Summary of Michael E. O’Hanlon’s Argument: the Illusion of American Isolationism
This text presents Michael E. O’Hanlon’s argument that the United States has never truly been isolationist, despite perceptions to the contrary. He contends that American foreign policy has consistently been driven by internationalism, even when appearing to retreat. Here’s a breakdown of his key points:
* Rejection of the Isolationism/Internationalism Dichotomy: O’Hanlon challenges the common understanding of US foreign policy as oscillating between isolationism (non-intervention) and internationalism (active intervention). He argues this is a false narrative.
* Historical Evidence of Consistent Internationalism: He points to several historical examples to support his claim:
* Continental Expansion: From its founding, the US engaged in continuous conflict and expansion, demonstrating an “offensive” diplomatic strategy. This included wars with indigenous peoples, Britain, and Mexico.
* Monroe Doctrine: This doctrine, far from being isolationist, asserted US dominance over the Western Hemisphere and prevented European intervention – a claim of geopolitical control.
* Early 20th Century & Naval Power: Even before WWI,the US was building a powerful navy and engaging in imperial competition. Wilson’s reluctance to initially enter WWI didn’t negate existing imperial ambitions.
* Post-WWI & WWII: WWII solidified the US as a major international power.
* Trump Administration as a Case Study: Despite rhetoric suggesting isolationism, Trump’s policies – increased military spending, continued military interventions, NATO expansion – actually demonstrate a continuation of aggressive internationalism. He argues Trump’s actions contradict his stated intentions.
* Focus on National Interest & Power: O’Hanlon cautions that even this internationalism is heavily focused on American interests and the pursuit of national power.
in essence,O’hanlon argues that what is frequently enough labeled as “isolationism” in US history is merely a temporary pause or shift in how the US pursues its inherently internationalist goals of dominance and influence. He believes the US is fundamentally predisposed to projecting power and shaping the global landscape.