The world cannot afford US isolationism

Given the dominance of international issues the 2008 US presidential race will be more important in some vital respects for British citizens - even than our own General Election.

Next Tuesday's mid-term elections look set to give Democrats control of at least one of the Houses of Congress.  The implications for America and the rest of the world could be profound.  Irwin Stelzer writes this for this week's Spectator (not yet online):

"Democratic control of either House will certainly make it more difficult for Bush to pursue his stay-the-course strategy in Iraq. The Democrats will control the funding of the war. With the chairmanships of the powerful congressional committees in their hands, they will launch a series of investigations into the conduct of the war, the domestic security measures adopted by the Bush team, the awarding of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq, and quite possibly set the stage for the impeachment proceedings that the Democratic leadership is publicly promising to eschew, but privately reassuring its leftish constituencies it has very much in mind. If you want to think about the effect of the American election on Great Britain, conjure a world in which the only nation with the power to take on nuclear North Korea and Iran is in the grip of political paralysis for two years, or is under pressure from Democrats reviving George McGovern’s 1972 isolationist cry of ‘Come home, America’."

There are other major implications.  The Democrats, still heavily unionised, may stall trade and immigration reforms.  Green Tories may welcome greater willingness to act against climate change, however.  The party of Al Gore will probably take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions but the steps will be timid given the number of Democrats representing rustbelt, manufacturing districts.

Stelzer's conclusion:

"All in all, it is an American election that will forcefully affect British interests. If you believe it is important to stay the course in Iraq and keep free trade flowing, root for the Republicans. If you are a UN fan, and agree with Al Gore that a global melt-down is nigh, root for the Democrats. Either way, hope that American does not withdraw into itself, as it has done in the past, with horrendous consequences for world order."

Related link: Daniel Hamilton's guide to this year's Senate races

Comments

[Gareth]

Better 'isolationism' than the disastrous unilateralism we've seen in Iraq. The comments about Iran and North Korea are particularly staggeringly. The inability of the US to deal with these threats is entirely because of its lunatic policy in Iraq. It's credibility with the world community is zero and there is no domestic appetite for more foreign adventures. This is because of Bush, not the Democrats.

[Jon Gale]

The Democrats and the Republicans are not so very far apart - one of the great strengths of the USA is that the Democrats are not a hard-core socialist, or even social democrat party but merely vaguely centre-left, social liberals. They voted for the invasion of Iraq. Trying to portray a congressional election as a choice between Black and White, brave warriors or anti-trade isolationists, with 'grave effects on the world' is sheer electioneering.

[malcolm]

Will the loss of Congress really lead to the paralysis that Stelzer claims? There have been many instances of the US having a Republican president and a Democrat house in the past or vice versa and the government of the country has carried on as normal. Indeed George Bush himself enhanced his reputation as Governor of Texas by reaching out to his political opponents and including their views when governing.Would that he had done the same as President.
If I were American I would be in a quandary right now, my natural inclination would be to vote for the GOP but this utterly inept administration deserves to be severely punished and for that reason I hope it recieves a pasting next week.

[Andy Peterkin]

Jon, I think you've got it wrong. This isn't our parents' Democratic Party - there are now some seriously hard-line leftists in control of the Democratic base. Just go and read Daily Kos for a deeply unedifying look at the zoo.

Gareth - I fail to see how the term "unilateral" applies to an operation supported by around 50 countries.

[CDM]

If I was American, I'd be voting Democrat (despite my natural sympathies lying with the GOP). The incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq has been simply astounding, and new Medicare and defence commitments have resulted in a swelling of the state that even Old Labour would be proud of.

[Ted]

One comment in Stelzer's column stands out for me - "some Republicans are still saying that voter dissatisfaction with Iraq, Katrina, congressional profligacy, sex and funding scandals and rising inequality will be offset by Karl Rove’s ability to turn out masses of their core voters on the issues of guns, gays and God."

As a conservative I should be rooting for the GOP but the general ineptitude demonstrated in Katrina, deficit spending, corruption and in Iraq and the War on Terror (Abu Graid, Guantanamo, acceptance of torture and illegal detentions) plus an agenda based on "guns, gays & God" somehow doesn't seem to me one deserving of voter support - this is definitely an election the government deserves to lose though the Democrats haven't given any real alternative vision to make a case for why they should win.

It matters but choice seems to be between a failed party that needs to find again a real purpose and philosophy and a disunited opposition. I'ts likely the message that will be taken is rejecion of Iraq and a move towards isolationism - when its really that Bush & his Party are inept failures.

[malcolm]

Several commentators are making the case for the idea that a Demcocrat congress will harm the chances of Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate in 2008 and boost those of Republicans such as Guiliani or McCain.That's got to be a good thing surely?

[Given Up]

Andy.

"This isn't our parents' Democratic Party - there are now some seriously hard-line leftists in control of the Democratic base. Just go and read Daily Kos for a deeply unedifying look at the zoo."

Well said....they dumped Leiberman just recently...because of his Pro war attitude....Hopefully Kerry's sublime stupidity will help the GOP.

All those who think that Iraq is a disaster now and we should cut and run, better start preparing for another full on extremist terror state loaded up with oil money, being run by Iran. Which by the way already has missiles that can hit some of Europe and whose President is someone who actualy believes it his role in life, to start a world war to bring back the 12th Imman.

PS: Iran doesn't do listening or talking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

[Sean Fear]

This is an election that neither side deserves to win.

OTOH a corrupt and incompetent (and high spending) Republican Party, against a useless left wing Democratic Party (who would be equally corrupt and incompetent in office).

[SimonNewman]

Given Up:
"All those who think that Iraq is a disaster now and we should cut and run, better start preparing for another full on extremist terror state loaded up with oil money, being run by Iran"

Why would an Iranian-backed Shia theocracy in Iraq be any worse than what we have already? It would hardly be a powerful state - if it were powerful enough to maintain stability within its own borders, I'd think that would be a good thing. At least when States attack us, we can defend ourselves, as with Taleban Afghanistan after 9/11. I think the real current and near-future threat to the survival of the West is not from hostile Islamic states but from Islamicisation of the West itself. The appropriate policy therefore is isolation and containment of the threat, not the current interventionist stance. Of course the USA, unlike Europe, is not seriously threatened by Islamisation and thus has the luxury of focussing on 'Terror'. For us in Europe, Terror is just one aspect of the threat.

[Gareth]

The Republican's are hardly the party they were 20 years ago either. Civilised 'country club' Republicanism has been eclipsed by a particularly unattractive brand of Christian fundamentalism. Even were it not for the need to punish Bush for his catastrophic errors in Iraq, I'd have no hesitation in voting for all but the most left-wing Democrats.

Lieberman remember was forced out because of his position on Iraq, not for being a moderate Democrat.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

I have just posted on Daniel Hamilton's thread about being unsure if I were a US citizen voting in these elections. After reading two very powerful posts -- one by Sean Fear and the other by Gareth -- I'd vote Democrat - albeit it reluctantly.

Watch this clip on You Tube, which I've just discovered. Make sure your speakers are on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip512FRKkEQ

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCCaJdI3Mw

[Given Up]

"I think the real current and near-future threat to the survival of the West is not from hostile Islamic states but from Islamicisation of the West itself."

From that I guess you don't think the two are linked in anyway....ever heard of Wahhabism and Iran has no interest in Hizzbollah or Hammas etc.

But yr comment is interesting, as the US believes it must take on the source in the ME, by trying to establish democracy etc. Wheras you are saying, let's ignore the source and worry about the problem here....but that is to deny what is actualy being said by the likes of Iran.

After all Iran will go after Israel at some point soon...then what happens, do we ignore that too, as not our problem....when does an openly expansionist policy that fully intends to have a world wide Caliphate, of which we will be a part become a problem.

The US as of now and Blair realise this, if the Dems take over and the US retreats back to isolationism, then we will be looking at dealing with this problem ourselves in Europe.

Though in truth if Israel is attacked, the US will be involved no matter who is in the government over there.

When one reads some of the comments here, they show a clear anti US bias, which many in the US are very aware of, but the world will be a very different place for Europe especialy if the US ever did say ...sod you all, we're going home. The EU for one would love it, until they realise that Putins Russia would as well.

[SimonNewman]

Me:
"I think the real current and near-future threat to the survival of the West is not from hostile Islamic states but from Islamicisation of the West itself."

Given Up:
"From that I guess you don't think the two are linked in anyway....ever heard of Wahhabism and Iran has no interest in Hizzbollah or Hammas etc."

Well, to my knowledge the primary wellspring of the global threat is the continued Saudi government funding of radical Islam worldwide - the Wahabbism you mention - and Saudi Arabia is not classed as a 'rogue state' but as an ally. Hammas is part of the (Wahabbist/Salafist) Muslim Brotherhood and is thus part of this global threat matrix, in its case aimed at the destruction of Israel.
Hizbollah has the same aims as Hammas and is funded and supplied by Shiite Iran, classed as a 'rogue state'. But while Iran does provide some inspiration to Sunni global jihadists, it does not have the wealth or position to present a global threat to the West in the same manner as Saudi Wahabbism. All the Shiites on Earth could become pacifists tomorrow and the threat to the West would barely be lessened.

[SimonNewman]

Given Up:
"But yr comment is interesting, as the US believes it must take on the source in the ME, by trying to establish democracy etc"

The problem with this policy is that it's clearly doomed to failure. The attempt, as in Iraq, might conceivably divert terrorist resources away from attacks on the USA, but it increases Islamist radicalisation and increases the danger to the rest of the planet.

"After all Iran will go after Israel at some point soon"

I doubt that very much, but if it did happen Israel should (and would need to) employ the same policy of aggressive counter-attack as in its previous conflicts. I expect the US would certainly intervene directly on the Israeli side also, and that Iran knows this, which is why it won't happen.

[SimonNewman]

Given Up:
"When one reads some of the comments here, they show a clear anti US bias, which many in the US are very aware of"

I'm actually about as pro-US as it's possible to be (in fact I'd have to say my primary emotional loyalty was to the Anglosphere rather than to the UK). But I think the current US administration has betrayed the American people as well as America's allies. US foreign policy since 2002 has been utterly disastrous for the US's own long term interests as well as for the rest of the planet. Plenty of genuine American conservatives agree with me.

[SimonNewman]

GU:
"After all Iran will go after Israel at some point soon"

I think by far the greatest threats to Israel's long term survival are not external military or even terrorist threats, but the rapidly growing and increasingly radicalised Arab Muslim population within Israel and the crisis of confidence within the Isaeli Jewish population. And ultimately similar threats face Europe too.

[Jon Gale]

"After all Iran will go after Israel at some point soon..."

Not a chance, unless you mean support for Hizbollah like the last 25 years.

"The EU for one would love it, until they realise that Putins Russia would as well."

The idea that Putin will attack Europe is even more absurd than Iran attacking Israel, you've clearly "Given Up" on reality.

[SimonNewman]

Me:
"I'm actually about as pro-US as it's possible to be"

When I joined the Territorial Army back in 1998, I informed my company commander that I had to derogate from the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, to the extent that I would not be able to participate in any military action against the USA (strange to recall, back in the '90s, the BBC's Newsnight had predicted that by 2012 a surging EU would be at war with a declining USA!). Luckily he didn't seem to mind...

[SimonNewman]

Coincidentally, I see that also in this week's spectator David Selbourne has a cogent and reality-based analysis of the actual threat:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/26132/learning-from-islams-advance.thtml

"Where the challenge posed by the Muslim presence is principally demographic and cultural, the reconciliation of opposed value systems has also proved difficult or impossible to achieve. This is in large part due to the fact that in the last few years, and on all the home fronts of the non-Muslim world, a great network of mosques, madrassas and preachers — most of them, despite sectarian differences, singing from the same hymn-sheet (so to speak) — has been installed in the service of Islam’s political advance."

[Given Up]

Agreed Saudi is not a rogue state as such, but if Iraq falls apart and large chunks become a branch office of Iran, how long will Saudi or the other Gulf states be able to hold out.

Those villas on Lake Geneva, will look mighty tempting to the Saudi Royal family. You then will have a fully radicalised ME on yr hands very quickly, with Israel sitting in the middle.

Even now the word is that before too long Hizbollah will take over Lebanon, under Iranian orders.

The problem is not going away, even were we to leave, it will just follow us over here and we already have many willing disciples waiting.

[malcolm]

Given Up.I don't see any anti-US bias here at all. Perhaps I'm being thick but could you point it out for me please?

[SimonNewman]

Given Up:
"Agreed Saudi is not a rogue state as such, but if Iraq falls apart and large chunks become a branch office of Iran, how long will Saudi or the other Gulf states be able to hold out."

Well, as I said above, the big threat to us already comes from Saudi money, I don't know whether the fall of the current Saudi regime would make us any worse off at this point, although it would admittedly make Osama bin Laden happy. I would advocate that the West get the Saudis to stop funding Islamist expansionism (not just terrorism, funding of which they cut down on after 9/11), but there doesn't seem much chance of that. The Saudi position is that if they stop funding Islamist expansionism then:

a) they'll be overthrown, and thus
b) we won't get their oil anymore.

I think (a) might be true, though not certain, but I suspect any interruption of oil supply would be temporary.

"The problem is not going away, even were we to leave, it will just follow us over here and we already have many willing disciples waiting."

The problem is clearly here already. And we ought to be securing our borders and our heartlands, whatever happens in the ME.

[SimonNewman]

Incidentally, I'm not sure why the "Iraq falls apart and large chunks become a branch office of Iran" would cause regime change (Islamist takeover?) in Saudi Arabia & the Gulf states. A fragmented Iraq would have a Shia state with oil, a poor Sunni state in the west, and Kurdistan in the north. The Shia state & Iran might well try to foment trouble in the Shia-majority part of Saudi Arabia, but this would not cause (Sunni) Al Qeda & co to take over, quite the reverse - logically it would prompt the threatened Sunnis in the Gulf to unite against the Shia threat. And no Shia hordes are going to come pouring into Saudi Arabia from Iraq to free their brethren.

Meanwhile the poor Sunni state in the west of Iraq could conceivably become a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorism, but most Sunni Iraqis would probably prefer a stable, secular, albeit not very nice regime (like Saddam's Iraq), and I'd think it would be possible to establish such.

All in all, my gut feeling is that the partition of Iraq would be the best possible solution, and sooner the better.

[Yet Another Anon]

Why would an Iranian-backed Shia theocracy in Iraq be any worse than what we have already?
A lot of the Iraqi Shia are secularist, a lot of the Sunni's and others are the same - the only change of a specifically Islamist government in Iraq is if Shia and Sunni leaders get together to form a coalition, there isn't sufficent support for an Iranian style government - not only are Iraqi's more secularist than Iranians but also the Shia population is only about 60% compared to 95% in Iran.

[Yet Another Anon]

That said though, Iran and Syria cannot be allowed to control surrounding countries such as Lebanon and Iraq and nor should Al Qaeda be allowed to.

[Bruce]

I don't blame some of the above posters for the bizarre views (an agenda of "guns, gays and God"? Bush's role in life is to start a world war? "Christian fundamentalism"?) they hold on the Republican Party. If I paid attention to the BBC, the Guardian, the NY Times, the Washington Post et al, I'd probably share those views.

I'll just note that what they say about the Republican Party sounds very much like what the Democratic Party, and their left wing media allies, say about Republicans.

[Tory Loyalist]

A poll reported this morning indicates that a majority the great British public believe that Bush is a greater threat to peace than Korean maniac Kim Jong-Il.

If correct, this confirms what many of us have long suspected; that we are dealing with a nation largely made up of total morons.

These idiots need to be jolted into the real world, and at the same time the Conservative Party should stop playing up to their ignorant anti-Americanism.

[SimonNewman]

I'm not a total moron, I strongly dislike the Leftist propaganda of the BBC, yet I still think Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld have done more to reduce world peace than Kim Jong-Il has managed to accomplish. According to Ron Suskind's book "The One Percent Doctrine", this is a deliberate White House policy, called "Creative Instability" - the idea was that by smashing the existing pre-9/11 international order, America would be set free to shape the world to its will, the dictators would give up and democracy would ultimately prevail everywhere.
This is pretty much the same approach that communist dictators like Kim Jong-Il have, albeit with a different view of what constitutes democracy, but Kim's ability to disrupt the international order is far more limited.