Isolationism: Reactionary Extremes
I've found more than a few proponents of 'Isolationism' in response to the growing issues in the Middle East. The sentiments seem a bit excessive, and highly reactionary.
Personally, I think isolationism is impossible. National economies are more interwoven then ever in history. Shutting down our international commerce would annihilate our economy.
Revoking our alliances would be a massive security threat to our allies and ourselves.
Also, new threats and conflicts sprout up whether we're actively engaging them or not, so a policy of strict non-intervention would not 'fix the problems', and succeed only in only binding us to waiting for enemies to directly attack our homeland. Also, the health of our long-standing alliances are predicated on our willingness to be party to external affairs.
Instead, I think I'd prefer our foreign policies be tempered with an understanding of long term strategic ramifications, and encompass multi-lateral consideration and support.
1) How will this act/decision affect the target, the region, public sentiment, and our allies?
2) Do the negative effects outweigh the threat (economy, security, etc.)?
3) Are there alternative avenues for successful mediation (alliances, sanctions, world bodies, inspections, etc.)?
- What are the barriers to mediation, and are third parties, either currently in place or capable of creation, able to meet these needs?
4) Create a plan to include contingencies for potential reactionary occurrences, analyze the requirements for supporting these contingencies and garner the potential infrastructure to support it (either internally or through alliances), ensure the needs of the plan can be met, or revise the plan.
5) Ensure that the plan/act meets regulatory and legal requirements.
6) Provide an honest and compelling position to garner national and international support (based on fact rather than doctored and cherry-picked intelligence).
I left a few things out (particularly in #4) for brevity, so this is not an exhaustive list.
Personally, I think isolationism is impossible. National economies are more interwoven then ever in history. Shutting down our international commerce would annihilate our economy.
Revoking our alliances would be a massive security threat to our allies and ourselves.
Also, new threats and conflicts sprout up whether we're actively engaging them or not, so a policy of strict non-intervention would not 'fix the problems', and succeed only in only binding us to waiting for enemies to directly attack our homeland. Also, the health of our long-standing alliances are predicated on our willingness to be party to external affairs.
Instead, I think I'd prefer our foreign policies be tempered with an understanding of long term strategic ramifications, and encompass multi-lateral consideration and support.
1) How will this act/decision affect the target, the region, public sentiment, and our allies?
2) Do the negative effects outweigh the threat (economy, security, etc.)?
3) Are there alternative avenues for successful mediation (alliances, sanctions, world bodies, inspections, etc.)?
- What are the barriers to mediation, and are third parties, either currently in place or capable of creation, able to meet these needs?
4) Create a plan to include contingencies for potential reactionary occurrences, analyze the requirements for supporting these contingencies and garner the potential infrastructure to support it (either internally or through alliances), ensure the needs of the plan can be met, or revise the plan.
5) Ensure that the plan/act meets regulatory and legal requirements.
6) Provide an honest and compelling position to garner national and international support (based on fact rather than doctored and cherry-picked intelligence).
I left a few things out (particularly in #4) for brevity, so this is not an exhaustive list.
posted by Flackrum | 03:27
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home