Minimum engagement, isolationism redux

[Ron]

Realistically what is the smallest footprint the USA can have in our lifetime?

As much as I would like to bring home all the troops that are far flung across the globe, as much as I would love to just shut down a bunch of embassies and leave the screaming beards to themselves I have to wonder what is the best we could hope for?

We have a lot of agreements with nations across the globe concerning security. We just can't pick up our toys and go home. If we decided to take a more hands off approach and stop being Team America World Police what would it or could it look like?

I'm not seeing any clear way out of the current dysfunctional "world order".   

[Blakenzy]

We could start by reducing our subterfuge and ceasing all government destabilization programs.

[charby]

I'm not sure how small we could be, we have way too many global business interests. Also we shouldn't turn a blind eye towards mass genocide and other wrong doings done by one group to a another group.

[Blakenzy]

I'm not sure how small we could be, we have way too many global business interests. Also we shouldn't turn a blind eye towards mass genocide and other wrong doings done by one group to a another group.

Maybe US corps should use good business sense and savvy methods to get good deals on resources and not rely on taxpayer-funded Government "Umpf". A strong navy to protect our commercial routes is about as far as the government should go to protect business interests.

And genocide? It happens regardless, and we have already turned a blind eye to it more than once.

[lee n. field]

I'm not sure how small we could be, we have way too many global business interests.

Who's the "we" here?

Also we shouldn't turn a blind eye towards mass genocide and other wrong doings done by one group to a another group.

The US has done it before.

[French G.]

We did it before, must be right. 

 I am sad to say that I get the message of the founding fathers warning against standing armies. Bearing in mind of course that the most effective troops they had just faced were flagless mercenaries. Those days are gone, we can't maintain a modern military on a show up when you can system. The militia still has a place though.

I repeat this ad nauseum, but one more. The more we pull back off the world stage the more someone else is going to supplant us and odds are they are not going to put out the effort we have to be such crappy imperialists. I mean who else is going to re-build your country and hand it back to you? 

The screaming beards thing is proof of this on a tiny scale. They know there is a weakness of will in the US leadership, so they made their play. And, looks like they were correct. Pack up our toys and go home and it will be the same thing on a grand scale. When we finally have to trot back out and fix it the cost will be staggering. How many lives, American, German, Jew, Russian, etc would have been saved if we had forcefully come into WWII in 1939? Or 1914? Oh wait, we couldn't no military capability. I'm sure there are those that think we should have never gotten involved. Ok, but without that pesky western front give Hitler some chance of subjugating Russia and then what?

[agricola]

Maybe US corps should use good business sense and savvy methods to get good deals on resources and not rely on taxpayer-funded Government "Umpf". A strong navy to protect our commercial routes is about as far as the government should go to protect business interests.

And genocide? It happens regardless, and we have already turned a blind eye to it more than once.

A strong navy needs lots of bases around the world, though. 

[longeyes]

Your premise is that "we" are one nation.

That premise is, alas, suspect.

If we were and had been one nation, really, much of what has happened to us and outside us would not have occurred.  So long as we maintain our illusions about America's unity we are headed for grave trouble.

[charby]

Who's the "we" here?

The we is all of us that live in the US.

We need Oil, food, resources, goods, labor, services, etc.

Basically to live the lifestyle we have all come to enjoy, we need to rest of the world to make it happen.

Unless you live on your own land and provide for 100% of your daily needs you are going to need the US to have a strong presence in the world.

[longeyes]

The we is all of us that live in the US.

We need Oil, food, resources, goods, labor, services, etc.

Basically to live the lifestyle we have all come to enjoy, we need to rest of the world to make it happen.

Unless you live on your own land and provide for 100% of your daily needs you are going to need the US to have a strong presence in the world.

Exactly what I'm talking about. 

"We" need "the rest of the world" to make "it" happen.

That's a serious bag of premises you're toting there.

[charby]

If we were and had been one nation, really, much of what has happened to us and outside us would not have occurred.  So long as we maintain our illusions about America's unity we are headed for grave trouble.

Ok explain

[MechAg94]

nevermind, Charby already said it better.

[MechAg94]

Exactly what I'm talking about. 

"We" need "the rest of the world" to make "it" happen.

That's a serious bag of premises you're toting there.

So what is your premise? 

[longeyes]

I said it already: We are very far from being one united people, and we are also very far from having those who run this country operate on behalf of the nation as a whole.

You disagree?

Please don't tell me the policies of our State Dept. are designed to help America United.  

Much of our economy has nothing to do with basic needs, much less survival.  it does keep certain demographic segments pacified, though.

We have a Republican candidate who keeps talking about jobs but won't talk about globalism or illegal/legal immigration and its impact on jobs present and future.  You think this is accidental?

I said in another thread that our "economy" needs to be brought back to fighting weight.  Unpack that fully and you'll understand where I am coming from. 

[MechAg94]

The problem is your rant covers a lot ground and i might agree with part of it, I certainly can't say I agree with all of it.

I would also suggest that the US has never been united in that respect and never will be.

I also find your expectation that some Repub candidate talk about the issues you want to hear to be strange.  You arent a member of that party and have done next to nothing to support them based on other posts you have made.  What makes you think that would help his election chances anyway?

[MicroBalrog]

And genocide? It happens regardless, and we have already turned a blind eye to it more than once.

A completely rational argument!

Surely since we are not stopping all genocide, we should do nothing about it at all!

...wait. That's not how it actually works.

[longeyes]

The problem is your rant covers a lot ground and i might agree with part of it, I certainly can't say I agree with all of it.

I would also suggest that the US has never been united in that respect and never will be.

I also find your expectation that some Repub candidate talk about the issues you want to hear to be strange.  You arent a member of that party and have done next to nothing to support them based on other posts you have made.  What makes you think that would help his election chances anyway?

Who says I am not a member of the Republican Party? That will be news to the Republican group I attend monthly.

If you mean that I am critical of some of the positions that the Republican Party takes you are correct.  I stand by what I said. Romney's discussion of jobs has to include immigration and globalization otherwise it is meaningless.  This is not really a partisan issue, it is an economic issue.

What you call my rant does cover a lot of ground. Of course from my perspective that is ground that needs to be covered and is not.

[RevDisk]

I'm not sure how small we could be, we have way too many global business interests. Also we shouldn't turn a blind eye towards mass genocide and other wrong doings done by one group to a another group.

Sigh. Only way to end genocide in the Balkans would be to sterilize the entire region with radiological and chemical weapons. Seriously, often that can be the only way to end genocide. By wiping out one or both sides.

After having done that "nation building", I'm very skeptical of it. Very expensive, very little gain, etc. It's a bit different if you're doing so with a country that has been fairly well organized prior to being wrecked. Third world countries? Not so great.


So what should our engagement window be? Simple, least amount of stuff we can get away with. Fair treatment to everyone then subject to merit. Mirror other countries' trade practices. If they tariff our stuff at say, 60%, we should do the same to their goods. 0%? Sure. Why not. A respectable Navy to keep our shipping lanes open in case someone gets miffed that we want even and fair trade. Enough Army to defeat whoever else is largest. USAF to run satellites and keep air superiority. Drastically cut foreign aid, which tends to be corporate welfare scams anyways. Slap the ever lovin' hell out of the CIA, to remind them that their job is intel gathering and not "rigging nations". We need intel agencies, but they should not be making policy. Don't try to rebuild third world countries. Just don't. It's not worth it. If you REALLY want to help them and THEY ask, send advisers with armed guards and that's it. Have counterintelligence personnel closely watching the State Department, intel folks, etc.
 
If a couple foreign countries are angry at each other and it doesn't influence critical resources, respond promptly with "That sucks." Mutual defense treaties only with folks really in our interest. Decent folks, good trade relations, relatively civilized and not stirring the pot? Taiwan or the Ukraine comes to mind. Sure. Why not?

I'm not saying being isolationist. I'm saying "Don't poke your nose where it doesn't belong, isn't appreciated, won't fix anything and will cost literal metric tons of cash." If it makes sense, it makes sense so do it. If not, stay out of it.

Thank the Gods we DID turn a blind eye to Darfur, dude. And a hundred other genocides. Folks do not like world policemen. Nor should they. If we feel the NEED to get involved, send the weaker side a couple C-130s with AKs, ammo, some food and medical supplies. Then call it a day. If you really want to be small government type, make it optional line item on tax returns. "Do you want to sponsor American international intervention in other people's problems? Yes? You can donate 1% of your tax return to sending an AK to ... where ever."

[Ron]

My name is Ron and I approve of the above ^ message.

Good stuff Rev.

[Jamisjockey]

The we is all of us that live in the US.

We need Oil, food, resources, goods, labor, services, etc.

Basically to live the lifestyle we have all come to enjoy, we need to rest of the world to make it happen.

Unless you live on your own land and provide for 100% of your daily needs you are going to need the US to have a strong presence in the world.

We posses all those resources within our national boundries.  Our own policies have prevented us from being able to be isolationist.
Labor unions
minimum wage
OSHA
Regulations
lobbyists
politicians
EPA

[MicroBalrog]

Thank the Gods we DID turn a blind eye to Darfur, dude. And a hundred other genocides.

Yeah, Rwanda would be so much worse if America intervened.

[Jamisjockey]

Rev, you forgot "enough Marines to organize a group of mercenaries and march on Tripoli to *expletive deleted*ck up some pirates"
 


Otherwise, you post is spot the *expletive deleted*ck on.

[RevDisk]

Yeah, Rwanda would be so much worse if America intervened.

Please explain to me why we should risk our necks, pay a lot of money and likely end up being hated for doing so? Even when we do good acts, it's forgotten within a few weeks and back to "America sucks!!!!"

"Not. My. Fight." - Riddick

Rev, you forgot "enough Marines to organize a group of mercenaries and march on Tripoli to *expletive deleted* up some pirates"
 

Otherwise, you post is spot the *expletive deleted* on.

I'm aware a short post can't describe ALL of the issues of the world. ITAR and other international regulations would still exist. Same with random small agencies/organizations that are useful. CDC, I don't mind them whatsoever. International solidarity forever when it comes to hunting bugs.

I'm just trying to explain the philosophy of NOT getting involved in every other person's business on the planet, only getting involved when it is needed and when it is needed...  Go big or go home.

[Jamisjockey]

I just wanted to work Marines *expletive deleted*ing up pirates into the thread man.  Have a beer.   

[MicroBalrog]

Please explain to me why we should risk our necks, pay a lot of money and likely end up being hated for doing so? Even when we do good acts, it's forgotten within a few weeks and back to "America sucks!!!!"

"Not. My. Fight." - Riddick

Quite a few nations are consistently pro-American.