Against Disengagement
Today’s progressives are often as muddled in their thinking about U.S. involvement in the world as conservatives are divided.
Brian Katulis
The Syria debate last fall offered the latest indication that U.S. foreign policy has entered uncharted political territory. The partisan lines in Congress were scrambled when lawmakers responded to President Obama’s request to authorize military force against Syria for using chemical weapons—a request that was withdrawn after Syria agreed to dismantle its arsenal. Strong public opposition to the proposed military action resonated in a polarized Congress that has become increasingly disengaged from national security, especially compared to the decade after 9/11.
Had the Syria vote happened, President Obama probably would have lost it. But the vote’s likely outcome was less interesting than the varied responses his request provoked. The arguments that the Syria debate produced within Republican and Democratic camps indicated that the old battle lines in the politics of U.S. foreign policy are being redrawn. Labels like “neoconservative” and “liberal interventionist” have less political relevance as their camps have decreased in size and political clout.
A big reason for this: The American public has grown more skeptical about U.S. engagement in the world. A recent Pew poll found 52 percent of Americans say the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best that they can on their own,” with only 38 percent disagreeing. By contrast, at the height of the Cold War in 1964, only 20 percent agreed that the United States should mind its own business; 30 percent said the same in 2002 at the beginning of the war on terrorism. But progressives must resist the lure of simply focusing inward; instead we should lead the American public toward embracing the current wave of geopolitical change underway in order to guide and shape that transformation. We need to put forth a compelling moral and strategic argument for U.S. engagement in the world. America has an interest in advancing a rules-based international system that strengthens the global common good and supports basic human freedoms and rights. Doing so won’t be easy given the need to focus on our problems at home. But without stronger American leadership, the challenges percolating around the world—whether it’s Syria’s civil war, global economic instability, or the looming threat of climate change—might one day affect us as well.
The current public mood is the continuation of a decades-long breakdown of bipartisan support for international engagement. After World War II, such consensus led to the creation of programs and institutions that defined the postwar era: the Marshall Plan, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This vital center started to collapse in the 1970s due to sharp conflicts over the Vietnam War and economic downturns at home, and the breakdown accelerated with the end of the Cold War.
in full: http://www.democracyjournal.org/32/against-disengagement.php?page=all
* Interesting take, yet some if it about Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen is nonsense, imo.
= new reply since forum marked as read
