Should the United States adopt a policy of non-intervention?
Personally, I think we should. First, the US should discontinue foreign aid programs. The billions of dollars the US donate to poorer, often undeveloped foreign nations never reaches the lower class individuals and stays in the hands of greedy dictators and theocrats in exchange for petroleum and other products. If the US became energy independent by drilling oil at home and investing in green technology like solar energy, there would be no need to sell out to countries like Egypt. Furthermore, the United States should require countries receiving military assistance to at least pay part of the cost of upkeep to our bases and we should close Guantanamo Bay. It's understandable that nations such as South Korea need American help fending off their neighbors, and that it was part of the Armistice sixty years ago that the US would stay. But isn't it fair to at least require them to pay for the cost of housing our military, especially since the South Koreans are doing so well economically? Finally, we need to stop nosing into other countries' business. If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, then good for them. If the Iraqis want to fight each other, then great. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that it's illogical to throw $48 BILLION tax dollars to foreign nations when we can't even stop cities like Detroit from declaring bankruptcy. Wouldn't that money be better spent at home fixing our own problems, instead of playing police to everyone else?
Is a reasonable, non-interventionist foreign policy feasible for the United States?
In Fairfax VA, all my neighbors were in the military or CIA.Last place I lived, my neighbor was a Marine generalCurrent location neighbor is one of the heads of Homeland Security.40% of the people in San Diego seem to get a check from the US military.The experiment of a candidate who ran on an isolationist America First policy was that the opposition was stronger to each subsequent candidate.The only thing new in the last year is the revelation of how heavily invested all the US mass media are in opposing an isolationist policy or President.
Is non-interventionism a viable foreign policy for the United States to employ and what would be the result if it were adopted?
The US had a non-interventionist policy immediately prior to WW I and WW II.The US did not have an interventionist policy with regards to the Korean Peninsula after North Korea invaded South Korea, Philippines under Marcos, Panama under Noriega, Kuwait during its invasion, Bosnia during the the Yugoslavian breakup. Would things have been better for those countries if the had a non-interventionist policy?With that said, there have been less than shining moments with regards to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.US intervention can help stabilize the world, if it is conducted in an even handed manner and planned. With that said, US policies have been more erratic as domestic politics have become much more partisan.
Why was US's foreign policy characterized by interventionism after WW2?
Lots of reasons. A few important ones include the following:Europe was basically bulldozed to the ground after WWII, and the soviets had expansion plans, or thought that the West had expansion plans so it reacted with its own expansion plans whichever perspective you wanna take, so the US had to make Europe, particularly the West Europe, strong enough to counter the weight from soviets to the east. Basically West Europe was needed as a buffer zone. Think of the US as the Great Britain before the World Wars—Great Britain’s foreign policy back then was simply: continental balancing. When Germany grew too strong relative to France and Russia, GB provided assistance to Russia and France and initiated naval blockade against Germany. When France grew stronger than Germany, GB did harm to France and helped Germany. The US after WWII was essentially in a similar situation like that of the GB hundreds of years ago, except this time on a much grander scale. That’s the essence of the Marshall Plan and other efforts put into redeveloping the West Europe.There was a school of philosophy within the government that communist countries, with an explicitly stated goal of exporting communism elsewhere and worldwide, needs to be counteracted. Wherever there’s space not occupied by communism, that space would eventually fall to communism due to the innate expansion nature of communists. Therefore, it’s better to occupy those free space with capitalism and democracy before the advent of communism at those places such as Asia, Middle East, and Africa. This was proven costly and false in practice, as lessons learned from the Vietnam War, secret regime change operations in Africa and Asia, and etc. It turned out that it took so much more money and energy than estimated to practice such a school of thought, and those free spaces were actually quagmires for the US—they were also quagmires for the Soviets like the Afghanistan, nicknamed the grave for empires. So in the end, it was a better idea for communism to spread, and then wait until it fell while in the meantime having CIAs and etc. undermining it till the eventual downfall of commies regimes and the establishing of pro-West pro-US regimes taking place.These are the two reason coming right out of my head for now. Hope it helps, and I will update if I remember anything new.
Should the U.S.A. pursue an interventionist or non-interventionist foreign policy?
Our first President said it best "beware of foreign entanglements" _George Washington
Interventionism: Non-intervention: as foreign policy is a beautiful ideal but not terribly practical for the messy world?
Jihad is a worldwide fact, as the news from Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Gaza, and other outposts makes clear. If there is no intervention against jihad, sharia will prevail. A rather high price to pay for fundamentalist pacifism.
How can the US adopt a more non-interventionist (NOT isolationist) strategy without jeopardizing global stability (e.g. Pax Americana)? Would non-interventionism really lead to more attention/support for our communities and disadvantaged?
Non-interventionist in essence is an isolationist strategy since any talk will only be respected if its backed by a credible use of force. Otherwise it’s the League of Nations all over again. A return to isolation - the US default state for most of its history - would jeopardize global stability making conflict and war more likely in certain areas around the world. Power abhors a vacuum and other countries would be sucked in to protect their own interests or expand them, and that means war.But the US wouldn’t be involved. It would likely enjoy something of a peace dividend as a larger military wouldn’t be needed. Still, realistic budget cuts of 20% (app. $140 billion) wouldn’t do much for domestic social programs since the US spends about $3 trillion on these per year.
Will US foreign policy ever be isolationist again? Are we creating our own enemies all over the world?
"Isolationist" is sort of a misnomer. The United States will never seek to "isolate" itself from the wider world and try to build some sort of autarky. But then it has never done that; not even in the 1920s and 30s. What you probably mean is "non-interventionist," where the US decides that not everything falls within its vital interest, and it stops caring about distant civil wars or the outrages of some far-off tin-pot dictator. And that could very well happen again. Indeed, we're already seeing the first signs of it. Hence our refusal to do much more than air strikes in Syria; or our willingness to let Britain and France do the heavy lifting in Libya ("leading from behind," as American hawks angrily termed it); or the tiny number of Syrian refugees we've admitted; or the ho-hum response to Russian actions in Ukraine. I've even heard some very conservative friends openly question the purpose of NATO.Americans, both left and right, are indeed getting tired of policing the world. They're tiring of underwriting things like freedom of the seas. They're tired of quarrelsome 'allies' and endless crises in certain regions. There's a growing sense that we should keep an eye on East Asia but to hell with the rest.This is a trend that you're going to see intensify as the century moves on. It won't change overnight, but as the Cold Warriors die off you can expect much more "isolationism" in the future.
Has the US's pro interventionist policies since WWII been largely a failure?
It certainly hasn't turned out as planned.A better question might be, 'What would have happened if the United States did not have an interventionist policy?'The answer to this question becomes the answer to the question, 'What would have a happened if the United States had retreated back into its pre-war isolationist shell in 1946?The classic example of this question to consider was the United States involvement in Vietnam from the mid 1950's to the mid 1970's. International communism had great energy behind it in the 1950's, what would have happened if the US had not intervened directly to oppose it? Results would likely have been more of what communism actually was in the 1950's, nothing that most communists in the West, or their sympathizers actually wanted during the 1950's: political, cultural and artistic repression, state police terrorism, economic malaise - yuck!Intervening in complex situation, especially without clear objectives and firm resolve, leads to unexpected outcomes. Not intervening, can have even more unexpected and catastrophic results. There are many groups in the world intent on reshaping the world according to their own plans. None of these groups are working to make the world fairer, or more just for everyone else. This requires a certain amount of push back on our part - if you actually happen to value freedom and opportunity for all.