This second development is not unrelated
to the first: Suddenly, without much discussion, it seems as if Britain — a
nuclear and conventional military power, a staunch U.S. ally, a pillar of NATO
— has lost its historic interest in foreign policy.
Whenever an interventionist complains about “retreat,” it is a signal to the rest of us to be extremely skeptical of whatever comes next in the argument.
First, interventionists often define “retreat” to mean “any policy decisions that we don’t like.” It usually doesn’t matter whether those policies actually involve a significant scaling back of involvement in other parts of the world.
“Retreat” is normally code for any foreign policy that is slightly less aggressive and meddlesome than the one the author prefers.
Interventionists also treat the most recent peak in overseas activism as the norm, and criticize any departure from that arbitrary standard as an unacceptable withdrawal from the world stage.
A “failure” to start new wars will also be described as a sort of “retreat” even when everything else remains more or less the same.
Applebaum cites British refusal to to bomb Syria in 2013 as one of her examples. This proves only that Britain didn’t volunteer for a new unnecessary war (and helped the U.S. avoid it as well), which is just the sort of thing that rankles Applebaum and other interventionists.
This doesn’t prove that the British have “lost” their interest in foreign policy, but that they have rejected the kind of foreign policy she supports.
Compared to the near-constant British involvement in foreign wars of choice from 1999 through 2011, it might be reasonable to say that the U.K. is somewhat less inclined to participate in new international conflicts, but that shouldn’t be all that surprising.
More than a decade of involvement in unnecessary and increasingly unpopular wars is bound to make any sane nation reluctant to keep joining new ones.
Bear in mind that Britain is offering limited support to the war on ISIS, which is all the more remarkable when one considers that the war isn’t necessary for British security. The last British bases were closed in Afghanistan only last fall.
To the extent that Britain isn’t making major new commitments in foreign conflicts, one can fairly say that it is doing less of this than it was ten years ago, but it is not at all clear why this is a bad thing.
It is a sign that the U.K. government is finally, albeit very grudgingly, paying attention to what their voters want, or rather what they don’t want.
This is what Applebaum chooses to call “provincialism,” as if there were something wrong with giving priority to the internal political affairs of one’s own country.
There has been a reaction against Britain’s recent wars of choice, but that is a normal and understandable development.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that Britain is “losing” its place on the world stage, since participation in unnecessary wars is hardly the only kind of international engagement that an important country can have.
Britain may not be paying as much attention to ongoing foreign conflicts as some interventionists would like, but it is probably still paying far more attention to them than most British voters prefer.
Whenever an interventionist complains about “retreat,” it is a signal to the rest of us to be extremely skeptical of whatever comes next in the argument.
First, interventionists often define “retreat” to mean “any policy decisions that we don’t like.” It usually doesn’t matter whether those policies actually involve a significant scaling back of involvement in other parts of the world.
“Retreat” is normally code for any foreign policy that is slightly less aggressive and meddlesome than the one the author prefers.
Interventionists also treat the most recent peak in overseas activism as the norm, and criticize any departure from that arbitrary standard as an unacceptable withdrawal from the world stage.
A “failure” to start new wars will also be described as a sort of “retreat” even when everything else remains more or less the same.
Applebaum cites British refusal to to bomb Syria in 2013 as one of her examples. This proves only that Britain didn’t volunteer for a new unnecessary war (and helped the U.S. avoid it as well), which is just the sort of thing that rankles Applebaum and other interventionists.
This doesn’t prove that the British have “lost” their interest in foreign policy, but that they have rejected the kind of foreign policy she supports.
Compared to the near-constant British involvement in foreign wars of choice from 1999 through 2011, it might be reasonable to say that the U.K. is somewhat less inclined to participate in new international conflicts, but that shouldn’t be all that surprising.
More than a decade of involvement in unnecessary and increasingly unpopular wars is bound to make any sane nation reluctant to keep joining new ones.
Bear in mind that Britain is offering limited support to the war on ISIS, which is all the more remarkable when one considers that the war isn’t necessary for British security. The last British bases were closed in Afghanistan only last fall.
To the extent that Britain isn’t making major new commitments in foreign conflicts, one can fairly say that it is doing less of this than it was ten years ago, but it is not at all clear why this is a bad thing.
It is a sign that the U.K. government is finally, albeit very grudgingly, paying attention to what their voters want, or rather what they don’t want.
This is what Applebaum chooses to call “provincialism,” as if there were something wrong with giving priority to the internal political affairs of one’s own country.
There has been a reaction against Britain’s recent wars of choice, but that is a normal and understandable development.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that Britain is “losing” its place on the world stage, since participation in unnecessary wars is hardly the only kind of international engagement that an important country can have.
Britain may not be paying as much attention to ongoing foreign conflicts as some interventionists would like, but it is probably still paying far more attention to them than most British voters prefer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete