On Isolation and the New Order

Alternate title: We're apes, remain vigilant.
One can never say that history doesn't have a sense of humor. On the centennial of WWI we're seeing what seems to be a shift to the violent in the world...
I was initially going to write this article as a question to the current cynicism and isolationist slant that America has taken (witness the unwillingness to do much about Syria). I was in favor of these stances we Americans, tired of war, tired of spending money everywhere but at home, have taken (to the predictable dismay of our leaders).
In fact, I was going to tout this lean towards isolationism as a natural lean away from carrying out too many wars (and something our founding fathers were very concerned with) with a caveat: What about WWII? [1]. In other words, will our current need for isolationism allow evil to happen in the world? I think most Americans would not want this to happen, but they are still wary about being entangled in another senseless war as well as the accompanying lies and regular cries of evil.
But now there appears to be a danger of that isolationism dying off—at least in the corridors of American power and punditry (it's not yet certain if Americans are for these interventions). In other words, the machinery that helps us drive towards war is still alive and well. [2] As cynical as we Americans are, we will ask for action if there appears to be a threat to the homeland, so expect those in power (this will include most in the media as well) to keep ramping up the rhetoric and propaganda to wear down that cynicism. [3]
So what is my stance on isolationism? I take it as a healthy default for any nation, especially for one as powerful as ours. But when there is evil abroad, then we should indeed find ways to confront it. How can we accomplish that? [4]
That's where the new world order comes in, for it appears as if the events around the world are pointing to something dark on the horizon. [5] Not that things were always rosy, but they were cordial for quite some time. Since WWII we have not had a major fight between the world powers (though they did use proxies). Some of the causes could have been the result of dialogue in the United Nations (UN) or simply the fact that nuclear weapons, and the knowledge that there would actually be nothing to rebuild, stayed most hands from a full on fight (though some recent revelations show that not even this is certain).
Whatever the reasons, it appears as if we stand at a fork whereby we could try and reaffirm some of the principles behind dialogue and having world peace (to include international law as well as having a universal regard for human rights), or marching down a path like the one hundred years ago.
Am I talking about ISIS and their recent announcement of the annulment of the Pikes-Scott agreement that was also the result of that war 100 years ago? No. Though Islamic extremists make for frightening news or writing, I have no biases that they are the problem, rather that they are a symptom whose cause we need to confront before things get out of hand.[8]
The main cause are the mistakes the great powers are making (to include the winners of the last WW and the new rising powers from the colonial world) by moving away from the language of dialogue and coexisting, and moving towards that of the might makes right doctrine. When has it not been so, you ask? Perhaps never (yet statements and dialogue in general would point away from such a belief). But with nuclear weapons on the table, we need to move towards a non-violent order as soon as possible.

“We’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we’re not going to be restricted by borders.”

The above is considered a sane quote from somewhere in the belly of Washington. When would this acceptable if repeated by a weaker nation? I doubt that it would ever be. For such language, when used by all, will surely lead to more war and fighting (and why should only a handful of nations be allowed to use such language?). And in this situation, again might will make right. But what of stability? Of  law helping achieve that, as it does within many nations?
And when nations now know that having nuclear weapons will lead to a level of safety (see Ukraine, see many other nations), why should any of them stop trying to gain more weapons?  When more countries have these weapons do the chances for war go up or down? [6] I'm not sure, but there will surely need to be a new way to contain and discuss them. Laws, come to mind.
How do we get this change? We use our voices and we talk to our representatives in Washington so that they understand the want of all Americans: that we too want peace. In other words we actually want national security, not power games. [7] But for now we sit at the edge of a new world taking over. Will we let history repeat itself?
Also relevant:Kissinger on the World Order& Chomsky on the most recent developments in the world.

[1] Anyone who knows me, or perhaps who follows any geopolitical talk here in the states must be wary of such comparisons (too many times we hear of the next Hitler and the need for intervention). After all, what of the isolationism (and even Europe's wont to avoid war at all costs) in the States that preceded that war, and the evil that was allowed to happen as a result of not using military power.
[2] Just take a look at any of the prevailing opinions and it seems to be taken as fact that groups like ISIS or even Putin is a danger to the American people.
[3] This will bring to the forefront that the reasons for a wrong war like Iraq being fought are still around. In other words (this is especially counts for my liberal friends who think that the Iraq war was a simple aberration of one wrong headed leader—it wasn't) that was a war symptomatic of many things that we as a nation still need to confront.
[4] When it comes to specters, none hangs above our heads like that of the Holocaust (as it should). It's taken as fact that we will/should stop the next one. But many genocides and attempts at them have occurred without us lifting a finger. And it appears that outside of verbal condemnation, there is no proper way to get an international consensus (in other words, our interests and the interests of the world must align for any of this to properly occur). And I should reiterate that the word evil itself is a tool of propaganda many times over.
[5] At this point I should mention that I have read much of the evidence for climate change and think that it's a definite issue we need to deal with and that the more it's delayed, the worse off we will be. And that anyone who studies conflict knows that a large part of the equation is resources and with more climate change (droughts and shifts causing a decrease in crops or water supply, as well as a simple increase in heat leading to more violence in general) we're going to see a higher amount of conflict.
[6] Two things when it comes to this discussion: One, mainly that it doesn't take much to twist the prevailing military view—if it's not already, and I believe that it's not—that nuclear weapons are merely another tool for fighting; two, that such were the horrors of the two dropped nukes that Japan gave up and the world moved towards not using these weapons; for the former, many historians know that it wasn't another ravaged city that forced Japan's hand, rather that it was more about the USSR joining the war, whereby Japan knew it couldn't manage some sort of peace.
[7] This is not withstanding the current theory that being weak in the world results in more evil occurring in that world. There is no evidence for this, merely confirmation bias at its worst. 
[8] I will get further into this Islamist reaction in the future. As an atheist I regularly hear others say things like this is why religion is bad (after seeing some violent action... ISIS comes to mind), without any acknowledgment of the violence perpetrated in these places by other powers and what that does to any group of people. 

Some other articles that might pique your interest (ostensibly on all matters global or books):#This one is on the global conflict of the West and Islam as seen through the lens of the Rushdie affair.#This one is a list of the five best science fiction novels out there. #This one is an article about drone warfare and its effects on the world.# This one is about reading news in today's world. The solution is that global is better.# This one is a list of the best books of the 21st century# This one is a list of the best books of the 20th century#This on is an article with links to matters of the Iraq war and players not commonly known.


My book: Ministry of Bombs is an exciting and unconventional take on the War on Terror.

Thank you for reading, I understand how valuable your time is. If you found this story/musing interesting in any way, I would be grateful if you could share it. Getting the word out is an important part of growing my readership. You can sign up here to receive news and other goodies, such as free books (free shorts) here: http://eepurl.com/DX2In
Then Subscribe to my mailing list* indicates requiredEmail Address * First Name Last Name Email Format
htmltextmobile
And if you could give a reasonable tip using the donate button below, that would be greatly appreciated as well. All the best, and thanks again: