No, Senator, They're Not Isolationists

http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/22/no-senator-theyre-not-isolatio

No, Senator, They're Not Isolationists
by David Harsanyi

There's been a lot of talk about an alleged turn in American public opinion—
particularly among Republicans—toward "isolationism."

In a recent debate among GOP presidential hopefuls, there was some discussion 
about ending the United States' commitment to the tribal warlords and 
medieval shamans of the Afghan wilderness. This induced John McCain to 
complain about the rise of a new "strain of isolationism" that hearkens back 
to "Pat Buchanan-style Republicanism."

McCain sidekick Lindsey Graham went on to notify Congress that it "should 
sort of shut up and not empower Gadhafi" when the topic of the House's 
potentially defunding the military—er, kinetic, non-warlike bombing activity 
over Libya—came up. It would be a mistake, he vented, for Republican 
candidates to sit "to the left" of President Barack Obama on national 
security.

So if you don't shut up and stop carping about this non-war war of ours, you 
are abetting North African strongmen. Makes sense. It's the return of Teddy 
Roosevelt-style Republicanism, in which arbitrary power (and John McCain's 
singular wisdom) matters a lot more than any democratic institution.

Sure, some on the far right and swaths of the protectionist, union-driven 
left oppose international trade agreements and endlessly freaking us out 
about foreign influences. But isolationists? Judging from our conduct in the 
real world of economy, we're anything but insular. So perhaps McCain simply 
meant noninterventionists—as in folks who have an unwavering ideological 
aversion to any and all overseas entanglement.

That can't be it, either. Maybe, like many Americans, some in the GOP are 
simply grappling with wars that never end and a war that never started. And 
with plenty of troubles here at home, it's not surprising that Americans have 
turned their attention inward.

We can't be in a constant state of war. Then again, Afghanistan is not a war 
per se, but a precarious social engineering project that asks our best and 
bravest (or, as our ally Hamid Karzai calls them, "occupiers") to die for the 
Afghan Constitution, which is roundly ignored—except for the parts codifying 
Islamic law, that is. But all these conflicts come with the price of endless 
involvement. We almost always win. But we never really go home.

For those who claim that Republicans are hypocrites for opposing Obama's wars—
be glad. Perhaps your worldview has won. But however brittle or lie-ridden 
you may find the reasoning for the wars of the past, at least we got a reason 
in the old days. We also got a vote. Today we have a metafiction.

This week, we learned that Obama rejected the advice of lawyers at the 
Pentagon and the Justice Department who questioned his legal authority to 
continue this nonmilitary military involvement in Libya without congressional 
authorization. Instead, the administration offered a string of euphemisms 
concocted to bypass the Constitution.

Without any tangible evidence that this conflict furthers our national 
interests or any real proof that we are preventing a wide-scale humanitarian 
crisis, it's not a surprise that Defense Secretary Robert Gates says 
we're "leading from behind"—which is, in fact, as stupid and deceptive as the 
case it doesn't make.

Are you an isolationist for questioning those who continue to weaken the 
Constitution—a McCain specialty? Are you an isolationist for questioning this 
brand of obfuscation? Are you an isolationist for wanting American forces to 
win and leave the battlefield rather than hang around for decades of baby-
sitting duty? Does an isolationist support the deployment of armed forces in 
defense of the United States rather than a handful of European nations?

Hardly.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot