1995 - Reversing White House isolationism
1995 - Reversing White House isolationism
This charge was echoed by some Democrats in the House of Representatives during the debate over the American Overseas Interest Act (AOIA), the bill that provides funding for the State Department and other international operations. The AOIA does make cuts in foreign aid to regimes that have shown themselves out of sympathy with U.S. security interests. Critics have charged that it is "extreme" to tie U.S. aid to the behavior of foreign governments. Yet, there is no reason to regard actions hostile to the United States or to expend resources where no return can be expected.
The real risk of isolationism has actually come from the White House as a result of massive cuts in the military. If the United States does not maintain the strength to act in the world, its diplomacy will lack credibility. If we fail to meet future challenges, we could lapse into an isolationism based on impotence. It is one thing to debate where we should act; it is another to so weaken our ability to act that it is no longer a viable option.
This is what happened in the isolationist era of the 1920s and 1930s. Though the United States refused to join the League of Nations after World War I, Washington was a leader in talks to limit war and armaments.
The most important arms control system was established by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and expanded by the London treaties of 1930 and 1935. These set low limits on the navies of the world powers. Scores of warships were scrapped. But the strategic result of this system was that militant, but economically weak, powers like Imperial Japan and fascist Italy were able to build within striking distance of the richer democracies, like the United States, which were prohibited from converting their superior resources into superior strength. Western democracies lulled themselves into vulnerability by such notions as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (named after U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand) by which the major powers of the day pledged that solutions to "all disputes or conflicts of whatever origin . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means."
Of the 15 nations which signed this treaty to "outlaw" war, all but one fought in World War II. Among the signatories were Germany, Italy and Japan. The appeasement of dictators in the 1930s which led to the outbreak of World War II was a direct result of the failure of the Western democracies to maintain superior military forces with which to resist the early aggression of the Axis powers.
The Clinton administration is following much this same path with its emphasis on arms-control agreements and deep cuts in American military capabilities. Since 1990, force levels have been cut by over one-third, readiness has declined and many vital modernization programs have been delayed or canceled. Planned force levels do not provide the credible capability to fight "two nearly simultaneous regional wars," which is the declared U.S. policy and a prudent standard for safeguarding American security in a turbulent world. The plan by the Bush administration to deploy an anti-missile defense system to protect the United States from direct attack was scrapped by Clinton in favor of protecting, instead, the "integrity" of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Clinton has even accepted some Russian demands that the ABM Treaty be expanded to restrict the development of theater defense systems that could protect U.S. forces in combat overseas.
The U.S. armed forces are being reduced to their lowest levels since the eve of World War II. Even within these reduced levels, deficiencies have been found. The readiness of several divisions was recently found to be below par, and there are widespread ammunition shortages. The House Republican defense budget will correct this, providing more funds for ammunition and precision-guided weapons that the Clinton administration wanted.
In contrast to an isolationist stance, the Republican defense budget improves the ability of the United States to project its power overseas. The budget funds an additional amphibious assault ship for the Marines and two additional cargo ships to rapidly deploy the Army's tanks and heavy equipment. It also provides more F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon and AV-8 Harrier tactical fighters and keeps the B-2 "stealth" bomber program alive. The B-2's exceptional (and unique) capabilities of range, payload and penetration can help offset force reductions elsewhere. Carrying a greater bomb load than the B-52, the B-2 can reach any potential crisis area on the great "arc of instability" around the Eurasian rim.
The Republican budget also puts back an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Clinton had cut. This destroyer is fitted with the Aegis radar and air-defense system which is being upgraded to protect our troops ashore from enemy missiles like the "Scuds" used by Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and which many radical regimes now have.
Far from fostering an American withdrawal from the world, the Republicans are working to enhance the ability of the United States to protect its global interests by allocating the nation's finite resources to programs which will yield the highest returns to national security.
Author: DUNCAN HUNTER; HUNTER, a Republican member of Congress from El Cajon, is chairman of the House National Security Subcommittee on Military Procurement.
The Clinton administration and its allies in Congress have attacked an alleged Republican "neo-isolationism." Bill Clinton started this months ago in defense of his desire to grant the United Nations pre-eminence in American foreign policy. More recently, U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright has been touring the country trying to improve the tarnished image of the United Nations by charging that the Congress is taking the United States back to the isolationism of the 1920s. This charge was echoed by some Democrats in the House of Representatives during the debate over the American Overseas Interest Act (AOIA), the bill that provides funding for the State Department and other international operations. The AOIA does make cuts in foreign aid to regimes that have shown themselves out of sympathy with U.S. security interests. Critics have charged that it is "extreme" to tie U.S. aid to the behavior of foreign governments. Yet, there is no reason to regard actions hostile to the United States or to expend resources where no return can be expected.
The real risk of isolationism has actually come from the White House as a result of massive cuts in the military. If the United States does not maintain the strength to act in the world, its diplomacy will lack credibility. If we fail to meet future challenges, we could lapse into an isolationism based on impotence. It is one thing to debate where we should act; it is another to so weaken our ability to act that it is no longer a viable option.
This is what happened in the isolationist era of the 1920s and 1930s. Though the United States refused to join the League of Nations after World War I, Washington was a leader in talks to limit war and armaments.
The most important arms control system was established by the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and expanded by the London treaties of 1930 and 1935. These set low limits on the navies of the world powers. Scores of warships were scrapped. But the strategic result of this system was that militant, but economically weak, powers like Imperial Japan and fascist Italy were able to build within striking distance of the richer democracies, like the United States, which were prohibited from converting their superior resources into superior strength. Western democracies lulled themselves into vulnerability by such notions as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 (named after U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand) by which the major powers of the day pledged that solutions to "all disputes or conflicts of whatever origin . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means."
Of the 15 nations which signed this treaty to "outlaw" war, all but one fought in World War II. Among the signatories were Germany, Italy and Japan. The appeasement of dictators in the 1930s which led to the outbreak of World War II was a direct result of the failure of the Western democracies to maintain superior military forces with which to resist the early aggression of the Axis powers.
The Clinton administration is following much this same path with its emphasis on arms-control agreements and deep cuts in American military capabilities. Since 1990, force levels have been cut by over one-third, readiness has declined and many vital modernization programs have been delayed or canceled. Planned force levels do not provide the credible capability to fight "two nearly simultaneous regional wars," which is the declared U.S. policy and a prudent standard for safeguarding American security in a turbulent world. The plan by the Bush administration to deploy an anti-missile defense system to protect the United States from direct attack was scrapped by Clinton in favor of protecting, instead, the "integrity" of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Clinton has even accepted some Russian demands that the ABM Treaty be expanded to restrict the development of theater defense systems that could protect U.S. forces in combat overseas.
The U.S. armed forces are being reduced to their lowest levels since the eve of World War II. Even within these reduced levels, deficiencies have been found. The readiness of several divisions was recently found to be below par, and there are widespread ammunition shortages. The House Republican defense budget will correct this, providing more funds for ammunition and precision-guided weapons that the Clinton administration wanted.
In contrast to an isolationist stance, the Republican defense budget improves the ability of the United States to project its power overseas. The budget funds an additional amphibious assault ship for the Marines and two additional cargo ships to rapidly deploy the Army's tanks and heavy equipment. It also provides more F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon and AV-8 Harrier tactical fighters and keeps the B-2 "stealth" bomber program alive. The B-2's exceptional (and unique) capabilities of range, payload and penetration can help offset force reductions elsewhere. Carrying a greater bomb load than the B-52, the B-2 can reach any potential crisis area on the great "arc of instability" around the Eurasian rim.
The Republican budget also puts back an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Clinton had cut. This destroyer is fitted with the Aegis radar and air-defense system which is being upgraded to protect our troops ashore from enemy missiles like the "Scuds" used by Iraq in the Persian Gulf War and which many radical regimes now have.
Far from fostering an American withdrawal from the world, the Republicans are working to enhance the ability of the United States to protect its global interests by allocating the nation's finite resources to programs which will yield the highest returns to national security.
Comments