Kerry FP: A new isolationism?

"As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation."

Sound reasonable? Well it is of course patently not true that there is such a "time-honored tradition" in America, as Robert Kagan points out:

... American diplomatic historians may have contemplated suicide as they reflected on their failure to have the smallest influence on Americans' understanding of their own nation's history. And perhaps foreign audiences tuning in may have paused in their exultation over a possible Kerry victory in November to reflect with wonder on the incurable self-righteousness and nationalist innocence the Democratic candidate displayed. Who but an American politician, they might ask, could look back across the past 200 years and insist that the United States had never gone to war except when it "had to"?

The United States has sent forces into combat dozens of times over the past century and a half, and only twice, in World War II and in Afghanistan, has it arguably done so because it "had to." It certainly did not "have to" go to war against Spain in 1898 (or Mexico in 1846.) It did not "have to" send the Marines to Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Nicaragua in the first three decades of the 20th century, nor fight a lengthy war against insurgents in the Philippines. The necessity of Woodrow Wilson's intervention in World War I remains a hot topic for debate among historians.

And what about the war Kerry himself fought in? Kerry cannot believe the Vietnam War was part of his alleged "time-honored tradition," or he would not have thrown his ribbons away. But America's other Cold War interventions in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are also problematic.

One can never be sure with Kerry because he hasn't been all that specific about what his foreign policy will be, but if this rhetoric and his record are to be believed, we may be in store for a new isolationism--and a new unilateralism (which, after all, is what only fighting wars of absolute necessity means.) Kagan:

For someone who professes to seek better relations with the rest of the world, Kerry's doctrine of necessity would base American foreign policy on narrow, selfish interests far more than the alleged "unilateralism" of the Bush administration. Some Europeans have been quietly worrying that what they consider Bush's overambitious foreign policy will be followed in the United States by an isolationist backlash. After hearing Kerry's speech, they may worry a bit more.

Though I suspect that if Kerry were to take office, his attitude would change. Bush's certainly did--though his retreat from wariness of "nation-building" has more to do with 9/11 undoubtedly than anything else--but consider that Clinton bombed five sovereign nations without permission from the Congress or the UN. My biggest problem here: who knows WHAT to expect from a Kerry presidency?