NYT Mistakes American Prudence for “Isolationist Streak”
show comments
  • After WW I, Britain determined that their security frontier was the Rhine, due to the development of long range bombers. The US is in a difficult position because the Syrian WMD stockpile may end up in non-state actors’ hands.

    • Corlyss Drinkard

      I suggest ours would not be a difficult position if we didn’t have such a long recent history of spineless presidents who have feared strength and demonstrations of strength in defense of the international system more than they have feared the consequences of appearing weak. Equivocators and time-servers all.

  • USNK2

    How many of those polled know that the Korean War, unlike WW2 (except for the quirk of Japan vs. Russia), has never ended? The dream of ending war after 1945 has led to so many ‘frozen conflicts’, and the associated blowback, no wonder ‘those polled’ do not want another unfinished, never-ending war.
    As for Syria? I hope their Druze, Circassians, and Christians somehow win.
    Mostly, I think Americans are tired of all the chatter about everything EXCEPT jobs and the ever-sputtering US economy.

  • Corlyss Drinkard

    “We think this analysis misses the mark by confusing sensible prudence with isolationism.”

    I might agree if we didn’t have a long history of public disenchantment with Washington’s oft-referenced “foreign entanglements.” Americans traditionally look across the vasty oceans and see only chaos and danger, whether we’re talking about European wars or immigration’s ideological contagion or globalization of cheap labor. Wise men have prosecuted much effective foreign policy in eras when rudimentary communication allowed them breathing room to make the necessary decisions and take the necessary actions. It’s been a lot harder since the communications revolution of the post-war era has allowed both instantaneous knowledge of events and enabled a powerful and borderline anti-American media to propagandize its pet likes and dislikes endlessly. Kathleen Hall Jamieson refers to “the press effect:” if the press covers it, it’s news worthy of one’s attention; if the press doesn’t cover it, it might as well not exist or happen. We have seen this with so many stories over the last 40+ years. WRM alluded to it in his wry piece on the press coverage of the Sandy aftermath and how different it would have been had there been a Republican president.

  • I cannot think of a single reason why we need to get involved in the civil war in Syria.

  • NYT is always trying to manipulate the course of events. Not good. Sulzberger should really go for the good of the paper, for the good of the country.

    • Jim Luebke

      NYT should really go, for the good of the country.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.