
Although I find isolationism morally repugnant, I'm beginning to think it's a good idea. At least in the contemporary sense. I am being swayed in that direction by a world that is indifferent to our crusade against terror if not downright hostile, which is much more often the case.
I have supported the War in Iraq since October 2002, when I wrote for the first time about the proposed conflict, six months before it was launched. And I have stalwartly defended and believed in it since. My belief was that Saddam was always going to defy U.N. resolutions, the information we had on Iraq � the dossiers � appeared credible because it was the same information liberal Democrats used to justify attacks on Iraq throughout the '90s, and if Saddam weren't really to have or use weapons of mass destruction, then certainly his successor, his son Uday, would have. You could have counted on that happening. The argument countering action against the Ba'athists, largely "better the devil we know," seemed old, tired and irrelevant � and dangerous.
I won't give up on Iraq � we have got to stay the course and finish the job, "the job" being a large, fully-trained Iraqi security force and the full implementation of the Iraqi constitution. I cannot walk away from my support for this war. But I am swiftly being left with no doubt that this should be the last major war the U.S. supports.
What we should do is maintain a considerable presence in Afghanistan, along with U.N./NATO help, to see that tortured country through to normalcy. A rebirth in Kabul will not be enough; regeneration has to take place across the land. And as Afghanistan was a justified war, had U.N. support, and even saw the participation of Canada, France and Germany, I don't see a problem justifying a continuation of the Afghanistan project.
Same with Taiwan. We are, rightly, entrusted to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression. We cannot allow Taiwan to fall into China's irredentist hands.
Thirdly, it's important to stand by Israel, continuing to play a part to help cool down the Palestinian issue.
As for anywhere else, however, bases should be dismantled and forces stationed at home or in Afghanistan or Taiwan, where they're most needed. For many years now, the South Koreans have been anything but hospitable to our presence. We can continue to supply aid to South Korea, but our presence there should end. As with the Phillippines.
And, as stridently pointed out by an Irish resident who clearly speaks for her people, we need to get out of Shannon and leave that neutral island nation to itself.
In short, any nation unwilling to provide help or support should be left to their own devices. It's not just a case of Uncle Sam learning to back down and respect the wishes of foreigners, but a simple, common-sense policy that states: If we're not wanted or appreciated, and can expect no co-operation, what the hell are we doing there?
Isolationism can, of course, go too far. An America that takes after the John Birchers, one that screams "America First!" is not an attractive one.
But I don't think we're being left with any choic. To the rest of the world, which consistently opposes our efforts to stamp out terror (apparently, anything goes in letting terrorists have their "human rights" and "freedom"), we should simply say, "OK, no more wars, no more U.S. presence. We'll do what we can to prevent terror within our own borders and as long as we're not bothering you, you have no right to complain."
In other words, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!
And if George W. Bush and his administration truly has any balls, then this is the line I think they should start towing.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!