I myself have been an isolationist for years now, but being that this is a democracy, I know I’ll never get what I want 100%. No one will. So with that on the table, I’m very curious about what most other people think.
Edit: my ideas are posted below in detail. If you disagree, answer that. I don’t want this to become an “isolation vs everything else” thread. Post your own ideas independent of that below.
29 comments
As for me, ironically I see the necessity for the Ukraine war. I’m not happy about it, but I get it. We told them we would defend them if this happened, and for the sake of our credibility as a nation, we owe them that much. With that said, I see it as a war that’s a European problem, and I think that NATO in particular should be an alliance centered around European interests sans the US. That is to say, a military alliance that is to the EU as the UN peace keeping forces are to the world. Yeah I know that functionally they’re the same (NATO is arguably way more effective at the same job), but I want to make that distinction because I’d like to see the US make more of an effort to pursue mutually beneficial, economic and defense integration with Latin America–if that’s something they’re open to. On a country to country basis, results may vary quite a lot and we should respect the will of those that decline, but I definitely think more of an effort should be put in on our part to foster more positive relations in that part of the world. Namely due to proximity and the fact that stability in that region means more than anywhere else ever will.
I think decoupling from European obligations will benefit us much more in the long term than not. I don’t mean we shouldn’t prioritize trade with Europe or the greater world, I’m talking about military obligations and defense obligations post Ukraine War. I don’t think the American people benefit from them at all. We should still maintain the ability to project hard and soft power via trade and naval presence, of course, but at the same time, not allow ourselves to end up in a situation where we can’t retain the right to stay out of whatever new conflicts pop up in the future, regardless of where they are. But that’s my two cents.
The last time the US left Europe alone, they devolved into The First and Second World Wars which eventually required the US to lose American troops to deal with the wars. And Europe has kept trying to do the same thing ***even with*** the US intervening in European affairs in order to prevent it from occurring… for a third time.
Isolationism hasn’t worked since the first world war in 1688. The US is in a better position if it can stop stupid shit from happening before it devolves into a situation requiring the US to put boots on the ground.
We should encourage our allies to become more capable of defending themselves without our help, while still maintaining strong relationships and working together on security matters. Maintaining a strong military presence in places like the South China Sea, Korean Peninsula, Persian Gulf and Eastern Europe is important, but we’ve got to make sure our forces aren’t spread thin, should we find ourselves in a large-scale conflict with one or more peer or near-peer adversaries. When I was deployed, there was definitely an attitude amongst partner forces that they didn’t have to worry as much about their own defense, since America would always be there to save the day.
We should work to strengthen and become more involved in international institutions, deterring adversaries like China from their efforts to rewrite the world order. We should continue promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law around the world, and aid to certain countries should perhaps be conditional upon their respect for and active efforts at ensuring such values are practiced and respected (though I do understand that this is partly how China has become such an attractive alternative to the US for many countries).
We should lead the charge in matters of global security, from combating climate change and international piracy to nuclear arms control and disease.
We should begin to distance ourselves from our more unsavory allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan (if you could even call them allies).
We should encourage and invest in the development of the Global South, especially in our own backyard, helping to improve the more poverty and conflict stricken areas in Central and South America, which would also have a positive impact on our immigration problem.
It sounds cliche, but we have to work to become the beacon of liberty and equality that we were seen as in the past, fixing our problems here at home will give us greater prestige and influence when trying to help solve problems around the world.
Strengthening a coalition of liberal democracy and presenting a viable economic alternative to Chinese and Russian authoritarian mercantilism for developing nations to pursue
Strengthen the NATO and trans-Pacific alliances.
We’re the most powerful country on earth. Isolationism leaves a power vacuum that will not be filled by friendly allies. If you think the current world order has benefitted the US in anyway, be prepared to defend it, because none of the other world’s democracies have the international clout to take the lead if we drop out of the picture.
The primary focus going forward will be on the shifting of the balance of power towards Asia-Pacific. The South China Sea is a significant area of interest in geopolitics with it’s important trade route, natural resources, and international tensions. There are many significant things happening in Asian countries. Reapproachment with Russia should be attempted if/when the Putin regime collapses.
Isolationism is crazy. A Europe under the US protection umbrella is a positive for both parties. Sweden and Finland didn’t wake up and suddenly want to join NATO for no reason.
Continue investing heavily in R&D, AI and Drones. The US military needs to transform itself into an autonomous fighting force powered by AI controlled drones. This will allow us to significantly minimize the risk to American lives, and confront countries like Iran, China and Russia without risking young Americans. War is changing, and its time for us to truly get into the 21st century.
Naval supremacy is the only thing I think really matters. The land empires huff and puff and ultimately collapse, I don’t think any of our land wars or bombing campaigns have yielded positive results.
Isolationism would be disastrous for US foreign policy. Most of the time it leads to a severe decline in influence, innovation, and is virtually impossible considering how globalized the world economy has become.
Non-interventionism, on the other hand, is a different story.
Isolationism is short sighted. Not only has it historically failed to yield the “everyone leaves us alone peacefully “ result, but it weakens our position in the world politically and economically as other countries will not follow suit. For instance, we disengaged from Africa over the last 20 years and allowed Chinese influence to move in. Now there’s real danger in losing the continent as a market for American goods and a resource for American industry. We are poorer for it.
I believe our foreign policy needs to focus more on our values and less on expediency. The latter has led to all manner of ills: OPEC, al Qaeda, Iraq, and countless dictators who declare us enemies. We should trust that the ideas of democracy and personal freedom will eventually win out, but we can’t force them on people not ready. We should do more to nurture our ideals in other people.
In no particular order really.
Defense of our own country, building a rock solid defense against China’s expansion, ending the exploitation the exploitation of Africa, any of our own, but probably more critically by European powers. examine our foreign aid packages and focus on building the self-sufficiency of other countries rather than allowing that process to be used to grow our own influence there, this is not only moral but heads of the forthcoming exploitative expansions of China and Africa into the most vulnerable places. Quit propping up Europe’s defenses, force them to all create sufficient military forces of their own, we can gladly sell them the equipment they will need. Some other stuff.
“butt out”
I’m tired of squandering our potential on ingrates who either can’t fight or only want to fight. We should withdraw significantly. I genuinely don’t care if that means arrogant “allies” get feasted on by the wolves.
At the very most, we should maintain formal alliances with countries who have demonstrated repeated loyalty and commitment to a mutual defense and upholding our ideals. So mostly just Japan, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Poland, and Canada can come too if they get rid of Trudeau. The rest can rot for what they’re worth.
Chinese and Russian containment. “No” to isolationism.
The Pacific Ocean. Great Power rival, multiple countries with threats to their sovereignty (South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, ect.) from said great power. And US territory directly under threat (Guam + Marianna’s) is also worth noting.
Russia is not a threat to the Atlantic. Its a threat to mainland Europe, but its also out populated, out spent, and out smarted by the Europeans. They can take care of themselves without having to spend new money (but it would require being less of a make jobs program and more of a defense force).
The oil supplies of the Middle East are important but are a global issue.
The Eastern Mediterranean conflicts (Libya, Israel/Palestine, Cyprus) are a European issues.
I don’t think any changes have to be made to Africa, most issues are trying to be resolved transnationally. Despite long running issues in the Congo and Somalia, its worth pointing out that West Africa’s coastal states have improved a lot since the 1990s, so has all of Southern Africa. There’s no clear path on what to do here, but a few good responses could work.
In Central America the USA should commit to importing stuff from it. Laws requiring US cotton in imports seem to just be favoring Asian imports (due to complexities in confirming origin). Mexico already has a series of programs for things like semi conductors and auto parts, but Mexico is much richer than the countries south of it up until Costa Rica. These rules should be removed because importing stuff from Central America means those governments get tax revenues and jobs which is more important than marginally increasing the value of American Cotton.
For the Caribbean the USA could just give free migration to the English speaking nations (or annex them). I mean most of these countries already have half their population living in the USA, so its not like it would be a dramatic change than what happens under any other policy. I would imagine in exchange the US Coast Guard takes over these nations coast guard functions (to stop drugs and other smuggling). If this needs to be offset with less migration form the rest of the World or some loan restructuring program so be it. Similar agreements could be given to the smaller South Pacific Nations + Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
* Peace through strength.
* The freedom of navigation of the seas.
* Collective defense of both NATO allies and non-NATO allies in the Indo-Pacific. Longer term promoting the [Indo-Pacific Quad+](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue) to near NATO levels of importance.
We should expand and defend the Empire of Liberty, like Jefferson wanted us to do.
​
Please note I do not believe that Afghanistan or Iraq did that in anyway, and we shouldn’t do anything like that ever again. But I think we should be giving more & better weapons to Ukraine so they can defend themselves. And we need to ditch being allies with Saudi Arbia, the people are lovely, their king sucks ass, and not in the good way
​
if we don’t use our super powers for good, then we’re not good, in my humble opinion
We need to make the CIA as powerful as the tankies think it is.
I also think we’re at the point were we can be “picky” with our allies. Gone are the days of supporting overdecorated military leaders and theocratic monarchs to fight communism and keep oil cheap. We honestly might be at a point were we can fund genuinely liberal and democratic movements and coups in other nations.
Getting countries to increase their climate ambitions, supporting democratic institutions.
Non interventionism. We are not the world police and we should let the world suffer through their problems.
Weakening Russia and China, containing the nutjob in Pyongyang, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Military, non-interventionalism with a strong navy patrolling the oceans but a much smaller army and air force.
Economically, more use of tariffs to support US manufacturing. But international trade is a good thing.
As a supporter of Vermin Supreme: Enslave the world, turn them into zombies, and we’ll have big giant turbines that they’ll run in, like hamster wheels, and we’ll dangle little bits of brains and guts from a string in front of them, and that will produce our energy. No more need for fossil fuels or other expensive energy harvesting.
Pain and misery awaits when the US decides to give up the world police badge. Obviously the decision of the American people but it’s definitely a much bigger problem than most Americans know.
Convincing our NATO allies to become more capable of defending themselves.
Also, containing the rise of China.
I think we should we move to replace NATO with a global mutual defense treaty that any nation can apply to join. This would really help too counter China’s rising aggression and protect smaller nations in that region.
I think we should restructure our relationships with other nations into a tier system that promotes democracy, encourages autocratic nations to improve, and isolates autocratic nations that don’t.
Tier 1 is every full-functioning developed democracy. If you are a full democracy you get full access to the US, to our markets, our weapons, our aid, etc.
Tier 2 is countries like Nigeria that have problems but are working to improve. We have full diplomatic relations, trade relationships, maybe defense pacts or contracts, but we tie those relationships to further improvements on things like human rights, corruption, and climate.
Tier 3 is nations that are backsliding, like Hungary or China. We have full diplomatic relations and some agreements in place, but if we see your government structure is degrading, if corruption is growing, human rights are being infringed, etc, you run the risk of increasing isolation. Cuts to aid, cuts to military weapons, sanctions, etc.
Tier 4 is nations like North Korea and Russia who are not only autocratic and oppressive but also have no interest in improving. No direct diplomatic ties, sanctions, no access to our markets, etc. We still always call out human rights abuses and do what we can to support ordinary people trapped in these places through organizations like the UN, and also make clear that even these nations can earn greater standing.
This structure could also serve as a model for countries on the lower tiers. “Look, Nigeria was just like you, but are now a prosperous, close ally, and you can do it to, or you can be like Russia.
We should stop getting involved in other countries’ problems and focus on our own. That’s what I believe. At least it’ll stop a lot of countries from constantly insulting us as well as give us the best chance at bettering ourselves in a way that’s not just war.
I honestly think the USA should stay out of global affairs unless it effects us directly. We have defense agreements and treaty we should keep those but besides those the USA should stay out of global affairs
Leave us alone unless you’re both willing and able to help us. USA needs to fix itself first before helping anybody else.