No, Senator, They're Not Isolationists

[david white]

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.