Foreign Policy

I was delighted to find this old thread on Foreign Policy on the Sword & Quill forum.   Join and read it and comment.  Non-interventionism, isolationism vs. Foreign interventionism: The winner?. I am quite curious what the Foreign Policy position of the Whigs is. It is absent from the Issues page of the national website - only National Security is there and it only mentions Iraq.


In My Personal Opinion:
Regarding this thread and the idea of Separatism, with allowances for foreign intervention to enforce regime change, I would highly recommend you to read The Pentagon's New Map It divides the world into the Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. It is related to how connected a country is to the process of Globalization. The "gap" incorporates Andean South America, the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and much of southwest Asia. Then, Thomas Barnett divides the military into 2 forces: a quick-strike military to take out combat forces and deal with counterinsurgency, and a "SysAdmin" force with knowledgeable, experienced members to do reconstruction and rebuild governance.

As the world's superpower, we guarantee security in many parts of the world. We guarantee it in the ME with its oil, and we guarantee shipping lanes on the worlds oceans. Unlike the time of our founders when we had little to no foreign interests, we have grown in our dependence until now, where we find ourselves the global power and dependent on the global economic system.

We won't do it every decade, but we preserve the right to intervene in the Gap to institute regime change and build a democracy.

To help build coalitions for this purpose, we should create an Organization of Democracies.


Please leave comments with your thoughts.