The Libertarian Party of Wisconsin is urging both the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration to adopt a temporary policy of isolationism in response to the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.
“Not only is it not our responsibility to be a nation throughout the world, adding even more of a presence or pressure in an already unstable region is highly irresponsible,” the party stated in a press release last week. “With no fewer than four rebel factions vying for land and influence in the nation, the possibility of backing the wrong faction is quite high. Injecting ourselves in regional politics has already had a disastrous effect in the Middle East. Further meddling will only add [unnecessary] casualties amongst our military personnel.”
Earlier this month, armed rebels affiliated with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham seized the Syrian capital of Damascus, forcing President Bashar al-Assad to flee the country. This move follows over a decade of civil war that first broke out in 2011. In what is purportedly his first statement since the fall of Damascus, Assad said on Monday that he never intended to flee to Russia, claiming instead that Russia evacuated him after their military base came under attack and put blame of the collapse on terrorism
In response, the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin is calling for all U.S. military forces in the region to withdraw to either the United States or the nearest allied nation, allowing Syrians to determine the country’s future independently of external influence. The party argues that once the political situation stabilizes, the United States can renew diplomatic relations with the emerging leadership of whoever comes to power.
“We can provide assistance and [counsel] if asked, but we should otherwise let the Syrian people to embrace their newfound freedom and liberty and decide for themselves what their future holds,” the statement concluded.
@Actually
What would you call Ron Paul, who is in favor of both stronger border security and deporting illegals, but also against government regulation of international trade (though I wouldn’t say that he is 100% against all foreign tariffs)? Because he strongly objected to being labeled an isolationist, because of its implication of state protectionism.
Thanks. That’s a fair defense on your part, although I still would have put it in quotes, but that’s me. Why did they phrase it that way? Maybe they’re trying to “reclaim” the term, or perhaps they are using the language of their opponents out of ignorance.
Actually, having seen the term used as a loaded insult in the past, I can understand where you’re coming from. However, in this instance, “a temporary policy of isolationism” is precisely what they’re calling for in their statement.
Yes, but that’s not isolationism, since isolationism also implies immigration and trade policies. Foreign policy noninterventionism can be a part of isolationism (more accurately nationalism) but is insufficient for that characterization to be accurate.
I agree with the Wisconsin Libertarian Party. The US should not intervene in Syria’s domestic affairs.
Isolationism means more than just noninterventionism, it also includes increased border security on immigration (on which the libertarians are split) and protective tariffs for fair trade (which most of them oppose). Strict isolationism means no immigration and no international trade in addition to no intervention. In practice, “isolationism” has long since become a pejorative used by interventionists (advocates of a US world police hyperstate or globalist New world order).
As such, I would advise against characterizing the Wisconsin libertarian statement thus, especially if they themselves didn’t use that word.
I’m much more isolationist than many/most libertarians are on immigration and trade, which is one of the many reasons I don’t call myself one.
“Injecting ourselves in regional politics has already had a disastrous effect in the Middle East.”
Where were these isolationist crusaders the past quarter of a century, and why hyper-fixate on the Middle East? How about the color revolutions the NATO instigated in numerous former Soviet countries? How about the 2004 and 2014 coups against of the democratically elected president in nazi “ukraine” and the US current continued back of the nazi regime? How about the current suspension of democracy in Romania, and the attempted suspensions of democracy in Georgia and Taiwan?
“we should otherwise let the Syrian people to embrace their newfound freedom and liberty”
Abandon them to the slavery and oppression we just brought about, you mean… How about Americans start take responsibility for the victims of their regime toppling and terror backing for once?
By orchestrating the overthrowal of Assad, NATO – including in particular the US – has endangered millions of Syrian Christians, Druze, Jews, Assyrians, non-communist Kurds, Shi’ites not sympathetic towards the Revolutionary Iran and Hezbollah, etc. So now NATO – including in particular the US – should be stepping up and protecting them!
Or better yet, since the evil west is incapable of doing anything right anymore and is largely responsible for this mess in the first place, the US should fund more reliable and civilized countries like Russia and Israel to continue protecting them. Just like the US should be paying damages and war reparations for our meddling in nazi-occupied western Russia, and in Israel, and in Libya, and in the Central African Republic, and Mali, and Niger…