The Differences Between Dis-engagement, Non-intervention and Isolationism

My pieces on disengaging militarily from the Middle East have been characterized as neo-isolationist by several friends, associates and correspondents.  Most have failed to note the qualifier "militarily." Let's examine what the differences might be and clarify what I propose.

Isolationism is to pull in behind our borders and take no active role in the affairs of the world.  It often is accompanied by protective tariffs and withdrawal from world trade.  Nothing could be more wishful, fruitless and, even if feasible in this inter-connected world, more suicidal.  Isolation is not an option, and is an ignorant stance even were it possible to achieve.

Non-intervention means not stepping in where we are not invited.  It doesn't mean not caring, or watching, or learning, or listening and collecting intelligence.  Noses in; fingers out.

Dis-engagement militarily is just that -- not participating by arming or taking part in military actions among the various combatants (among whom we cannot discriminate between good guys and baddies; friends, fair-weather friends, or foes; democrats or autocrats or theocrats; and familial-ists, clan-ists, tribal-ists, sectarianists or secularists or nationalists or whatever.)  This is feasible, but it does NOT mean we disengage from the countries of the Middle East. 

We can and should, we must, engage:

• In ameliorating the human damage to those caught in the middle or displaced and on the run by proffering humanitarian aid, i.e., shelters, food and water, medicines and first aid supplies, to any and all sides, including cautious green card access to our shores.
• By guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the four nations which are maintaining some semblance of representative government, civil society and rule of law -- Israel, Turkey, Lebanon and Kurdistan (yes, recognizing Kurdistan as an independent state) -- and backing up those guarantees with military might and boots on the ground.
• By shifting our economy from military production to peace products.  Instead of selling our military hardware to and lavishing military assistance on unstable countries and kingdoms, instead offer to gift infrastructure products, such as desalinization plants, irrigation systems, hospitals, MRI's, education supplies, whatever so long as their US production under government contract stimulates the US economy and aids our exports.  A fully equipped hospital costs about a tenth of the price we pay for an F-16.
•  And by listening -- proactively listening to all sides and all comers -- in the UN, in our diplomatic outposts, in international forums.  Listening is an art at which we have been out of practice and gotten rusty,  to put it mildly (e.g., not hearing Putin obsess about expanding NATO eastward and not hearing Cuba suggest they'd welcome an opening to reduce dependency on Russia and Venezuela.)  Listening is the best medicine for hubris.

I know the accusations: that I'm naively and politically wishful; that we can't afford military R&D without export sales; that we would be abdicating to China, Russia, The Ukraine, The Czech Republic, Brazil and Israel lucrative weapons markets; that lavishing free stuff on unstable regimes is just throwing money away and creating new fields of baksheesh to harvest; that China and Russia would rush in to establish alliances with these sheiks (a blessing to be wished on one's worst enemy); that Iran's influence in the region would be strengthened; that I am a dreamy idealist ignoring real politic; etc., etc. etc. 

Yes, yes, but none of that dissuades me from believing that step-by-step we could and should move toward this stance, starting by pulling out militarily and letting the middle easterners, particularly the Persians and Arabs, play out their bloody, self-destructive conflicts on their own.  And none of that dissuades me from  believing that in the long run, America would be strengthened, economically and morally, throughout the world, by so doing.  The Swiss are neutral; the Norwegians are neutral; is it not possible for a powerful giant also to be neutral?  While fully engaged?  And acting as an honest broker of peace?  That would be listening to our better angels and to the dreams of our founding founders.  That could be a vision behind which a broad swath of Americans could coalesce.  That is a foreign policy I could believe in.