INCORPORATION or ISOLATION
Strategy for a New International Order
Heather Marcus
National Defense Policy
Fall 2013
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 1
News broadcasts, newspapers, and overheard conversations in line at the supermarket
usually share a similar theme: that there is always a new struggle occurring somewhere on the
globe. Current conditions around the world find competing groups embroiled in conflict over a
number of issues, caught in a state of perpetual angst over ever-evolving and usually-clashing
viewpoints, without a real end in sight. Groups divide over one large issue, carry on a fight from
two opposing positions, then find ways on their respective sides to disagree and faction off into
subgroups to create even more differing and competing interests. . . Like in cellular division, the
growth is exponential—once an original cell factions off, each generation following is more
numerous than the previous, and so on until the process can no longer be supported.
Sometimes the United States has found herself outside the ring, watching the fight;
however, more often than not, the U.S. has gotten involved in other countries’ conflicts. In the
case of Nazi Germany, American involvement was shone in a positive light—there were horrible
atrocities being committed at the expense of an entire ethnic group. However, in the case of
Vietnam, the altruism of intervening was lost at the hands of greed and fear of Communism’s
spread. The circumstances and results of intervening in global affairs have been varied, but all
offer insight to the best course of action for the United States.
Should the United States devote its time and resources to other countries’ affairs? Or
should America’s resources stay on her soil? Where is the line drawn? At what point does the
United States step into conflict, and when should those in charge bow gracefully out of
participation?
And, on a larger scale, is a global community too idealistic of a goal? It would be a whole
lot easier to get everyone on the same page, with the same rules and punishments, and work
toward a brighter global tomorrow, rather than having jihads and conspiratorial wars and
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 2
backroom deals that leave entire countries at the mercy of a few superpowers. However, the
tangled history of intercontinental relationships could prove a task such as global unitization
easier said than done. There might be too much chalk on the blackboard to get the entire world to
participate in a community.
It seems as if people want to be left alone, to do/say/think/believe/worship within the
group that shares their moral or political or economic code. However, the old adage is that there
is strength in numbers, and a perpetually-separating system doesn’t bode well for unity.
Looking at history, there seem to be two possibilities: to promote and participate in a
global community, or to self-interestedly pursue individual goals without taking other countries
into consideration (until they pose a threat to U.S. interests). The United States can either
promote the practice of isolation based on a number of factors (for example: national boundaries
or economic interests) and pursue U.S.-only objectives, or the U.S. can pursue a new, higherminded path of incorporating the interests of the world as a whole and finding new ways to
maximize positive outcomes across the globe. Isolationism or incorporationism.
The United States is no stranger to isolationist ideals; in fact, those sentiments reach
further back than the country itself.
Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, a pamphlet that inspired the American colonialists
to assert and fight for independence from Great Britain in 1776. Common Sense was published in
early January of 1776, as the American Revolution was beginning, and was called "the most
incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era."1
Common Sense presented the American colonists with an appeal for freedom from British
rule at a time when the question of whether or not to seek independence was a pressing issue. In
1
Wood, Gordon S. Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different. New York: Penguin Books, 2007.
Print.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 3
it, Paine criticized the monarchy system in England, pointing out its fallacies and corruption, and
laid out in very plain terms the reasons that “The Continent” should seek separation from other
countries’ entanglements. Once he established England’s unfitness for ruling “at least one-eighth
part of the habitable Globe,”2 Paine began his appeal for an unencumbered and independent
country, and he did not shy away from acknowledging the necessity for immediate action:
“I HAVE never met with a man, either in England or America, who hath not
confessed his opinion, that a separation between the countries would take place
one time or other: And there is no instance in which we have shown less
judgment, than in endeavoring to describe, what we call, the ripeness or fitness of
the continent for independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion of the time, let us, in
order to remove mistakes, take a general survey of things, and endeavor if
possible to find out the VERY time. But I need not go far, the inquiry ceases at
once, for the TIME HATH FOUND US. The general concurrence, the glorious
union of all things, proves the fact.”
Paine is seen as the planter of non-interventionism seeds in American politics. Noninterventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other
nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has
had a long history of popularity in the United States.
George Washington shared in Paine’s isolationist sentiments. When Common Sense was
published, then-General Washington had it recited to his troops who were surrounding the
British Army in Boston. He was keen to the necessity of unity in the newly-formed country, and
Before his retirement from the office of President, Washington wrote an open letter to the people
of the United States. The letter was later renamed and considered as Washington’s “Farewell
Address,”3 and in it he left the nation with these words:
2
See Paine, infra. From the Section titled ‘Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs.’
George Washington's Farewell Address is a letter written by the first American President, George Washington, to
"The People of the United States". Washington wrote the letter near the end of his second term as President,
before his retirement to his home Mount Vernon. It was originally published in David Claypole's American Daily
3
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 4
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our
commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which
are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us
to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics,
or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
(Gilbert, Felix. To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American Foreign Policy.
New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Online edition.)
Washington’s Farewell Address served as a valedictorian speech of sorts—in it, he
reflected on the successes of the country, imparted some of the lessons he learned during his
service to the country, and left the people with advice on the dangers of permanent alliances
between the United States and foreign nations. He shared his belief that unity of the people as
Americans was the biggest weapon against foreign attack, and expressed downright distrust in
foreign actors’ intentions towards the United States. It was a viewpoint that promoted selfinterest and foreign interaction only when the pursuit of those interests would not entangle4 the
United States with another country’s affairs.
In 1823, Washington's non-interventionist foreign policy would find footing with the
Monroe Doctrine which stated that efforts by European nations to colonize or interfere with
countries in North or South America would be interpreted as acts of aggression, which would
provoke U.S. intervention.5 And it was this doctrine that kept the U.S. out of foreign affairs for
the majority of the nineteenth century.
Advertiser in September of 1796 and titled "The Address of General Washington To The People of The United
States on his declining of the Presidency of the United States." The letter was almost immediately reprinted in
newspapers across the country and later in a pamphlet form. The work was later named a "Farewell Address."
4
From Bartleby.com [http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html]: “President Thomas Jefferson extended
Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase "entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes
incorrectly attributed to Washington. Jefferson, Thomas. First Inaugural Address In the Washington, D.C. 1801.”
5
Excerpt from the Monroe Doctrine: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we
have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or
seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 5
However, the beginning of the twentieth century brought about changes in worldwide
affairs and the United States found itself entwined in matters that crossed both geographical and
philosophical boundaries. This period in time saw the United States pulled into war, involved in
alliances around the globe, and placed into a role of worldwide intervenor—quite a reversal from
the previously-held ideals of non-involvement.
As the United States began to evolve as a superpower and its influence spread, the
Monroe Doctrine stood as a challenge to European threats and was expanded by the Roosevelt
Corollary6 to justify any U.S. intervention (namely militarily) in Latin American countries that
were facing foreign threat or were themselves unruly. In practice, the Monroe Doctrine
functioned as an assertion of dominance and of the right to unilaterally intervene in affairs in the
Americas, which grew stronger with the Roosevelt Corollary’s assertion of U.S. domination in
that area; this essentially made the United States a "hemispheric policeman."7
The idea of the United States as policeman grew in both philosophy and practice during
the early third of the 1900s, even though the U.S. declined participation in globally-focused
organizations, like the League of Nations, and attempted to hold onto inward-looking policy. The
United States held onto a position of neutrality regarding conflicts around the world, and the
stock market crash in 1929 caused the U.S. to focus its attention even further inward, since its
wellbeing and interests at home were facing imminent dissolution. However, Europe’s descent
towards World War II threatened the U.S.’s position of neutrality.
As Europe moved closer to war in the late 1930s, the U.S. Congress continued to push a
policy of detachment and passed the Neutrality Acts in 1936-37. The Neutrality Acts were a
6
The Roosevelt Corollary is a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine put into effect by President Theodore Roosevelt in
his State of the Union Address in 1904. It states that the United States will intercede in conflicts between European
countries and Latin American countries to enforce valid claims by the Europeans in disputes regarding countries in
Latin American, rather than having the Europeans address those claims directly.
7
See “Monroe Doctrine” in Lerner, infra, p 322.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 6
response to the growing turmoil in Eur-Asia, and were prompted by the growth of noninterventionist sentiments in the country. The U.S.’s costly involvement in World War I
persuaded government officials to guarantee that the U.S. would not become newly-entangled in
foreign conflicts, even as the Axis Powers’ aggressively threatened to disrupt the status quo and
laid the groundwork for a change in America’s stance on foreign involvement.
Germany’s invasion of Poland in September of 1939 prompted Britain and France to
declare war—the Second World War had officially begun. Then-President Franklin Roosevelt
addressed the American public and assured the country that he was dedicated to keeping the
United States out of the war. However, the times had changed and Roosevelt’s speech, whether
intentionally or not, reflected the evolution of global politics and the necessity for the United
States to change its policy; in his address to the public, Roosevelt said, "When peace has been
broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger."
Even though remaining neutral was the official policy of the United States, Roosevelt
understood the risks of remaining hands-off when there was a great threat across the Atlantic—
Nazi Germany to human decency, and the combined Axis Powers to global stability and
America’s future wellbeing. He also advised the American people to see a larger picture: that the
wish to avoid war at all costs should not overshadow the nation’s security.
Roosevelt did not have to deal in the abstract for long. While the American public was
generally split into non-interventionist and interventionist camps, the threat posed by Germany
quickly swayed the peoples’ minds to take action to protect the United States immediately and
for posterity. American general opinion supported Roosevelt's actions and grew in time with
United States involvement in affairs across the Atlantic. The tipping point was reached due to
aggression, such as the sinking of the USS Reuben James, and by late 1941 72% of Americans
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 7
agreed that "the biggest job facing this country today is to help defeat the Nazi Government", and
70% thought that defeating Germany was more important than staying out of the war.8
The Neutrality Acts were essentially retracted in 1941 after U.S. ships faced attacks from
German submarines and the Japanese infamously attacked Pearl Harbor. As a result, the United
States found itself squarely involved in a worldwide conflict.
This era in history is marked by changes in technology that forever changed the way the
entire world interacted, and U.S. foreign policy had no choice but to evolve. Before, countries
were overthrown by invading armies and ocean travel took weeks; however, air travel and other
technological improvements allowed people and ideas to travel farther, faster. And this meant
that the United States had to look ahead, that threats to American interests were beyond the reach
of the Monroe Doctrine. The former title of “hemispheric policeman” no longer applied; the
United States had to protect its interests from threats all around the world in a much more active
and far-reaching way.
At the end of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were the only two
real players in the global leadership game. In order to minimize the threat posed by Russia,
namely the spread of Communism, the United States found itself in need of a different foreign
approach. And one was provided by then-President Harry Truman in 1947: the creatively-named
Truman Doctrine. This period of American defense history marks a transition from isolation to
incorporation (however slight).
In a speech before Congress, Truman announced a new U.S. stance on foreign relations.
He identified the threat that the expansion of totalitarianism posed to U.S. security and
international peace, which the Soviet Union embodied. On top of an inward-focused policy,
Truman turned the focus to other countries via a commitment to aiding free nations who faced
8
See Cull, infra., p 185, 241.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 8
conquest by insurgent groups and outside influences. This was an introduction to a new strategy
of worldwide involvement: the United States had to confine the Soviet Union to its current
borders and limit Communist influence abroad.
In the following years, it became clear that a defensive military alliance would be
necessary in deterring another radical worldwide conflict. Hence, in 1949, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) was born.
NATO began as an alliance of twelve countries and represented America’s first
peacetime military alliance. Its goal was to provide the United States and many countries in
Europe a defensive organization that considered an attack on one member as an attack on all.
This further involved the United States with other nations, signaling a further departure from the
isolationist ideals that had once dominated American foreign policy. With NATO’s ratification,
the United States placed itself directly in other nations’ affairs, regardless of the immediacy of
those affairs’ effects on U.S. interests.
NATO focused on deterring Soviet attacks, but quickly evolved and expanded its scope
beginning with the North Korea invasion of South Korea in 1950. This evolution signaled a
change in philosophy—the U.S. grew from focusing on the Soviet Union itself to what it
represented ideologically: Communism, and its perceived threat to governments and peace
worldwide. This change in approach led to one of the most glaring examples of post-WW2
Truman Doctrine policy: the United States’ involvement in Vietnam from 1959 to 1972.
The United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War embodied the purposes of the
Truman Doctrine and NATO. Vietnam was split into northern and southern factions, the former
of which posed a Communist threat not only to the latter, but to the other, less-stable countries in
southeast Asia. The United States pointed to the necessity of minimizing Communism’s reach as
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 9
justification for prolonged involvement in the war, a war which pitted democracy against
socialism and threw the United States—as the only able superpower on the side of antifascism—into the role of worldwide protector.
Unfortunately, the Vietnam War era also represents the downside of incorporationism:
when American involvement abroad can turn from ideological and self-centered to convoluted
and inauthentic. Previously, the United States was concerned with promoting democracy and
squelching Communism. Communism and the Soviet Union represented a threat to the American
Way. In Vietnam, the United States found itself in a position to fight against Communism;
however the fight in Vietnam was based on some previous misdeeds on the U.S.’s part and the
actual threat was not as immediately apparent as in Nazi Germany. The United States was
previously concerned with its own interests; but the interests promoted by involvement in
Vietnam were, again, not as readily ascertainable. Before, the United States was actively
involved in non-intervention, preferring to keep her nose out of business that didn’t concern her;
but, after the Truman Doctrine and NATO, the U.S. stepped into an interventionist role and
became busy incorporating U.S. interests with others’ interests and stepping into conflicts around
the world. And with Vietnam, the United States found itself drowning in a pool of duties that
were the product of its own creation—this final stage may have been where the U.S. plan for
worldwide containment of Communism turned from noble to a world-dominant “the American
Way is the only way” attitude. Maybe the U.S. got too greedy. Maybe the U.S. got too vain.
Greed and vanity as the fuel for worldwide containment could easily be attributed to the
United States’ choice to prolong its involvement in Vietnam, as well as to the Afghanistan War
and military action in the Middle East in the 2000s.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 10
While the initial strikes in the Middle East were considered retaliation for the attacks on
Sept. 11, 2001, the United States became ensconced in the area for reasons that weren’t always
clear. This showed a great departure from previous international action. And Operation Iraqi
Freedom, a 2003 President Bush-authorized mission to rid Iraq of its tyrannical dictator,
showcased America’s shift into using unilateral, pre-emptive strikes against nations believed to
be dangerous to American national security. This era arguably represents the time when
incorporationism fell short of its high-minded goal into an area of egotistic pursuit of American
interests operating under the guise of doctrines and alliances.
What, then, would need to change in order for true incorporationism to exist? How could
a world community come to be? Is it even possible?
When the Great Depression struck the United States, Franklin Roosevelt saw the
importance of creating a system within which people could earn a living (albeit a governmentassisted one) while making small contributions to the country as a whole. He ushered in a period
of suspended Capitalism, wherein each man was responsible for his own financial success, in
order to balance the unbalanced and create a system that worked for a greater good. Roosevelt
understood the importance of balancing social considerations with economic ones. This may
provide a glimpse into the mindset necessary to create a larger community: a mindset of doing
what needs to be done to bring balance and prosperity to all facets of a system, a dedication to
maximizing outcomes for everyone.
When there are tragedies around the globe, sympathy goes out on a global scale.
Tsunamis in Thailand and earthquakes in Haiti come to mind—the outreach of compassion and
support may be trendy when those sorts of disasters occur, but people reach out nonetheless. This
demonstrates that there is a commonality between people around the world, some recognition
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 11
that transcends language, distance, and the ungrounded reasons people decide to hate one
another.
However, the common theme when people come together seems to be that it’s in
response to a tragedy. Instead of being a reactive goal, there should be a change in the global
mindset to one of actively working towards unity. The goal should be true incorporationism of
interests around the world, so that all countries and people can reach their maximum potential
and contribute to a global society that works for the good of everyone in it.
Socialism and Communism attempted this goal. Karl Marx, the Father of Communism,
said, “If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, binding me and
nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it
not, therefore, the universal agent of separation?” It’s a righteous ideal, and it may have had a
place in a global community in another universe. However, Communism left a bad taste in many
mouths and was villainized to the point that its acceptance on a global scale is not currently
feasible. There is something about seeing one’s neighbor working less for the same payoff. . . it
doesn’t bode well for any human being.
In legal disputes, there are a few routes to resolution; two of the more popular solutions
are litigation and mediation. In litigation, two parties battle out their subjective positions in the
courtroom, each hoping to take home a victory and destroy the other side in the process.
Mediation is a collaborative effort—both parties work together to find a solution that sends each
away with as much of the “pie” as possible. Collaboration: it’s an idea worth exploring for the
sake of global relations.
Just as no two snowflakes are alike, no two countries offer the same natural resources,
global outlook, history, etc. However, there are a set of common interests (e.g. that citizens are
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 12
fed, that the economy is stable, that there are no dire military threats, inter alia) that all countries
share. It is these interests that could usher in a new era of thinking and international relations.
Natural resources are scarce. The United States has experienced a small taste of the
fallout from energy dependence in its interactions with both Russia and countries in the Middle
East. This gives incentive to start playing a game of Give-and-Take. Nuclear war could destroy
the entire world, considering the capabilities of many countries. This, again, provides an
incentive to figure out a new plan, to incorporate the gifts and needs and interests of many
countries.
Programs such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have attempted to
bring alliance to multiple countries. The organization’s official website explains:
NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its
members through political and military means.
POLITICAL - NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation
and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run,
prevent conflict.
MILITARY - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If
diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisismanagement operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty - NATO’s founding treaty - or under a UN mandate, alone or in
cooperation with other countries and international organizations.9
NATO was formed in the aftermath of World War II, as the Cold War brewed and the
Soviet Union posed a serious threat to all of Europe. The United States, at the time, was the only
other country that could face the Soviet Union militarily and economically; this served the Allies
in Europe well, and provided the United States with the necessary alliance and strategic vantage
point to keep an eye on the Soviets, thus NATO was born.
9
http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 13
The best take-away from NATO is its principle that an attack on one member country
constitutes an attack on all of the member countries.
However, a conceptual problem with NATO was that – like many unification efforts – it
was conceived in fear. The Soviet Union loomed to the East and many already-weakened
European countries dreaded an attack. And then there was the Red Scare, the permeating belief
that Communism would take over the world and destroy all hopes for democracy and happiness
and capitalism10.
And there are a few fallacies of function present in NATO, the most important of which
is that it only encompasses the countries who border the Atlantic Ocean. Exclusion doesn’t bode
well for international accord.
But there may be a solution found at the end of the tunnel. Taking an idea from above:
Groups divide over one large issue, carry on a fight from two opposing positions,
then find ways on their respective sides to disagree and faction off into subgroups,
which create even more differing and competing interests. . . Like in cellular
division, the growth is exponential—once an original cell factions off, each
generation following is more numerous than the previous, and so on until the
process can no longer be supported.
Why not take that idea in the opposite direction and forecast a positive outcome?
With all the unrest, maybe it’s the governments themselves who are not sustainable.
Maybe, as people evolve and become increasingly individual, they will become less attached to
one particular system. Maybe a dose of narcissism can help develop a self-awareness of each
person’s place in a bigger picture, a global community. And, with each person becoming more
individualized, the governments must either rise to mirror its citizens, or crumble into a pile of
irrelevance. In the United States, the government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people,
for the people.” If the “people” start to look past arbitrary boundaries, should not the government
10
Which many likely attribute to the gains they achieve in a capitalist system.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 14
follow suit? Once enough of the globally-aware “people” fill government offices and positions of
power, would they not carry over that awareness to the decisions and initiatives they undertake?
If the “people” look to a global community and insist on proactive participation in it, is there any
choice?
Maybe it starts within. Maybe it just takes time.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 15
Bibliography
Brands, H.W. Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Print.
“Bush announces the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom.” 2013. The History Channel website.
Dec 8 2013, 8:38 [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bush-announces-the-launch-ofoperation-iraqi-freedom.]
Cull, Nicholas John (1995). Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign against American
"Neutrality" in World War II. pp. 185,241.
Gilbert, Felix. To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American Foreign Policy. New York:
Harper and Row, 1961. Online edition.
Jordan, Amos A., William J. Taylor, Michael J. Meese, Suzanna Neilsen. American National
Security – 6th Edition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Print.
Lerner, K. Lee and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner, editors. Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence,
and Security. New York: Thomson Gale, 2004. Ebook.
Monroe, James. "The Monroe Doctrine (1823)". Basic Readings in U.S. Democracy. United
States Department of State. Archived from the original on January 8, 2012. Accessed 5 Dec.
2013.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. <http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html>.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense; Addressed to the Inhabitants of America, on the Following
Interesting Subjects. 1776. Ebook.
Roosevelt, Franklin D. "Fireside Chats," Chat from 3 Sept. 1939. 'The American Presidency
Project' online. <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php>.
Wyman, David S. The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945. New
York: The New Press, 1998. Print.
Wood, Gordon S. Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different. New York:
Penguin Books, 2007. Print.
Heather Marcus – National Defense Policy research paper
Page 16