Mind, the goal isn't to have the US become totally isolationist like in the 1920s, as that would be hard to do with a Cold War POD. The goal here is to change US society and politics to where, after the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Eastern Bloc, instead of believing that they had to create a "New World Order", instead choose to fold their wings. This includes things like withdrawing soldiers from Western Europe as there is no longer an imminent danger to the East, along with other things which you can decide fall in the middle between America's OTL policy and total isolation.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
AHC: Have Americans become more isolationist after the end of the Cold War
- Thread starter lerk
- Start date
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
It happened to an extent. Most Republicans voted against the Kosovo War.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Having Larry Agran become President in 1992 would cause this as me and @Oppo had in a timeline .
An Agran victory is always difficult but I definitely think our scenario was plausible. The case that a “peace dividend” investment at home outweighs defense spending could definitely serve as an alternative to a New World Order ITTL.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
1992 is the best and most likely year for someone’s like Agran to win, though there’s just as much of a chance of Tom Harkin doing a stint as a mild Isolationist talking point thing.
I think it’s the best chance of making America more Isolationist Post 1991, given even the most moderate President was mildly Pro-Intervention etc.
The first thing that happens, especially if the POD is 1992, the US is going "not our problem" about Bosnia - which means yanking who they have out of Bosnia. That means the larger European militaries have to take up more of the slack, especially for the NATO mission assuming that still goes on with the US going "nah".
One of the consequences would be a lot more nuclear weapons proliferation.
There was a nuclear crisis with the DPRK in 1994 and obviously the increase in tensions between India and Pakistan later in the 1990s. The United States also played a major role in getting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permanently extended in 1995 and in securing nuclear materials in the Former Soviet Union.
There was a nuclear crisis with the DPRK in 1994 and obviously the increase in tensions between India and Pakistan later in the 1990s. The United States also played a major role in getting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permanently extended in 1995 and in securing nuclear materials in the Former Soviet Union.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
Would isolationism really extend to tolerating nuclear ploliferation, though?
President Clinton mobilized forces to the Korean Peninsula during the nuclear crisis and made it clear that military options were on the table. A similar show of force would likely be required to bring the DPRK to the negotiating table and it's not clear that an isolationist administration would be willing to do something like that.
Most Republicans voted against the Kosovo War to express opposition to President Clinton, not out of any real non interventionism outside of a couple consistently isolationist voices. And those voices are an anomaly in the post Cold War GOP.
Oh, well good thing North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons now
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
How are you so sure it wasn't because of actual isolationism?
Because they had just failed in impeaching him and framed the conflict as “Clinton’s War” and largely framed their critiques in terms of strategy and leadership. The votes in Kosovo were understood to basically be a vote of confidence in Clinton himself. And while a lot of the punditry of the day merely scratched their heads at the GOP about-face and persisted in spreading the kayfabe narrative that a political party whose ranks wanted to expand NATO across Europe and go to war with China was almost uniform in their concerns over America’s role as a peacekeeper.
News outlets that tend to eschew horse race punditry for much shrewder political analysis (like the economist) pointed this out at the time.
A popular argument in international relations circles is that United States policy since the Bush Administration has actively encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation. Countries that have WMDs haven't been invaded by the United States or other countries, but ones that lack the capabilities or have given them up have been invaded.
Iraq didn't have a WMD program and Libya gave its up and even collaborated with the West, but the United States helped overthrow both countries and both dictators ended up dead. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from the United States and other world powers, but Ukraine still ended up losing de facto control of Crimea.
Meanwhile India, Pakistan, and the DPRK have faced nothing more harsh than sanctions. In fact, the United States has a vested interest in the stability of all three countries to prevent issues from arising with their nuclear arsenals. The Indian civilian nuclear sector has had sanctions removed due to its political and economic importance, Pakistan still receives assistance from the United States despite sponsoring terrorism, and Kim Jung Un got to meet the President of the United States entirely because he has nuclear weapons and frequently engages in saber rattling.
I've heard this argument before but I don't really buy it. I don't think Bush was even seriously considering WMDs or denuclearization when he crafted his foreign policy (obviously they knew enough to lie about them, but there's no indication internally that Bush and his people gave that a priority when crafting foreign policy). Like Iraq, Libya's WMDs were old chemical weapons from the 1980s and the Bush Administration only sought to "disarm" them as cover for when it became abundantly clear to the public that the UN inspectors were right - that Iraq had no WMDs.
As for the other three, nuclear armament has been a crucial part of North Korean foreign policy for over 50 years now. Although I agree that Bush blew up the only chance at stalling or scrapping the North Korean nuclear program, which would have been the normalization of relations. I don't think anyone would actually want to go to war with India or Pakistan. Ignoring the millions of lives lost in any conflict of that nature, it would be a massive and pointless exercise in creative destruction.
The real truth of international nuclear policy is bleak. Nuclear weapons are a guarantee that a country will not be invaded, or at least that they'd be taken seriously on the global stage. In hindsight, Ukraine was foolish to give theirs up. And, US policy in this theater is always going to be flawed or seriously lacking until they take steps to denuclearize on their own as well.
Ricardolindo
Well-known member
- Location
- Portugal
I don't want to deviate from the topic, but I should note that Ukraine could not have kept its nukes despite their usefulness. The launching codes were in Russia and Ukraine didn't have the economy to maintain them.
Elektronaut
Effectively Stood Down
- Location
- The Legendarium of Gentleman Julius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The flippant response to 'why wasn't the GOP Kosovo response isolationism of conviction' would be 'Because they literally invaded Iraq a couple of years later while serving public notice on Iran and North Korea', but to be more nuanced than that, in those few months pre-9/11 it did look an awful lot like Bush's disinterest in foreign affairs was producing a kind of quasi-isolationist detachment which was different from policy under Clinton. No nation-building, anti-multilateralism. Post-9/11, the anti-multilateralism part survived, and has never left the GOP body politic since.
I think Trump's attitudes do link back to the nineties GOP's congressional wing, and I think they were genuine enough. Expressed in presidential primary terms by Pat Buchanan, those views did have a constituency back then, and I don't think they were just purely a phantom of opposition. Somalia being the book end to the failure that was the Bush Sr. presidency, that had a long shadow in the GOP mind. Of course, interventionism never went out of vogue with the FP gatekeepers like Cheney.
I think Trump's attitudes do link back to the nineties GOP's congressional wing, and I think they were genuine enough. Expressed in presidential primary terms by Pat Buchanan, those views did have a constituency back then, and I don't think they were just purely a phantom of opposition. Somalia being the book end to the failure that was the Bush Sr. presidency, that had a long shadow in the GOP mind. Of course, interventionism never went out of vogue with the FP gatekeepers like Cheney.
Last edited:
Stikfigur
Well-known member
- Location
- Somewhere near the Pacific Ocean
- Pronouns
- he/him
Is Perot a part of some kind of part of isolationist thinking as well?
I do agree, the Gulf War contributed to the lack of isolationism, as Bush Sr said, it rid America of "Vietnam syndrome" or something like that. A lack of a decisive foreign policy adventure could definitely make the public less hungry for intervention. Could Somalia be it?
I do agree, the Gulf War contributed to the lack of isolationism, as Bush Sr said, it rid America of "Vietnam syndrome" or something like that. A lack of a decisive foreign policy adventure could definitely make the public less hungry for intervention. Could Somalia be it?