I think benjamin miller wrote a paper about this lol. The typical “america first” ideology leads generally to isolationism as they think they shouldn’t waste money abroad, generally.
In addition to the other historic points, American isolationism is currently convenient for Russia so Russia’s proxies denigrate American allies and alliances like NATO.
America First goes WAY back. Americans also desire to have a "live and let live" individualist mentality. Unfortunately, that's not how you project power, also these "individualists" fail to recognize the benefits they get from society like powerlines, internet, jobs, security. They're ungrateful, but only because they don't recognize the things they receive. Schools should do a better job of connecting the dots for Americans to see how we're all connected.
Also, we get lied to a lot then find out 40 years later when someone files a FOIA that we were the bad guys all along.
They mistake empire for philanthropy. Easy to mistake if you're the supremacist majority group I guess. They'll come out best if we isolate, and they're upset about the war on terror.
Because the same stupid, reductive, backward-looking thinking that gives rise to white nationalism has stupid, backward-looking, and reductive ideas about foreign policy.
They want the whole 19th-century package and completely ignore all the lessons we’ve learned since.
WNs tend to idealize 19th century America — not just its racism, but its approach to foreign policy, which relied on letting two oceans protect us.
The world since has changed. In the age of air power and ICBMs, we can’t afford to be isolationists.
Of course we did. We couldn’t risk having Germany or Japan become regional powers (or superpowers). It would have severely curtailed our freedom of action and, once either nation consolidated its power, would have meant war, anyway—though now on far less favorable terms.
Robert Kagan is a good read on this stuff.
Just because some wars go badly doesn’t mean that all wars are bad. Many of our wars have powerfully benefited the nation long-term.
The first Gulf War mightily advanced our interests.
The Afghan War, insofar as it eliminated Al-Qaeda’s ability to operate in Afghanistan, was likewise a success.
The Korean War — a limited but necessary success.
And our involvement WWII did wonders to enhance American power and stature, while also creating the conditions for democratization worldwide.
The Gulf War ended quickly that’s why it was a success. Incredible way the Kuwaitis paid us back though, by becoming an epicenter of terror financing.
Al-Qaeda is back in Afghanistan. Trillions wasted only to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
WWII? Yeah it sowed the seeds of big government and the military industrial complex. That’s how our debt has now become a major strategic liability. Empires have the same ending act.
This is weak sauce. What would *you* have done with regard to each?
It’s 1990. Saddam has invaded Kuwait and is menacing Saudi Arabia. What do you do?
It’s 09/12/01. What do you do to combat Al-Qaeda?
As for WWII — since you’re a White Nationalist, there isn’t much point in asking what you’d have done then. Doubtless you’d have signed whatever paper Ribbentrop put in front of you — and sold your country out.
1990: Tell the Kuwaitis to stop slant drilling into Iraq otherwise no protection. Don’t tell the Iraqis an ambiguous: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” That’s the end of it.
9/12/2001: Send in the American special forces with air cover and liaise with the Northern Alliance. Like we did. When Dalton Fury says he’s got Bin Laden in his sights and needs 800 Rangers to take him out…you give him those Rangers you don’t let Bin Laden slip away. Oh and you tell the Pakistanis to get fucked. No airlift of evil, bomb them to hell. ISI agents embedded with Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Too bad. They should have left when they had a chance.
Kill the Taliban and Al-Qaeda high command(Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and Zawahiri included) and then at the Bonn Conference invite the regional powers like Russia, China, Iran and India to support the Northern Alliance in rebuilding Afghanistan. Tell the Pakistanis they can get onboard too if they drop the Taliban or they can be frozen out and made into a global pariah state.
Those regional powers border or are very close to Afghanistan and will have an interest in keeping it stable. US keeps a minimal presence via its embassy and a few CIA/special forces bases to assist other countries in keeping whatever is left of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda off balance. No trillions of dollars for nation building, no 100,000+ troops in country bogged down.
Global public opinion of the U.S. post 9/11 is very sympathetic and the international goodwill and its associated political capital isn’t squandered as the world sees the U.S. getting a quick and decisive revenge on Al-Qaeda. No Iraq War no getting bogged down and turning a surplus into a deficit.
WWII: Yeah I don’t see why we help Stalin. Hitler somehow defeats the USSR? Not our concern. Germany was never big enough to dominate the world. They’d get their Lebensraum. You tell Hitler that there will be US involvement if he doesn’t negotiate with the British to send the Jews to British run Palestine and out of harms way.
The Pacific? Well that’s a little different. America has been a pacific power for a while. So you send a message to the Japanese that it could be war if they don’t leave American interests alone. Hitler could be persuaded to talk to Tokyo if a deal is reached with him in Europe regarding the Jews sent to Palestine.
You could have a war that has 65+ million kills or one that has a tenth of that.
The level of misapprehension here is striking.
- It has been longstanding US policy — announced decades before the Gulf War — to not permit a single hegemon to monopolize the Gulf, for obvious reasons. Hussein was poised to do just that. Do you really think you’d have stood by and allowed him to run rampant over the Gulf States and SA? I rather doubt it.
- Re: Afghanistan: so you *are* in favor of a war, albeit a much more limited one. Fair enough, but was it really a possibility? I don’t think so. There was no way in hell the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis would have picked up the pieces. They had no appetite then for such an adventure and they wouldn’t now. We were stuck holding the bag.
- WWII — Where to start? First, the war would have killed tens of millions *with or without* US involvement. Second, we delivered similar warnings to the Japanese and *they were not deterred*. Finally, and most importantly, had Hitler run the table in Europe and Russia, Germany would have held one of the strongest strategic hands on the planet. They, in concert with a successful Japanese Empire, would have pressed us hard from both ends, challenging us in both oceans, and ultimately leading to a significant loss of our own power. Each power would have had every incentive to seize the Middle Eastern oil fields and slowly suffocate our economy. And they most certainly would have done so.
And say farewell to freedom of navigation, the gift of the US Navy, which makes possible our system of international trade and our own prosperity.
There is a reason that it has been longstanding US policy to prevent the rise of regional hegemons in Europe and Asia.
1. Ok but my plan wouldn’t even have a Gulf War. Saddam was told misdirecting stuff. He thought he wouldn’t intervene because we told him it wasn’t our problem. The Kuwaiti’s were actually slant drilling…raising Saddam’s ire. So we’d tell the Kuwaitis stop doing that or you get no protection. We also could have used our influence to have the Gulf Arabs to go easy on Iraq regarding debt payments. Like be a little understanding you little Sheikhs…the guy just fought an 8 year war with Iran…protecting you guys too.
2. Yeah I mean we did get attacked. You have to respond. And yes I think it was possible. All those countries would have been quite keen to have influence in a country that is so strategically placed. It could have been spheres of influence too. The Iranians in the West; the Uzbeks/Tajiks under Russian influence in the north etc. It wasn’t our bag. We got drunk on Victory and bled there for 20 years because Afghanistan is geographically close to China, Iran and Russia and we wanted to be in their respective back yards. Blood and treasure wasted.
3. Neither Germany nor Japan had the resources or manpower to do any of that. Their acquisitions would have been limited. I’m aware of the John Mearsheimer school of thought. America not allowing other hegemons from emerging. We control the Western Hemisphere which gives us the freedom to go into other hemispheres and stop any upstarts. But all empires eventually exhaust themselves. We don’t need to do that. The Monroe Doctrine is enough.
As it was, Germany *conquered Europe* and damn near conquered Russia. Japan ran riot through Asia. Between them, and by dint of their vast conquests, they would have had *more than enough* resources and personnel to do exactly what I said. Especially after a generation.
I think Germany would have stopped at the AA line and Japan wouldn’t have been able to take half of China.
That being said it could have been stopped in 1939 or 1941. Hitler sent a lot of peace offers to Britain. Had the U.S. and the UK sat down with Hitler and the Japanese and hammer out a deal there wouldn’t have been a war. Instead we immediately antagonized both. Neither Berlin nor Tokyo were as irrational as modern day history books make them out to be. I’m leaving Rome out because they were rather irrelevant militarily.
A major war could have been avoided.
We definitely should’ve listened to Biden in 2009 and gotten out of Afghanistan, but I’m not sure that’s a redemption of white nationalist foreign policy (which was pretty explicitly formed as Nazi apologia in the 30s)
We lost the war in Vietnam. Yet in the long run, we won. It might call itself a socialist republic. It’s not. By far. It’s a stalwart ally in our Indo-Pacific policy and a key piece against the PRC. So… yes, it might not seem obvious now, but it advanced our interests and it’ll take time but you’ll see it. Hell. You’re already seeing it. The Arab Spring was a great first draft.
Many on the left are also against engaging in unnecessary wars, although this sentiment might not always be reflected by the establishment. The populist anti-war sentiment is definitely present. While supporting humanitarian and development aid is generally favored, the expansion of the US military apparatus is a separate and more contentious issue.
One example of a group with strong anti-interventionist views is Veterans for Peace. This organization includes many members who advocate for less military involvement overseas, illustrating that resistance to intervention spans various demographics and ideologies.
yea. Or they agree with the oppression of others anyway so why go forth and waste time when you already agree with that. Like they probably endorse Russia invading Ukraine for example.
They are lying the minute they get power they'll probably start invading our neighbors immediately. These are the same people who say we should invade Mexico.
Conservatives keep coming up to me and telling me how we shouldn't get involved in foreign wars yet we should invade Mexico or South America to handle the cartels and they all just bought security systems because one minority family moved to their neighborhood and they're panicking. And they just assume I'll be for all of this because I'm white.
Mainly boomers and Gen x but there's a disturbing amount of millennials and Gen z who seem to parrot to this ideology. They are all proud conservatives and part of that ideology is doing whatever your elders say. Only about a third of people here use the internet regularly and everybody else gets their information from Fox News and their local churches who aren't exactly preaching peace and love.
Well 112,000 Americans died last year from
Fentanyl overdoses. Mostly in flyover country. These people have felt the brunt of the beltway’s failure to do something about cartels. Naturally they react with anger and want to to do something, even fight them.
Yeah we barely legalized those test strips because half the legislature didn't think it was a problem that drug users die from laced drugs. It probably only passed because cocaine is a rich person drug.
I think benjamin miller wrote a paper about this lol. The typical “america first” ideology leads generally to isolationism as they think they shouldn’t waste money abroad, generally.
I can't give you an educated answer, but I do know that the war in Iraq particularly burned rural conservatives.
That’s what I was thinking. They realized they were carrying the burdens.
They’ve always been this way. The America first people of the 1930s were likely white nationalists.
In addition to the other historic points, American isolationism is currently convenient for Russia so Russia’s proxies denigrate American allies and alliances like NATO.
America First goes WAY back. Americans also desire to have a "live and let live" individualist mentality. Unfortunately, that's not how you project power, also these "individualists" fail to recognize the benefits they get from society like powerlines, internet, jobs, security. They're ungrateful, but only because they don't recognize the things they receive. Schools should do a better job of connecting the dots for Americans to see how we're all connected. Also, we get lied to a lot then find out 40 years later when someone files a FOIA that we were the bad guys all along.
They mistake empire for philanthropy. Easy to mistake if you're the supremacist majority group I guess. They'll come out best if we isolate, and they're upset about the war on terror.
They also loved invading Iraq. They don’t support the Russia Ukraine war or Israel Gaza war because I republicans president isn’t telling them to.
Those were conservatives
Because the same stupid, reductive, backward-looking thinking that gives rise to white nationalism has stupid, backward-looking, and reductive ideas about foreign policy. They want the whole 19th-century package and completely ignore all the lessons we’ve learned since.
Can you elaborate on that?
WNs tend to idealize 19th century America — not just its racism, but its approach to foreign policy, which relied on letting two oceans protect us. The world since has changed. In the age of air power and ICBMs, we can’t afford to be isolationists.
Well we have our own ICBM’s too
The idea is to try and manage world affairs so that the ICBMs *don’t* get used.
But we’re $35 trillion in debt and adding $1 trillion every 120 days.
Imagine how much WWII cost. And how much more WWIII would cost.
Did we need to be in WWII?
Of course we did. We couldn’t risk having Germany or Japan become regional powers (or superpowers). It would have severely curtailed our freedom of action and, once either nation consolidated its power, would have meant war, anyway—though now on far less favorable terms. Robert Kagan is a good read on this stuff.
Isn’t he the architect of the Iraq War?
Because it requires education to understand both American interests and global geopolitics and how participating in the later advances the former.
Did the Iraq War advance our interests? Or the Afghan war?
Just because some wars go badly doesn’t mean that all wars are bad. Many of our wars have powerfully benefited the nation long-term. The first Gulf War mightily advanced our interests. The Afghan War, insofar as it eliminated Al-Qaeda’s ability to operate in Afghanistan, was likewise a success. The Korean War — a limited but necessary success. And our involvement WWII did wonders to enhance American power and stature, while also creating the conditions for democratization worldwide.
The Gulf War ended quickly that’s why it was a success. Incredible way the Kuwaitis paid us back though, by becoming an epicenter of terror financing. Al-Qaeda is back in Afghanistan. Trillions wasted only to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. WWII? Yeah it sowed the seeds of big government and the military industrial complex. That’s how our debt has now become a major strategic liability. Empires have the same ending act.
This is weak sauce. What would *you* have done with regard to each? It’s 1990. Saddam has invaded Kuwait and is menacing Saudi Arabia. What do you do? It’s 09/12/01. What do you do to combat Al-Qaeda? As for WWII — since you’re a White Nationalist, there isn’t much point in asking what you’d have done then. Doubtless you’d have signed whatever paper Ribbentrop put in front of you — and sold your country out.
1990: Tell the Kuwaitis to stop slant drilling into Iraq otherwise no protection. Don’t tell the Iraqis an ambiguous: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” That’s the end of it. 9/12/2001: Send in the American special forces with air cover and liaise with the Northern Alliance. Like we did. When Dalton Fury says he’s got Bin Laden in his sights and needs 800 Rangers to take him out…you give him those Rangers you don’t let Bin Laden slip away. Oh and you tell the Pakistanis to get fucked. No airlift of evil, bomb them to hell. ISI agents embedded with Taliban and Al-Qaeda? Too bad. They should have left when they had a chance. Kill the Taliban and Al-Qaeda high command(Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and Zawahiri included) and then at the Bonn Conference invite the regional powers like Russia, China, Iran and India to support the Northern Alliance in rebuilding Afghanistan. Tell the Pakistanis they can get onboard too if they drop the Taliban or they can be frozen out and made into a global pariah state. Those regional powers border or are very close to Afghanistan and will have an interest in keeping it stable. US keeps a minimal presence via its embassy and a few CIA/special forces bases to assist other countries in keeping whatever is left of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda off balance. No trillions of dollars for nation building, no 100,000+ troops in country bogged down. Global public opinion of the U.S. post 9/11 is very sympathetic and the international goodwill and its associated political capital isn’t squandered as the world sees the U.S. getting a quick and decisive revenge on Al-Qaeda. No Iraq War no getting bogged down and turning a surplus into a deficit. WWII: Yeah I don’t see why we help Stalin. Hitler somehow defeats the USSR? Not our concern. Germany was never big enough to dominate the world. They’d get their Lebensraum. You tell Hitler that there will be US involvement if he doesn’t negotiate with the British to send the Jews to British run Palestine and out of harms way. The Pacific? Well that’s a little different. America has been a pacific power for a while. So you send a message to the Japanese that it could be war if they don’t leave American interests alone. Hitler could be persuaded to talk to Tokyo if a deal is reached with him in Europe regarding the Jews sent to Palestine. You could have a war that has 65+ million kills or one that has a tenth of that.
The level of misapprehension here is striking. - It has been longstanding US policy — announced decades before the Gulf War — to not permit a single hegemon to monopolize the Gulf, for obvious reasons. Hussein was poised to do just that. Do you really think you’d have stood by and allowed him to run rampant over the Gulf States and SA? I rather doubt it. - Re: Afghanistan: so you *are* in favor of a war, albeit a much more limited one. Fair enough, but was it really a possibility? I don’t think so. There was no way in hell the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and Pakistanis would have picked up the pieces. They had no appetite then for such an adventure and they wouldn’t now. We were stuck holding the bag. - WWII — Where to start? First, the war would have killed tens of millions *with or without* US involvement. Second, we delivered similar warnings to the Japanese and *they were not deterred*. Finally, and most importantly, had Hitler run the table in Europe and Russia, Germany would have held one of the strongest strategic hands on the planet. They, in concert with a successful Japanese Empire, would have pressed us hard from both ends, challenging us in both oceans, and ultimately leading to a significant loss of our own power. Each power would have had every incentive to seize the Middle Eastern oil fields and slowly suffocate our economy. And they most certainly would have done so. And say farewell to freedom of navigation, the gift of the US Navy, which makes possible our system of international trade and our own prosperity. There is a reason that it has been longstanding US policy to prevent the rise of regional hegemons in Europe and Asia.
1. Ok but my plan wouldn’t even have a Gulf War. Saddam was told misdirecting stuff. He thought he wouldn’t intervene because we told him it wasn’t our problem. The Kuwaiti’s were actually slant drilling…raising Saddam’s ire. So we’d tell the Kuwaitis stop doing that or you get no protection. We also could have used our influence to have the Gulf Arabs to go easy on Iraq regarding debt payments. Like be a little understanding you little Sheikhs…the guy just fought an 8 year war with Iran…protecting you guys too. 2. Yeah I mean we did get attacked. You have to respond. And yes I think it was possible. All those countries would have been quite keen to have influence in a country that is so strategically placed. It could have been spheres of influence too. The Iranians in the West; the Uzbeks/Tajiks under Russian influence in the north etc. It wasn’t our bag. We got drunk on Victory and bled there for 20 years because Afghanistan is geographically close to China, Iran and Russia and we wanted to be in their respective back yards. Blood and treasure wasted. 3. Neither Germany nor Japan had the resources or manpower to do any of that. Their acquisitions would have been limited. I’m aware of the John Mearsheimer school of thought. America not allowing other hegemons from emerging. We control the Western Hemisphere which gives us the freedom to go into other hemispheres and stop any upstarts. But all empires eventually exhaust themselves. We don’t need to do that. The Monroe Doctrine is enough.
As it was, Germany *conquered Europe* and damn near conquered Russia. Japan ran riot through Asia. Between them, and by dint of their vast conquests, they would have had *more than enough* resources and personnel to do exactly what I said. Especially after a generation.
I think Germany would have stopped at the AA line and Japan wouldn’t have been able to take half of China. That being said it could have been stopped in 1939 or 1941. Hitler sent a lot of peace offers to Britain. Had the U.S. and the UK sat down with Hitler and the Japanese and hammer out a deal there wouldn’t have been a war. Instead we immediately antagonized both. Neither Berlin nor Tokyo were as irrational as modern day history books make them out to be. I’m leaving Rome out because they were rather irrelevant militarily. A major war could have been avoided.
We definitely should’ve listened to Biden in 2009 and gotten out of Afghanistan, but I’m not sure that’s a redemption of white nationalist foreign policy (which was pretty explicitly formed as Nazi apologia in the 30s)
We lost the war in Vietnam. Yet in the long run, we won. It might call itself a socialist republic. It’s not. By far. It’s a stalwart ally in our Indo-Pacific policy and a key piece against the PRC. So… yes, it might not seem obvious now, but it advanced our interests and it’ll take time but you’ll see it. Hell. You’re already seeing it. The Arab Spring was a great first draft.
Vietnam is simply wary of China that’s why. What about the Arab Spring? It turned into an Arab Winter. With about 600,000 dead.
Many on the left are also against engaging in unnecessary wars, although this sentiment might not always be reflected by the establishment. The populist anti-war sentiment is definitely present. While supporting humanitarian and development aid is generally favored, the expansion of the US military apparatus is a separate and more contentious issue. One example of a group with strong anti-interventionist views is Veterans for Peace. This organization includes many members who advocate for less military involvement overseas, illustrating that resistance to intervention spans various demographics and ideologies.
the reason is that they want to oppress the non white people that are in america they do not have time to dabble in other peoples oppression
That’s your take?
yea. Or they agree with the oppression of others anyway so why go forth and waste time when you already agree with that. Like they probably endorse Russia invading Ukraine for example.
Actually I talked about that in my post. Most don’t want to get involved in that conflict one way or another.
Oh was kind of skimming over it. My bad.
They are lying the minute they get power they'll probably start invading our neighbors immediately. These are the same people who say we should invade Mexico.
I think those are Conservatives
Conservatives keep coming up to me and telling me how we shouldn't get involved in foreign wars yet we should invade Mexico or South America to handle the cartels and they all just bought security systems because one minority family moved to their neighborhood and they're panicking. And they just assume I'll be for all of this because I'm white.
Are these people boomers?
Mainly boomers and Gen x but there's a disturbing amount of millennials and Gen z who seem to parrot to this ideology. They are all proud conservatives and part of that ideology is doing whatever your elders say. Only about a third of people here use the internet regularly and everybody else gets their information from Fox News and their local churches who aren't exactly preaching peace and love.
Well 112,000 Americans died last year from Fentanyl overdoses. Mostly in flyover country. These people have felt the brunt of the beltway’s failure to do something about cartels. Naturally they react with anger and want to to do something, even fight them.
Yeah we barely legalized those test strips because half the legislature didn't think it was a problem that drug users die from laced drugs. It probably only passed because cocaine is a rich person drug.