I propose to send the United States into an ‘isolationist’ foreign policy. However, this policy would differ greatly from the period between World Wars 1 and 2 in that our nation would not disappear from the world stage, but would make sure that whatever contacts with the outside world furthered our national interests.
World War 1 was a major departure from what America had practiced for over 100 years of her existence. George Washington, in what has been dubbed his ‘farewell address’ in 1796, told the country to ‘avoid entangling alliance’ with foreign nations, meaning specifically the European states and their constant wars with each other. And we did just that until 1917 when Woodrow Wilson asked for and got a declaration of war on April 6 of that year.
Many tomes have been produced which purport to show why we deviated from our ‘splendid isolation’ from European politics. Economic, social, historical ties are used to show why we entered the war in its last years, providing the crucial support for the Allies to win in November 1918. It was not the most popular war in our history, as many saw little American interest in the conflict.
A little over 116,000 Americans were killed in that war, out of more than 300,000 casualties. My Grandfather, Oscar Fish, was plucked from a farm in eastern Iowa, trained to drive a truck at a camp near Kansas City and shipped to France to drive ammunition to the soldiers at the front. When the war ended, celebrations erupted all over the nation as the doughboys came marching home.
An internationalist flavor was seen in Wilson’s second administration. He had successfully resisted taking us to war, even after the provocation of the Lusitania being sunk in May 1915. But Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmermann note which encouraged the Mexicans to join them against us pushed the President to ask for a declaration of war.
With the Versailles Treaty completed, the President followed the Constitution in presenting it to the Senate for ratification. But certain provisions in the Treaty ran afoul of those in the country who felt it bound the United States too closely to the European victors; most important of those provisions was the League of Nations.
Opposition Senators garnered enough support to deny several attempts to pass the Treaty, which although getting a majority of the 96 member Senate, never reached the Constitutional 2/3 required for ratification. Wilson, broken in body and spirit, served out his term until 1921, his dream of an international body to keep peace shattered.
In the 1920 election for President, Warren Harding struck a chord with American voters with his call for a ‘return to normalcy’, which in part was for us to withdraw from any participation in European politics. The 1920s were years of prosperity and growth of the American economy, and our involvement with Europe was mostly confined to investing in the Old World, but not involved in their disputes (except to demand the payments from Germany of reparations owed).
The 1930s brought a unique problem to American foreign policy. A Great Depression spread from here to the most of the western world, although deeper here than elsewhere. Franklin Roosevelt, winner of the 1932 election, concentrated his efforts more on domestic recovery than foreign intrigues. His policies mirrored the wishes of the electorate, who fervently wanted to not get into another fracas in Europe. All polls in the 1930s showed a strong isolationist tilt, with several organizations pushing for such a policy. One of the most notable was the America First Committee, with its most illustrious supporter, Charles Lindbergh.
Even with the depredations of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and the Japanese warlords, Americans wanted the great oceans that washed our shores to be our defense against totalitarian ideas. Any suggestion otherwise was in the minority in the electorate.
What do we say about the present day state of American involvement overseas? More than 170 nations have U. S. troops stationed in them, many guarding our embassies. But some nations have large contingents of soldiers on bases. Notably these include Germany, South Korea, Japan and the Middle East nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, with smaller numbers in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Diego Garcia. We have participated with the French and British in maneuvers in the eastern European nation of Georgia.
Why? With the outbreak of peace in the Middle East, the question should naturally arise. Why cannot we withdraw, and allow those sovereign nations to assume the responsibility for their own defense? With just a few air bases around the world, we could assure countries who are in danger of being overrun by a belligerent neighbor (see North Korea) that our nuclear umbrella was in place for them.
Our multinational businesses need little help with thousands of troops, and the U. S. embassies can still be guarded by contingents of U. S. military personnel. The day of us being the world’s policeman and peacekeeper should come to an end.
We need to return to the policy of not deploying troops anywhere in the world unless there is a clear and present danger of our interests being transgressed. This would take the leadership of a strong Chief Executive, and it seems as if we have one now. Look at his foreign achievements: several Arab nations making peace with Israel; North Korea begin defanged; defeating ISIS; overseeing the killing of the most notorious terrorists leaders; NATO nations paying more of their own defense expenses; renegotiating NAFTA; pulling us out of the Paris climate change agreement; withdrawing from the disastrous Iranian deal; bringing home Americans held hostage in foreign climes – and probably more than I can remember now.
President Trump has shown he has the skill and willingness to engage foreign countries, and if he really wishes to he can usher in a new era of what I would call ‘enlightened isolation’, engaging overseas only when it is in our direct interest to do so. If he would apply the Make America Great Again motto to foreign affairs, he would go down as one of the greats to inhabit the Oval Office.