Bush goes it alone: the new isolationism

[Ben Franklin]

Sen. Hutchinson (R-Tex)

When asked in a CNN interview about the apparent discrepancy of her claim that holding America troops stateside will make overseas deployment easier, she* said that, for example, Turkey blocked movement of American troops to Iraq (in effect, blaming Turkey for not supporting the war), so it's far better to rely on American logistics. Her statement unwittingly reveals two Bu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]e premises: 1. U.S. allies were wrong, and 2. U.S. doesn't need allies. If the opposite were true, obviously there'd be no needed troop repositioning to America.

Whatever objections Germany, France, Russian, et al, had over aggressive war against Iraq were ignored by Bush. He himself stated the USA would go it alone (if necessary). Now that even Sen. Hutchinson is intimating US allies can't be trusted (sic), and America'll trust to it's own, it's a corollary that US will become isolationist, fighting wars with an extremely long supply line, with no dependence upon bases or allies.

(*Senator Hutchinson)

[Jaltus]

Sen. Hutchinson (R-Tex)

When asked in a CNN interview about the apparent discrepancy of her claim that holding America troops stateside will make overseas deployment easier, she* said that, for example, Turkey blocked movement of American troops to Iraq (in effect, blaming Turkey for not supporting the war), so it's far better to rely on American logistics. Her statement unwittingly reveals two Bu[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]e premises: 1. U.S. allies were wrong, and 2. U.S. doesn't need allies. If the opposite were true, obviously there'd be no needed troop repositioning to America.

Isn't that a bit over-reaching for a single statement? After all, Kerry's plan (which you can download off of his website) says that if no allies will join the US, then the US will work alone to further world peace (Our Plan For America, pp. 24 ff).

Whatever objections Germany, France, Russian, et al, had over aggressive war against Iraq were ignored by Bush. He himself stated the USA would go it alone (if necessary). Now that even Sen. Hutchinson is intimating US allies can't be trusted (sic), and America'll trust to it's own, it's a corollary that US will become isolationist, fighting wars with an extremely long supply line, with no dependence upon bases or allies.

(*Senator Hutchinson)

Most of their objections were because of their own economic dependance upon Hussein's reign. Kerry himself stated that the US would go it alone if necessary.

Your leap into saying that the Bush administration is driving toward a policy of isolationism is absurd.

[Captain Ochre]

Isn't that a bit over-reaching for a single statement?

Forgive me for answering for BF, but yes it is.

After all, Kerry's plan (which you can download off of his website) says that if no allies will join the US, then the US will work alone to further world peace (Our Plan For America, pp. 24 ff).

BF hasn't come out in support of Kerry, afaics, but's it's always good to show how Kerry's feet are placed relative to the fence (one on each side in this case, which is somewhat characteristic).

Most of their objections were because of their own economic dependance upon Hussein's reign. Kerry himself stated that the US would go it alone if necessary.

Right.
Kerry's war plan distills to a 20/20 hindsight assurance that he would do things better.

Your leap into saying that the Bush administration is driving toward a policy of isolationism is absurd.

Now, Jaltus!
You're probably just failing to read between the lines to see the incredible insight that BF insinuates into each one of his cultured pearls of wisdom!

[themuzicman]

France's, Germany's, and Russia's objections to the war had to do with the billions they were bilking the bribe for oil program Saddam was running, and the UN had the same motivation. Had more to do with their under the table deals than right and wrong.

[Captain Ochre]

France's, Germany's, and Russia's objections to the war had to do with the billions they were bilking the bribe for oil program Saddam was running, and the UN had the same motivation. Had more to do with their under the table deals than right and wrong.

Has Germany been implicated?
I haven't seen it in the news yet. Could you provide substantiation?

[themuzicman]

Err.. I thought they were in with the French on the deal... maybe not.

Either way, we weren't going to get agreement from the French OR the Russians... ever.

I'd rather go it alone than throw my hat in with corrupt governments

[Jaltus]

IIRC, Germany wanted no part of war because of their economy. The German economy is not stable enough right now to put them on any sort of war footing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[kofh2u]

IIRC, Germany wanted no part of war because of their economy. The German economy is not stable enough right now to put them on any sort of war footing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am very impressed with consensus here, and it is my first experience in finding a quorum of informed people, knowledgeable enough about the truth to speak it plainly.

As far as Germany's reluctance to support Bush, I believe the problem is/was political. Eastern German voters are largely anti-Isreal and pro-Arab... they are already angry because they are having difficulty playing "catch up" with West Germans. The West side was/has been long ahead before the Berlin Wall fell. To appease these voters and remain in power, Germany turned a back on Bush.

It is very interesting to me that Germans are again in unity with the PLO, which represents the voice of early support for Hitler in 1933. The PLO people were complicit in propaganda, vocal in hatred, and are the only undefeated collaberators in the Holocaust.

Of course, they did not have Arafat, nor an umbrella PLOrganization... but they were the Palestinians of that generation costing 500,000 American lives.

Nevertheless, considering the separation of Church and State, it is embarrassing that Bush is alone. It is wonderful that the Church can hope for a heavenly Prince of Peace, while remaining virtually uninvolved as an earthly man of State runs all the hurdles...
... alone at home.


Isa. 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus (and his Burning Bush?), whose right hand I have holden (a second time?), to subdue (Islamic) nations before him; and I will loose the loins of (Arabian) kings, to open before him the two leaved gates (of Scripture); and the gates (of the Old and New Testaments) shall not be shut;

Isa. 45:2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked (political high) places straight:
I will break in pieces the (Arabahian) gates of brass (which prevent Chistian pilgrimages), and cut (the Muslim financial support) in sunder, the bars of (Aqabahian) iron:

Isa. 45:3 And I will give thee the treasures (of technology) of darkness (of warfare), and hidden
riches (of oil) of secret places (under the Dead Sea), that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name (Cyrus? Burning again in Bush?), am the God of Israel (the Chosen for the Promised Land).

[Ben Franklin]

Troops withdrawal - Exhibit A

Also, Sen. Hutchinson stated that Germany covered less than 25% of the expense of stationing American troops within Germany, so repositioning will save money. One government funded study found that it will cost over 7 billion up-front to bring the troops home, with a 1 billion annual savings.

What Kerry said is irrelevant or untrustworthy in this case. He has weaseled out of giving specific dates for troops withdrawals, so his statements can be construed as "me-too"-ism at this point. Kerry's supporter, former Army Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) has said that troop reduction are the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Troop withdrawal - Exhibit B

My conclusion: Everyone knows actions speak louder than words. Bush has stated the troops are coming home, so American allies are effectively on their own. Too many resources were wasted away in an increasingly misguided war of aggression on Iraq. Now, the price must be paid, and Bush is cutting back the military. Because of lack of allies, American forces are stretched too thin, and the breaking point has been reached. Army "stop-loss" policies, using US militia for lack of professional soldiers, ss ruining morale. The US Navy and Air Force are using early retirement to cut their manpower by 100,000+ troops.

It's fairly obvious that these major draw-downs in troop strength, combined with repositioning to America, and closure of foreign bases are cost-cutting measures. The hidden result of these policies, however, is the lack of friendly ports or bases for American troops overseas; ergo, no dependency on allies. If I'm not mistaken, having all of your troops at home, while espousing self-reliance is isolationism. Is there another definition for isolationism...?

[Jaltus]

Historically, isolationism is the belief that turning one's back on the world and only relating to one's own country is the best foreign policy. By still seeking to work within the world, Bush is not in fact an isolationist.

Isolationism as a political term came about during World War I and was used during World War II, IIRC. The point was that the US did not want to get involved in world politics, so we isolated ourselves from the rest of the world.

Therefore, your use of the term is inaccurate.

[Captain Ochre]

Troops withdrawal - Exhibit A

Also, Sen. Hutchinson stated that Germany covered less than 25% of the expense of stationing American troops within Germany, so repositioning will save money. One government funded study found that it will cost over 7 billion up-front to bring the troops home, with a 1 billion annual savings.

What Kerry said is irrelevant or untrustworthy in this case. He has weaseled out of giving specific dates for troops withdrawals, so his statements can be construed as "me-too"-ism at this point. Kerry's supporter, former Army Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) has said that troop reduction are the wrong thing at the wrong time.

You've safely obscured any point you might be making up through your last sentence.
You should cite the Clark remark so that we can see what "troop reduction" he's talking about (N. Korea?).
The link you provided has US officials stating that defense capability will be upgraded despite the decrease in the # of troops.


Troop withdrawal - Exhibit B

My conclusion: Everyone knows actions speak louder than words. Bush has stated the troops are coming home, so American allies are effectively on their own. Too many resources were wasted away in an increasingly misguided war of aggression on Iraq.[/quote]

One of these days folks will make up their minds whether too many or too few troops were used in Iraq.

Now, the price must be paid, and Bush is cutting back the military.

(In N. Korea, where increase in capability accompanies the decreae in manpower?)

Because of lack of allies, American forces are stretched too thin, and the breaking point has been reached. Army "stop-loss" policies, using US militia for lack of professional soldiers, ss ruining morale. The US Navy and Air Force are using early retirement to cut their manpower by 100,000+ troops.

It's fairly obvious that these major draw-downs in troop strength, combined with repositioning to America, and closure of foreign bases are cost-cutting measures. The hidden result of these policies, however, is the lack of friendly ports or bases for American troops overseas; ergo, no dependency on allies. If I'm not mistaken, having all of your troops at home, while espousing self-reliance is isolationism. Is there another definition for isolationism...?

You seem to have missed the news of new bases east of the ones from which troops are being shifted.

[kofh2u]

Troops withdrawal - Exhibit A

Also, Sen. Hutchinson stated that Germany covered less than 25% of the expense of stationing American troops within Germany, so repositioning will save money. One government funded study found that it will cost over 7 billion up-front to bring the troops home, with a 1 billion annual savings.

What Kerry said is irrelevant or untrustworthy in this case. He has weaseled out of giving specific dates for troops withdrawals, so his statements can be construed as "me-too"-ism at this point. Kerry's supporter, former Army Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) has said that troop reduction are the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Troop withdrawal - Exhibit B

My conclusion: Everyone knows actions speak louder than words. Bush has stated the troops are coming home, so American allies are effectively on their own. Too many resources were wasted away in an increasingly misguided war of aggression on Iraq. Now, the price must be paid, and Bush is cutting back the military. Because of lack of allies, American forces are stretched too thin, and the breaking point has been reached. Army "stop-loss" policies, using US militia for lack of professional soldiers, ss ruining morale. The US Navy and Air Force are using early retirement to cut their manpower by 100,000+ troops.

It's fairly obvious that these major draw-downs in troop strength, combined with repositioning to America, and closure of foreign bases are cost-cutting measures. The hidden result of these policies, however, is the lack of friendly ports or bases for American troops overseas; ergo, no dependency on allies. If I'm not mistaken, having all of your troops at home, while espousing self-reliance is isolationism. Is there another definition for isolationism...?

WOW!
With a smart guy like you down on where are troops ought be positioned in this chess game of armies why are we all voting for such failed leadership as Bush and Kerry?

Thanks 4 the game plan &behind the scenes Bush bashin'... we need more of this in America!

[Ben Franklin]

Thanks 4 the game plan &behind the scenes Bush bashin'... we need more of this in America!

??? Bush is president & Bush is presiding over the troop cuts/repositioning: you can scream Bush bashing, but the facts remain. How can a a country logically say that "less is more" or "ignorance is strength"...? As post-war Iraq shows, America needs more troops on the ground to secure an area. Either America is pulling back or pressing on: it can't be both. Technology doesn't win wars, armies win wars, and America is trimming down it's army, right...?

??? Hypothetically speaking, barring a 300,000+ troop-strong army, how is American going to pacify a country the size of, oh, say, Iraq...?

[Ben Franklin]

Historically, isolationism is the belief that turning one's back on the world and only relating to one's own country is the best foreign policy. By still seeking to work within the world, Bush is not in fact an isolationist.

Isolationism as a political term came about during World War I and was used during World War II, IIRC. The point was that the US did not want to get involved in world politics, so we isolated ourselves from the rest of the world.

Therefore, your use of the term is inaccurate.

Jaltus, this is why I use the term "the new isolationism" in the thread header: to me, the Bush doctrine is an ironic combination of the old isolationist policy with his rhetoric/penchant for stamping out whatever he dislikes unilaterally.

[Ben Franklin]

IIRC, Germany wanted no part of war because of their economy. The German economy is not stable enough right now to put them on any sort of war footing. Please correct me if I am wrong.

??? Germany was in the middle of the Geat Depression, and still stuck with the Versailles Treaty reparation payments when Hitler prepared his country for war. Coming from Germany, that's a pretty lame excuse.