By Donald Sassano
In Homeland Security Guest Contributor
Need we worry isolationism has become America’s preferred brand of global grand strategy? Eric Cantor seems to think so. After all, he argues, U.S. isolationism during the 1930’s was a disastrous policy that deterred the United States from preempting the horrors of the Second World War.
I’ll give him this: it does appear a sort of interregnum from rampant interventionism took hold with Barack Obama’s election in 2008. But, as was nearly the case with Syria last summer, the American urge to intervene lives on. And as surely as night follows day members of Congress – neoconservatives like Cantor and more than a few liberals from across the aisle — will inveigle against a restrained U.S. foreign policy by asserting that the nation has succumbed to isolationist urges.
They shouldn’t. Our recent demeanor, whether strategically intended or not, is a valuable corrective for what’s been ailing U.S. grand strategy for the last twenty-five years.
The Obama reluctance to engage in direct overseas military involvement – let’s call it the New Forbearance – was born of economic necessity and no small amount of war weariness. After the Bush years invasion and occupation became dirty words, even amongst a few conservative partisans. What Republicans now need to recognize is that the Obama strategy is similar to that of Ronald Reagan.
Candidate Reagan was surely no fan of Nixonian realpolitik or détente and appeared to prefer rollback to containment. But President Reagan, while long on rhetorical challenge rarely indulged in overseas adventures. In fact he was dismissive of the sort of wholesale nation building that is still considered a viable policy option by many of his conservative heirs.
Moreover, Reagan proved that restraint in the face of challenge and even provocation can serve both U.S. interests as well as global peace and stability. Contrast the Reagan reality with the Wilsonian dreams that pass for conservatism these days, fantasies that led to disaster, but are still unashamedly embraced by neoconservatives like Cantor.
President Obama’s challenge going forward will be to stay the course in the face of fierce partisan criticism while instability and threats emanate from abroad. A whole host of challenges – Russian revanchism, the prospect of failed peace talks with Iran, Chinese maritime provocations – provide ample ammunition for the President’s critics to deride his lack of foreign policy “leadership”. But rather than give in to rank political pressure to continually “do something” abroad, we should all hope Obamian coolness will prevail.
Unfortunately, he will be sorely tested.
First, let’s concede that repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. unilaterally sending forces abroad in order to re-engineer distant and unfamiliar lands from the ground up in order to make them more congenial is no longer feasible within the constraints of our current budgetary profile. Sequestration was, after all, designed to “starve the beast” including the military. Secretary of Defense Hagel has now proposed additional cuts, and it appears Republicans will essentially be on board.
The good news is that Republicans who doggedly continue to support the decision to invade Iraq also acknowledge we no longer have the money to spend on foreign adventures. And as much as it pains them, they have come to abhor budget deficits more than our unfettered ability to roam the world in order to lay down the law. Unfortunately, the current state of affairs is likely to be temporary. If the economy continues to strengthen the interventionist bug will again bite. Simply put, an upward economic path will tempt unwise action.
Additionally, neoconservatives like Cantor, an ideologically resilient bunch if there ever was one, will continue to conflate the New Forbearance with the sort of feckless isolationism the United States clung to up until Pearl Harbor.
They are wrong, of course. All indications are that the United States remains deeply committed to expend blood and treasure when necessary. The Pivot to Asia is but one example of the administration’s willingness to confront a changing threat environment. Moreover, global foreword deployments, including the continued presence of American troops in both Europe and Asia surely illustrate global resolve. Isolationism would have had us withdraw from those commitments, leaving allies to fend for themselves. Given our history, does anyone doubt the U.S. would not step up to check a potential hegemon in Asia, Europe, or the Middle East?
As realists point out, the United States continues to occupy a commanding strategic position, and not even the most bellicose neoconservatives would trade it for that of any other great power. Had other, less well-endowed nations suffered the policies of the Bush administration, interventionism on a broad scale espoused by today’s neoconservatives would not even rise to the level of serious discussion. Now more than ever, the lessons of Reagan, and Obama, should be heeded.
About the Author
Donald Sassano is a businessman with strong interests in Middle Eastern politics, U.S. Grand Strategy, and political theory. He completed his Master’s Degree in International Relations and Conflict Resolution with a concentration in Comparative and Security Issues at American Military University in 2013.
When he’s not reading and writing about foreign affairs, he works at commercial real estate to the extent necessary to keep a roof over his head. He resides with his wife Denise near Lake Erie in Rocky River, Ohio.
Comments are closed.