The Geopolitics of U.S. Foreign Policy: A Historical Pattern of Alliance and Withdrawal

The United States has a long-standing history of shifting its foreign policy alignments, a pattern characterized by the strategic formation of alliances followed by periods of withdrawal that often leave partners vulnerable. From the Revolutionary War era to modern conflicts in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, American military and political interventions have frequently concluded with the abandonment of local allies, according to historical records and academic analysis.

Historical Precedents: Revolutionary War Alliances

During the American Revolution, the Continental Army relied on various Native American groups for survival and tactical support. The Oneida Nation, for example, provided critical assistance, including supplying food to soldiers at Valley Forge when the Continental Army faced near-starvation. Despite this, the long-term outcomes for these allies were often detrimental.

According to historical records, the land holdings of the Oneida were significantly reduced in the years following the war. Similarly, the Lenape people entered into a treaty with the nascent United States, seeking protection and the potential for a 14th state governed by Native Americans. This agreement collapsed following the death of their leader, White Eyes, and the 1782 Gnadenhutten massacre, where Pennsylvania militia killed 96 unarmed Lenape community members, as documented by the State Department’s Office of the Historian.

Mid-20th Century Interventions and Withdrawals

The trend of supporting and subsequently distancing from foreign partners continued through the 20th century. During World War II, approximately 250,000 Filipinos served under the U.S. military, with promises of benefits equivalent to their American counterparts. These promises were effectively nullified by the Rescission Act of 1946, signed by President Harry Truman, which stripped these veterans of their status and associated benefits, according to historical records.

In Vietnam, the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) initially supported Ho Chi Minh’s forces against the Japanese. However, following the war, U.S. policy shifted to supporting French colonial interests and eventually the government of South Vietnam. The final U.S. withdrawal in 1975 saw the abandonment of many Vietnamese allies who had assisted American operations. Counterintelligence officer Stuart Herrington later recounted the chaotic evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, noting the failure to fulfill promises of safe passage to many who were left behind.

Middle East Conflicts and the Kurdish Experience

The relationship between the United States and Kurdish populations is frequently cited by historians and political analysts as a recurring cycle of tactical cooperation followed by strategic withdrawal. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the U.S. has engaged Kurdish forces to counter regional adversaries, including in Iraq during the 1970s and again following the Gulf War in 1991.

In 2017, after Kurdish-led forces played a significant role in dismantling the Islamic State’s territorial hold, the U.S. refrained from intervening when Iraqi federal forces and Iranian-backed militias launched offensives into Kurdish-held territories. In 2019, the withdrawal of U.S. troops from northeastern Syria further altered the security landscape, allowing for a Turkish military incursion into areas previously held by the Syrian Democratic Forces, an event widely reported by international news organizations at the time.

The Afghan Withdrawal and Future Implications

The 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan marked the end of a 20-year conflict during which many Afghans served alongside U.S. forces. The rapid collapse of the Afghan government left many of these allies without a clear path to safety. While some were evacuated, others remain in precarious positions. In May, the U.S.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does the U.S. often withdraw support from allies?
Foreign policy decisions are typically driven by shifting national security interests and strategic priorities. Historical records indicate that when the objectives of an intervention change or become untenable, the U.S. often prioritizes its own exit over the long-term support of local partners.

What is the significance of the Rescission Act of 1946?
This legislation formally denied Filipino veterans the benefits they were promised for their service during World War II, marking a notable instance of the U.S. government reversing commitments made to foreign military partners.

How is the term “betrayal” used in the context of international relations?
In political science, the term is often used to describe the discrepancy between the stated goals of an intervention—such as promoting democracy or protecting human rights—and the subsequent abandonment of local populations once those interventions conclude.