Isolationist? Not This Leftist.

Jacob Weisberg examines America’s Iraq mistake and finds that failure was not inevitable. Had US policy not failed in so many key decisions, Iraq could be far less disastrous than it has turned out under BusCheney’s tutelage. Weisberg places himself between the combined “isolationist left-realist right” who question American intervention in Iraq and the neo-conservatives who believe that a perfectly good policy has been bungled terribly. There’s some logic to what Weisberg says. He recognizes that military success requires both planning and ability to adapt quickly to changing and uncertain circumstances, little of which he believes was evident in American policy in Iraq. Weisberg concludes by rejecting the isolationist left’s argument that American intervention was doomed to fail.

I take exception to much of his logic, though. It’s almost of the “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” mode. Yeah, had we not failed at so many critical junctures, we would have succeeded. And if I had money, I'd be rich. But if the Iraq war and occupation weren’t “doomed to fail”, the policy was never likely to succeed, either. BushCheney’s ambitions and plans were fantastic and delusional, for which America and Iraq have paid a high price. I anticipated the resistance and sectarian divisions (no brainers, really) and have been amazed at the US inability to rebuild Iraq. This failure, along with the inability to establish security pretty much doomed America’s Iraq intervention. We will be a long time re-establishing ourselves as a “practical, can-do nation” after this fiasco. Even if America wasn’t doomed to fail in Iraq, we have failed. Big Time.

Weisberg offers Bosnia and Kosovo as models of successful interventions but these are very different from Iraq in that those operations were considerably less ambitious in scope, were based on experience and were supported by a genuine coalition. Bosnia and Kosovo relate to Iraq only insofar as they demonstrate the requirements for success so visibly lacking in Iraq. Even so, I remain skeptical of American military intervention, especially when it’s just us, our faithful lap dog, Britain, and what other lackeys we can buy.

As a long time opponent of American military interventions overseas and a still proud George McGovern supporter, Weisberg calls me “isolationist left” and rejects my opposition to military intervention. Calling me isolationist is odd, since I am an internationalist who believes that United States should be an active member of the world community. In my mind, an America fully engaged with the world is good for both America and the world. Doesn’t sound very isolationist to me. I don’t believe in military force as a means for that engagement. Maybe that makes me isolationist. I am a realist in that I believe that the United States should pursue clear national interests in determining and executing foreign policies. I also believe that all nations should recognize social justice and human rights as they pursue interests, I guess you can call me Realist Left, a dreamer who works in reality.

America’s role in the world is part of a long history. The United States has been engaged with the world since its earliest days. America was a trading nation, depending heavily on international commerce. We were geographically isolated from Europe but established economic and communication links rapidly in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Along with commercial and national interests, America’s experiment in self-government also represented freedom, liberty and tolerance to the world. Americans did not crusade on behalf of these ideas but we have always believe that our ideals offered hope to others. The 20th century brought America and the world even closer as technology spanned distances and natural barriers. And it brought war to America in the form of sacrifice, if not actual attack (except Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian Islands, all pretty remote). World War II left the US on top of a ravaged world and in an arms race with a victorious Soviet Union. The cold war ended with the United States as sole superpower in a world where all that military power was of limited use.

Personal experience also tells me that America needs to engage the world. I have gained much understanding and knowledge by working and cooperating with others , by traveling to other countries, learning about their history and culture. When I work with others, my efforts are multiplied and I am part of a community. I have lived in a society of laws and tolerance (mostly) governed by a unique compact based on cooperation and compromise. I have also seen combat and know history so I am all to aware how much of a dream my vision is. Even so, I want to see my nation engaged with the world in a manner befitting our national heritage and ideals.

What I do not want is for my country to kill and destroy. Period. And that’s where I differ with Weisberg. He looks at war in the abstract, as policy, which it certainly is. I look at war as people and their lives, which it always is.