I’m no fan of isolationism. It’s one of the many reasons I’d never be welcomed into the ranks of Libertarians.
My distaste for isolationism is rooted in the cold reality of human existence. There has been no time in human history free from the threat of violence. Time and time again, when defenders of the innocent and individual liberty recede into the wings, others take the stage. More often than not they choose violence. Right now, we see the inevitable result playing out in Ukraine.
As I’m writing this on the evening of Monday February 21st, 2022 we are hearing the news of Russian forces entering two regions of Ukraine under the guise of cultural reunification. For better or worse, the move leaves little room for the leaders of other nations. Those in a position to oppose Russia are being solicited to do so. Their choice is binary.
Action, Or Appeasement.
Before any of us begins pointing fingers, it’s important to acknowledge that no single American administration is to blame for what’s going on right now. Putin’s actions are his to own. All our internal politics has done is foment the isolationist spirit that pulls America back into itself from time to time. I wrote a piece about this in the wake of the Afghanistan crisis this past August.
Although he is not to blame for this current crisis, President Biden does hold the unimaginable responsibility to respond to it. The magnitude of that responsibility is not for the faint of heart.
Unlike the conflicts of the last twenty years, a war between the militaries of two major modern nation states would be cataclysmic. Total war, supported by massive economies and powered by modern weapons would yield destruction like few can imagine – even if you exclude the nuclear scenario.
Logistics will rule the battlefield. Natural resources, manufacturing capability, transportation and national infrastructure – all those things that make the wholesale destruction of human life possible. War is hell. Modern war will be something else entirely.
And President Biden has the unlucky task of navigating the West through this storm. How will we stand?
Chamberlain vs Churchill
A sad reality of human history is our need to re-learn the lessons of those who came before us. History doesn’t necessarily repeat. But it does rhyme. Hard times create strong men; strong men create easy times; easy times create weak men; weak men create hard times. And the cycle continues.
At unique points in time we’re given the starkest examples of how this process unfolds. In the late 1930’s Neville Chamberlain proved himself unequal to the task of his time. As Germany invaded and annexed culturally German areas beyond its borders, Chamberlain opted to appease Hitler and recognize those territorial acquisitions.
Even after declaring war in the autumn of 1939, Chamberlain’s approach to the war – tepid and timid at best – failed to blunt the progress of Germany’s forces. His failure to adapt to the new state of the world lost him the confidence of the British parliament, and vaulted the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, into power.
Churchill was the right man for his time. Bulldogged and stern, he was also deeply optimistic about the future of the war. Because he knew the resolve of his people. Unfortunately, after the victorious conclusion of the war, those same people were equally resolved to move on from the severity of wartime life. They left Winston in that time (at least for a little while).
Easy times had made for a weak leader. A weak leader fostered a hard time. A more determined leader rose to meet the moment. And he led the way to a prosperous half century. When the time is right, I’ll hope any American President will find a bit of that bulldog spirit in themselves.
Whether we proceed by sanctions or military force, we need to remember that the world is watching. Friend and future foe alike. Will we continue to retreat from the stage? Or will we stand for our ideals? One way or another, we’ll find out what we’re made of, and if we can each answer the times.
Part of the Possible 