Why America Don’t Need No Stinkin’ ‘Allies’ (or as George Washington put it, 'foreign entanglements')
Posted by freedomforall 2 weeks, 2 days ago to Government
Excerpt:
"OK, the title is a bit crude and is deliberately mocking in tone. But it has to be because there is a deeply-entrenched, almost sacred presumption embedded in the nation’s foreign policy catechism that “allies”, “alliances” and “coalitions of the willing” are the be-all-and-end-all of enlightened, necessary and effective foreign policy.
American policy-makers and diplomats perforce should therefore never leave these shores for the wider world without them. This dogma perhaps reached its epitome in Secretary of State James Baker’s “coalition of the willing” during the utterly pointless first Gulf War of 1991 and has plagued us ever since. Unfortunately.
In fact, the truth is more nearly the opposite – so it needs to be stated coarsely, almost defiantly. To wit, allies in today’s world are mostly an albatross, completely irrelevant to the military security of the American homeland and a major source of unnecessary friction and even outright conflict among the nations.
In a word, America is such an outsized economic and military Hegemon that all the little and mid-sized nation’s it has lined-up in formal and de facto alliances are inherently incentivized to pursue policies that minimize their own defense investments – even as they are also encouraged to throw diplomatic caution to the winds. That is, Washington’s “alliances” enable the domestic politicians or elected governments of these small allies to be more aggressive or confrontational vis-à-vis the “bad guys” designated by Washington than they surely would be if operating only upon their own steam."
"OK, the title is a bit crude and is deliberately mocking in tone. But it has to be because there is a deeply-entrenched, almost sacred presumption embedded in the nation’s foreign policy catechism that “allies”, “alliances” and “coalitions of the willing” are the be-all-and-end-all of enlightened, necessary and effective foreign policy.
American policy-makers and diplomats perforce should therefore never leave these shores for the wider world without them. This dogma perhaps reached its epitome in Secretary of State James Baker’s “coalition of the willing” during the utterly pointless first Gulf War of 1991 and has plagued us ever since. Unfortunately.
In fact, the truth is more nearly the opposite – so it needs to be stated coarsely, almost defiantly. To wit, allies in today’s world are mostly an albatross, completely irrelevant to the military security of the American homeland and a major source of unnecessary friction and even outright conflict among the nations.
In a word, America is such an outsized economic and military Hegemon that all the little and mid-sized nation’s it has lined-up in formal and de facto alliances are inherently incentivized to pursue policies that minimize their own defense investments – even as they are also encouraged to throw diplomatic caution to the winds. That is, Washington’s “alliances” enable the domestic politicians or elected governments of these small allies to be more aggressive or confrontational vis-à-vis the “bad guys” designated by Washington than they surely would be if operating only upon their own steam."
When every veteran is housed, fed and medically taken care of,
When every legal American child is healthy, educated and decently housed.
When every substance addicted person is treated.
When everybody who can work, is working.
When every mentally afflicted person (my poor brother-in-law comes to mind) is offered real help, though you can lead a horse to water.....
When all the millions who invaded our borders are given the chance to do it legally (or leave).
When all our roads and bridges are made safe.
I could go on to write a novel, but you get the picture...
Not a dime spent outside this Republic until we get our ducks in a row
George Washington
…
isolation is not a plan
we really need to fic this nation, that means removing the traitors called democrats
but it seems we cannot even remove those that came her il-legally, thank SCOTUS
First, you need to think about what an "entanglement" is. History shows quite well what those are. Let's look at how The Great War (later called WWI) started. Sure, we all know of the assassination. However, that isn't what escalated to the level of war we saw.
What happened was a series of declarations of war based solely on treaty agreements of immediate and automatic mutual defense. Within the span of about two weeks, a two-country issue expanding to several major powers, due to these entanglements. Here are the significant details:
1882: Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy agreed to support each other if attacked.
1907: France, Russia, and the United Kingdom formed a loose agreement of cooperation.
Escalation sequence:
1. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia (July 28, 1914).
2. Russia, bound to Serbia by treaty, mobilized against Austria-Hungary.
3. Germany declared war on Russia (Aug 1) and France (Aug 3) under alliance obligations.
4. Britain declared war on Germany (Aug 4) after the invasion of Belgium, which Britain had guaranteed neutrality for in the Treaty of London, 1839.
That is a prime example of a foreign entanglement.
Now as to the "isolationism" cry. First, America has never been isolationist. What it used to be was a nation that specifically avoided European Entanglements. However, it was quite involved and almost (or sometimes) imperialist in the rest of the world.
Indeed, Washington's farewell address explicitly calls for economic relations, but political connection to be as little as possible:
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible... So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. But in my opinion, it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
One must remember, or learn, that at that time Europe was still "in its warring with itself phase." War was a near-constant for most of Europe, and Washington and the founders wanted nothing to do with it, and reasonably so. He was also quite clear on this fact:
"…Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
He was opposed to political-military alliances, especially so-called "permanent" ones. Those "interests" and "controversies" were the ongoing power struggles between European nations.
This was not the only place he discussed it. For example, in 1793 he sent a letter to Jefferson, in the context of the French Revolutionary Wars, "The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred... and is further pressed upon us by the circumstances of our situation.” Later we would reinforce this in a letter to Monroe in 1796:
“I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation ought to be without a national character; and if there is any part of the world less entitled than another to a permanent alliance, it is Europe.”
Again, we see the focus is on Europe and political-military alliances, especially permanent ones.
We also see through the actions of the Union Government up until WWII that we stayed out of European ones, but did engage heavily on economic and non-European ones.
Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France (1778) was later repudiated by Washington's proclamation of neutrality when the European wars flared up again.
Monroe Doctrine (1823) Asserted U.S. opposition to European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere while staying out of European affairs.
Hague Conventions (1899, 1907) U.S. participated in international conferences aimed at arbitration and laws of war, avoiding binding military commitments.
Open Door Policy (1899-1900) – regarding European Powers in China; The U.S. coordinated with Britain, France, Germany, and other powers to ensure equal trade access in China without direct colonial claims. Again, diplomatic engagements without military commitments.
Treaty of Portsmouth (1905) The U.S. (under Theodore Roosevelt) mediated peace between Russia and Japan, maintaining neutrality while playing a diplomatic role.
But lets look more closely at the wester hemisphere actions.
The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904) expanded the Monroe Doctrine by asserting that the U.S. had the right to intervene in Latin American nations to maintain stability and prevent European intervention. It justified U.S. military and economic interventions in the Caribbean and Central America.
The Banana Wars (1898-1934) were a series of U.S. military interventions in the Caribbean and Central America (e.g., Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua) primarily to protect U.S. business interests, especially the United Fruit Company.
Then more military interventions:
* Haiti (1915-1934)
* Dominican Republic (1916-1924)
* Nicaragua (1912-1933)
In each of those we actually occupied those government and/or installed a US military one.
Not even limited to the western hemisphere. The U.S. ruled the Philippines as a colony after defeating Spain in 1898 and suppressed a Filipino independence movement (Philippine-American War, 1899-1902).
When you look at actual history, America pre-WWII was anti-European military alliances, but pro intervention outside of Europe. It was also pro-economic and diplomatic engagement even in Europe.
Washington and the others were not precognitive in the warning - they were simply recognizing what had been the source of unnecessary expansion of "controversies" and hostilities in a seemingly perpetual war for power in Europe. That those very things certainly inflated the contest now known as WWI, and contributed heavily to the rapid inflation of WWII is merely continued recognition of that.
This history also shows that such alliances do not actually prevent international hostilities from breaking out, there merely delay and amplify them. And no, it wasn't NATO and the Warsaw pact that staved off more European wars, it was the nuclear mutually assured destruction threat. And as we can see today, it is the case that it took some time for various powers to realize how to wage smaller scale wars and proxy wars without triggering MAD because the great flaw in MAD is that unless you demonstrate a willingness to actually use them, nuclear weapons lose their value as a defensive threat.
The United States has never been isolationist, guided by isolationism, and the people screaming "isolationist" have never been correct in their labeling.
Indeed the closest you can get to any major power being isolationist, is Japan in the Edo period from 1603 to 1853. Ir banned nearly all foreign trade and contact, with two exceptions: Dutch and Chinese at Nagasaki (specifically Dejima Island). It banned foreign travel and return. Christianity and anything deemed external influence was suppressed or outlawed. Indeed, it was essentially ended by ... US Commodore Perry in 1853 on a naval expedition.
Perry arrived at Edo Bay (modern Tokyo Bay) on July 8, 1853, with four steam-powered warships. He demanded a treaty allowing trade and resupply and presented a letter from President Millard Fillmore to the Japanese emperor.
Perry refused to meet lower-ranking officials and insisted on presenting his demands directly to representatives of the Shogun. The Japanese, shocked by the firepower and technology of the American fleet, accepted the letter but delayed negotiation, asking Perry to return later.
The following March, Perry returned with an even larger fleet (7 ships) and anchored again at Edo Bay. He brought gifts and technological demonstrations, including a model train, telegraph equipment, agricultural tools, and a mini steam engine.
Faced with superior firepower and diplomatic pressure, the Tokugawa Shogunate agreed to negotiate.
Which, IMO, really demonstrates not only the difference between neutrality and isolationism, but quite unironically, the end of Japan's Closed Country (sakoku) occurred at the hand of a supposedly "isolationist" United States' Navy.