What if??

[frostytheplebe]

This is something that has been hacked about a lot of places and seems to be what a lot of people out there want. Whether or not it's right...

What if the United States reverted back to it's pre-WW1 Mentality? By this I mean, pull out off world affiars all together. Stop fighting in Iraq and Afganistan, pull our support from Israel, withdraw from the UN, place HEAVY trade tarrifs on incoming goods from other nations, close off our borders to immigrants, or make it a lot harder to get in, cut all foreign aid, and just become almost xenophobic again.

I've compiled a list of what may/may not happen. I'm basically trying to do a research paper on this and would appreciate some incite from both the Americans, as well as our European brothers here.

1. Kiss Israel goodbye. The moment the United States pulls out, the standoff between the Israel and it's Muslim neighbors would be broken and an invasion would begin.

2. The United States would be able to focus more on it's own national debt, including paying off China.

3. The Chinese Economy would breifly prosper with the money coming in from the U.S., but unless they found a new trade partner, their economy would collapse.

4. The UN would not have much power anymore. Most "UN" troops are infact American soldiers.

5. The Global Economy would refocus to another Nation, perhaps France as it was once the economic center of the world and the European nations would begin to regain a lot of their economic strength.

6. This would silence a lot of the angry voices of those who wanted us not to "interfere in global politics" ... that said I have a feeling those same people would complain when the United States does nothing should another conflict arise.

7. One of two things would happen to Japan; 1. They'd be swallowed by China, 2. They'd once again become a militant nation.

8. The nuclear reduction acts would pretty much be voided out an a new arms race may begin.

9. The extremists would retake the middle east.

A lot of this is based on the idea that another world power would not come forward in time to be established as the Superpower, which China is very close to being able to do. It also appears that the seeds have been planted for a United Europe... so who knows.

like I said, this is mostly from an American perspective. Any other perspectives and opinions would be very helpful!

 

[criticalmass]

Hey Frosty, an interesting idea - and although many of the dependencies of the individual actions would need a lot of research to really predict what might happen, here's some thoughts and easy research that I just cobbled together. For Convenience, I'll just use your 9 "theses":

1 - Possible - but the Muslim states around Isreal know what the fragile balance is doing for them, and also that Israel has the most modern and motivated army on the planet. I'd rather guess it'd be a slow economic battle to subdue Israel's strong political voice.

2 - Improbable - The USA is the world's largest importer of goods and 3rd largest exporter, so there would be a lot of trouble to re-balance the economy to be self-sufficient. This trouble needs money - and other nations who would be willing to lend it would gain even more power over the United States.

3 - Improbable - Chinese economy is very adaptable, and would shift to the European markets, with unforeseeable consequences for industries on the continent.

4 - Probably misconstrued - according to this, the United States provide a total of 82 people for UN peacekeeping personnel. I guess you mean NATO (ISAF) troops, of which 78,000 of a total of 120,000 are provided by the United States. But a NATO without US contributions would not work structurally, and an EMEA structure would need to emerge.

5 - Probable - Europe has most of the infrastructure to create its own economic lifecycle, but lacks resources. This might lead into a better development of emerging and 3rd world countries, but also might lead into a much heavier dependence on Asia.

6 - Totally with you on that - It would please short sighted people, and shock them when they reach their horizons.

7 - Difficult - Japan with its isolationist attitude is hard to predict, but I'd guess in the same direction as Israel and the Arabic world: Both know what they get from the other one, and it'll be the diplomatic and economic niceties from then on.

8 - Probable - There would be power shifts and insecurities, and the weapons industry would profit from that. But a new arms race? The world is technologically advanced enough to show that a nuclear missile in your own silo with some kind of digital launch system is as much a danger to you than to anyone else.

9 - Please elaborate - What extremists, and what Middle East? There are many different perspectives in the rest of the world what constitutes an extremist (by British standards, the Italian government may be categorized "extremist"), and as many opinions about where the Middle East starts and ends. From a European generalized opinion, the Middle East is already taken by extremists.


The underlying question is timing. A paradigm shift in US foreign and domestic policy with far-reaching consequences like that would not happen over night. Yes, the political structures would allow for that, but the national economy needs time to adapt to changes. So the concept of "another world power would not come forward in time" is rather academical. But so is my - admittedly European - perspective.

I'd really be interested what you'd predict for internal changes in the United States. Even if this sounds like a W. Forstchen novel

 

[frostytheplebe]

9 - Please elaborate - What extremists, and what Middle East? There are many different perspectives in the rest of the world what constitutes an extremist (by British standards, the Italian government may be categorized "extremist"), and as many opinions about where the Middle East starts and ends. From a European generalized opinion, the Middle East is already taken by extremists.

Outstanding, this is exactly what I was hoping for... To answer this, I'd say take a look at what happened when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afganistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_Afghanistan_(1989-1992)
After the Soviet Union left, the terroritories they helped to establish began to fall apart, fight amongst themselves, and just weaken all around. Some of the larger ones managed to maintain power for a brief time, but eventually the Mujahideen came down on them like a hammer.

The Gov'ts of Iraq and Afganistan at the moment are still pretty dependent on NATO and privately funded armed forces to help train and suppliment their security forces. Pull that support, and the countries would be retaken. People following in Osama's steps would retake these nations... I'd even gamble they would move on the Saudis at some point, but that's admittedly gross speculation on my part.

To Answer your question as to what Middle East...
From North to South: Georgia to Yemen and Sudan
West to East: Egypt to Pakistan.

The underlying question is timing. A paradigm shift in US foreign and domestic policy with far-reaching consequences like that would not happen over night. Yes, the political structures would allow for that, but the national economy needs time to adapt to changes. So the concept of "another world power would not come forward in time" is rather academical. But so is my - admittedly European - perspective.

Well I admit that this is the most unlikely case scenario, but I was more thinking along the lines of a Post WW1/Vietnam War style withdrawal. This is most unlikely, but in my opinion at least, it would solve many problems for the US economy... if no one else.

I'd really be interested what you'd predict for internal changes in the United States. Even if this sounds like a W. Forstchen novel

That's a good point... I hadn't put a whole ton of thought into this one.

Well one word comes to mind "Rebuild"

Personally I'd think that there would be a reduction in Government. The Federal Government would focus on defending our borders. In my opinion, at this point, the smartest thing they could do is beef up our defenses. The surplus money we would not be dumping into the current conflicts would most likely shift to paying off our debt, while the rest would go to reopening bases like Otis Airforce and the Submarine base in CT.

Defense, in my opinion would also focus on sifting through the illegals that are present here. First by reinforcing our borders to make sure no one can get through unchecked. Once this is done, the US would then basically make every effort to locate the current illegals in the country that would then have to go through a screening process. If they have a criminal record, foreign or domestic, they are immediately deported. If not, they will have the option of either returning to their homeland by choice or applying to become citizens.

The Citizenship tests would not be easy, but it would not be impossible either and would require a clear record. Once done, the citizenship requirements would then be made even more stringent for security purposes.

As for the economic affairs, most likely we'd be looking at State governments taking the reigns on this one. With the Federal Gov. focusing on getting us out of debt and shifting to defense, they'd have enough to worry about. Personally, Government should put itself on a budget at this point. A set amount of money to defense, and another lump sum on a yearly basis to pay off the national debt. Once that is paid off, the defense budget remains the same, but the rest of the money is used to help the economy, stimulus packages for American buisnesses, particularly the Mom and Pop buisnesses.

This would probably have to happen over the span of 30-40 years at least. It would be my hope that once all is said and done, taxes would be slashed, the United States would once again be self-sustaining, new unities would form for better or worse in the rest of the world, and the U.S. would re-adopt the Monroe doctorane.

Now I know everyone is probably wondering where all this stimulus money would come from. Well that will get me into some "In a perfect world" territory, but the worst thing our country does is try to promote stimulus by borrowing money from other nations. This, to me, is stupid, it doesn't work and it never has. So then where does the money come from? The answer is our own pockets. 1. Politicians are becoming millionares from their time in office. Public servants never should. So first, cut their salaries. They should not make any more then teachers... honestly, I'd cut their salaries down lower then that, social workers and DC worker salaries. Most of these politicians come in already wealthy or have other careers already.

Finally, do a government audit. I'm sure every American citizen can name one program, office, or organization that is a waste of tax money. Keep what is absolutely essential and let the private sector worry about the rest. Once done, the money the Gov't was putting into these programs, it puts into defense and paying off the national debt.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Farbourne]

I think one thing that a lot of people don't realize is the degree to which our relatively active foreign policy stimulates sectors of our own economy, especially in the defense field.

After Medicare/Medicaid, the largest portion of the U.S. federal budget is defense. And a significant portion of that budget does NOT go to training, paying, and maintaining our Army, etc. personnell, but rather to acquiring and maintaining technologically advanced hardware, and R+D work, both basic science and applied engineering. Also, this kind of research and industry, which goes to companies like Boeing, Raytheon, etc., plus funding a significant portion of the research that goes on at U.S. universities, is the one type of industry that CANNOT be offshored or exported to India/China because cost benefits (unlike just about every kind of non-service industry in this country).

If the U.S. was suddenly to take a more isolationist, hands-off approach to foreign policy, and "get it's own affairs in order" as many argue, the defense budget would likely take a massive hit, which would crush the last remaining truly American industry, and significantly hamper our future R+D efforts and our status as the most technologically advanced nation in the world.

It's also worth noting that your audit idea, while a good idea (I believe in smaller government when it is efficient to do so), likely wouldn't help as much as many hardcore fiscal conservatives claim. Look at the structure of our federal budget. Over half the budget (about 60% if I remember correctly) is "non-discretionary"...it is tied up in commitments that we CANNOT legally reduce: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt. And with the way health care costs are trending and the boomers starting to retire and collect social security, along with the fact that our debt is growing year by year, this "non-discretionary" portion of the budget will continue to grow relative to the "discretionary" portion.

Now look at the discretionary portion. The biggest piece here is the DoD...but as I mentioned, this piece at least is one of the most beneficial (to the U.S. economy) pieces of the entire budget...every dollar spent on the DoD goes into American pockets and stimulates our economy (that is not true of any other portion of the U.S. economy except perhaps Social Security). I think the DoD budget is one the order of about half of the discretionary budget. As one author put it, the U.S. is turning into an "insurance company with an army"...even without taking the recent health care legislation into account.

That means the whole rest of the discretionary budget...road building, the post office, federal assistance for everything, DHS, federal law enforcement, everything...is about 20% of our total budget. Even if you decide that 25% of those programs are pork or fluff and can be cut (and that number is probably on the high side), your audit will reduce our total expenditures by about 5%.

People just don't realize how insignificant most of these issues that they harp on about government overspending are, compared to the three massive elephants in the room of Social Security, the national debt, and Medicare/Medicaid. Illegal immigration? Insignificant. Congressional pay raises? Insignificant. Federal aid for students? Insignificant. Welfare (minus the Medicaid part)? Insignificant. Fraud/waste in construction projects? Insignificant. Foreign Aid? Insignificant.

I don't see how adopting an isolationist foreign policy would help address these problems... Unless we really reform our Social Security system, do something to put medical costs in check, massively raise taxes WITHOUT increasing government spending, and use the combined revenue to start aggressively paying off the national debt, this country is not going to fix it's pending financial problems.

Of course, the issue is that as soon as a politician of either party tried doing any of these things, let alone all of them, they would be voted out of office (or impeached) faster than you could say "fiscal meltdown", probably labeled as someone who wants to stick it to the "common Joe" while doing nothing to stop illegals/secure our borders/protect family values/reign in Wall Street/etc. The problem is that people don't really realize what the big problems facing us are.

OK, sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[criticalmass]

Does that answer your question?

Actually, yes - but in a way that lets me think along the lines of Farbourne.

I'd join in on the argument of the insignificance of all the well-touted issues we read about in the papers every day. Immigration, welfare, financial aid, foreign aid, wasteful spending - all that is small potatoes against the money that is necessary to keep up the infrastructure and the social security structures that the country relies on. So I won't add to the financial side.

I'd rather add to the people side. Europe has its own problems with immigrants and fugitives, and there's no easy way to just remove the "undesirables". They are still people who got individual rights, and a government has to make sure if sending them back to where they came from is not the same as killing them then and there. For many people it's okay if they have jobs (and many do, especially in the service industries) and don't cause trouble - but Citizenship? What if they have a majority somewhere, elect a muslim mayor, build a mosque, and have all the women wear headscarves?
Democracy is a beast that hast to bite its own leg if the situation demands it.

But that brings me to the other point - the Middle East one. There are a lot of people in countries that have been declared sovereign at some point in time, in many cases with borders being drawn without asking anyone living in the region. That was great for local politicians wanting to get rich quick, and even better for the Soviet Union who did not "help them get established" but bled them out. Afghanistan's natural resources have vanished, without any compensation, and The Soviets dropped them as soon as there was nothing left to take.
I'd say that the current peacekeeping efforts and restructuring of the countries to democratic systems and modernized, new branches of industry is a bit different. Nonetheless the threat of extremists is existent - but can not be solved by any foreign force that is only seen as an occupation army. The Arab Mujahideen or Afghan Taliban are people that follow a policy that can only be resolved by their own people in a combined effort and in a stable situation. At least that is the UN perspective - while NATO sees Afghanistan and many surrounding countries as war zone and every non-allied group as insurgent.
But why restore peace and stability there when they're all a bunch of AK47-wielding ragheads? Because those ragheads have other resources that the world needs, and they are the target market for the combined European and American industries for the next decades. But how does the Middle East get in here anyway?

We wanted to talk about an isolationist United States. Apart from wondering why the topic of defense comes up again and again (against who? And why spend MORE than even now?), I'm not sure if the economy actually can be switched to self-reliance. As of now, around 70% of oil consumed in the US is imported (which in itself is 55% of the world's total consumption of oil), with similar figures in other natural resource fields. It is true that there are untapped reserves, but they are risky (Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico) and cost a lot of money to safely develop.
Then we have the problem of distributed production - not many products nowadays are purely made in one country alone. Industries produce parts, and need to buy other parts abroad because it'd be too expensive making them in-house. The result: Industries depend on each other - and flourish, because they challenge each other to become better.

Call me a globalist, do it

 

[frostytheplebe]

I'd rather add to the people side. Europe has its own problems with immigrants and fugitives, and there's no easy way to just remove the "undesirables". They are still people who got individual rights, and a government has to make sure if sending them back to where they came from is not the same as killing them then and there. For many people it's okay if they have jobs (and many do, especially in the service industries) and don't cause trouble - but Citizenship? What if they have a majority somewhere, elect a muslim mayor, build a mosque, and have all the women wear headscarves?

Which is exactly the problem. I mean we talk about how these people do the jobs no one else wants to do. In this economy, i can pretty much promise you that there are plenty of people in the US who would now take those jobs. That plus the fact that you and I pay for their healthcare because ERs at the hospital can't legally turn people away.
As cold as it may sound... these people are not our citizens, so they aren't really our problem. It is the responsability of their country's government to take care of them and if they can't/won't, then it those people's responsability to rise up against said Government and establish a more beneficial one. I hate to say that, but it's true. The United States is like a sponge, sooner or later, it gets saturated.

But that brings me to the other point - the Middle East one. There are a lot of people in countries that have been declared sovereign at some point in time, in many cases with borders being drawn without asking anyone living in the region. That was great for local politicians wanting to get rich quick, and even better for the Soviet Union who did not "help them get established" but bled them out. Afghanistan's natural resources have vanished, without any compensation, and The Soviets dropped them as soon as there was nothing left to take.

So why should the US pick up the pieces? Europe created Afganistan, Russia made it worse and things went downhill from there. You hear about all the tribal warfare in Africa... well historically France, the UK, Belgian, and a few others drew up the boarders upon their withdrawal during the 20s-50s. This caused these countries to fight amongst themselves when tribes were divided.

So why are these place now our problem? Why is the majority of NATO/UN forces United States? Why aren't the countrys who initially caused these problems trying to fix them instead of getting mad and calling the US the "World's Policeman?"

Well then fine, no problem, withdraw and let them fix the problems themselves.

I'd say that the current peacekeeping efforts and restructuring of the countries to democratic systems and modernized, new branches of industry is a bit different. Nonetheless the threat of extremists is existent - but can not be solved by any foreign force that is only seen as an occupation army. The Arab Mujahideen or Afghan Taliban are people that follow a policy that can only be resolved by their own people in a combined effort and in a stable situation. At least that is the UN perspective - while NATO sees Afghanistan and many surrounding countries as war zone and every non-allied group as insurgent.

I agree!

But why restore peace and stability there when they're all a bunch of AK47-wielding ragheads? Because those ragheads have other resources that the world needs, and they are the target market for the combined European and American industries for the next decades. But how does the Middle East get in here anyway?

I'm not touching the raghead part, but I question how much we really need them "industrially" (is that even a word)?
"I have travelled widely in America my friends. Their industrial might is awesome!"
-Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Personally, if confronted with a timeframe, and with extra money now being put into American industry and research, we'd find alternatives. Fuel cell cars, electric cars, hydrogen cars, etc. are already in production. California has already put fuel cell cars on the road. Think of it this way. 1942 Research in Atomic energy was put into full speed by the US government. It was completed in July 1945. Three years.

In 1950 the US developed the PGM-11 Redstone missile, which joined their arsenal in 1952. In 1969, less then 20 years later, man lands on the moon. Then what? Kennedy was assasinated, money was shifted away from research and towards Vietnam, Apollo 13 went up with all sorts of problems, other missions were cancelled due to budget cuts and all around lack of interest, and Apollo 17 would be the last to land on the moon.

What has happened with the space program since then? We've been using the same decrepid old Shuttles for 30 years. Now it is true that we are working on a new station, but with the system being retired in 2011, and the next gen rockets not slated to even be produced for a long time. The plan was for Project Constellation to take over, but Obama's administration took care of that one. Now the Aries rocket's aren't projected to be ready until about 2019 and the Orion probably won't be ready until 2016.

So "what if" Vietnam didn't happen? "What if" the U.S. didn't start getting involved there and focused more on R&D. Could we be on Mars now? Who knows...

We wanted to talk about an isolationist United States. Apart from wondering why the topic of defense comes up again and again (against who? And why spend MORE than even now?), I'm not sure if the economy actually can be switched to self-reliance.

I think I already covered how/why we should switch to self-reliance again earlier on, so we'll move on to the "why" for defense. The answer to this is the potential power shift with the US withdrawal. Who knows what could/would happen... it would be strictly safeguarding measures to make sure that we were safe against what ever "Might" happen.

Then we have the problem of distributed production - not many products nowadays are purely made in one country alone. Industries produce parts, and need to buy other parts abroad because it'd be too expensive making them in-house. The result: Industries depend on each other - and flourish, because they challenge each other to become better.

Well that's true, but imagine the jobs that would open up if new US companies started developing new equipment and producing parts on their won.