America has been very keen on being isolated from the outside. It made lots of sense. Keeping out of the First World War was a good idea. Keeping out of the Second World War would have been even better. But they got involved none the less. They joined late both times but made a big difference to the results. It is worth asking why they joined in. There was political manoeuvering, as well as public relations operations. Who were the proponents? Who were the isolationists? The answers were important and still are because war is being marketed again. In fact America has given up on isolationism and gone over to making war, invading foreign countries for reasons good, bad, indifferent or non-existent. Again we should ask why.
It is fair to say that the Wikipedia tells us a lot about isolationism but manages to leave out the important bits. This is Disinformation, a standard Propaganda technique. They even have the American version of isolationism under a different title, United States Non-intervensionism. This helps hide the truth.
It is at least conjecture that America joined World War I in 1917 because the Jews wanted it. This being a quid pro quo for the British government giving them Palestine. England was losing at the time. Using Jews to get extra forces made sense but it was a Devil's pact. The Balfour Declaration is famous as evidence in the case. The fact that it was not ours to give is a detail that did not seem to worry them at the time. The problems it caused are still with us.
The Americans joined World War II eventually, on the right side. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour is the obvious reason. The real reason? That is another issue.
Isolationism ex Wiki
QUOTE
Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign ...Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. Two other terms often confused with Isolationism are:
Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.
Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
UNQUOTE
This American policy has changed into something opposite, into interventionism.
Isolationism In America
QUOTE
Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of "realism".Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States' interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.
Non-intervention, sometimes referred to as military non-interventionism, seems to some to be the antithesis of isolationism.[1] Maintaining the participation of the United States in global economic affairs is thought to likely boost trade and expand US diplomacy, in the view of Edward A. Olsen.[1]
Early background
Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.George Washington's farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Overt military intervention since 1945
Both Republican and Democratic presidents since the 1950s have often been tasked with considering the use of military intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including the following major examples: (with some policies continued by subsequent presidents)[26]
- President Harry S. Truman's 1950 intervention in Korea to stop the Communist invasion of South Korea, at UN direction
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1954 decision to NOT intervene to support the French in Vietnam.
- President John F. Kennedy's intervention in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
- President Lyndon B. Johnson's intervention in Dominican Republic
- President Lyndon B. Johnson's intervention in Vietnam
- President Ronald Reagan's 1983 intervention in Grenada
- President George H. W. Bush's 1989 intervention in Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega
- President George H. W. Bush's 1991 intervention in Kuwait to liberate it from Iraqi occupiers, at UN direction
- President George H. W. Bush's 1992 intervention in Somalia for humanitarian reasons, as directed by the UN Security Council
- President Bill Clinton's 1994 decision NOT to intervene in the Rwanda genocide
- President George W. Bush's 2001 intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban following the September 11 attacks
- President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein
- President Barack Obama's 2011 military intervention in Libya during its civil war
See Covert United States foreign regime change actions
The US has intervened in the affairs of other countries through a number of secret operations. The U.S. government has conducted a number of covert operations in an effort to topple foreign governments, including both democratically-elected governments[27][28][29] and authoritarian regimes.[30][31]
UNQUOTE
Lying by omission is a major Propaganda.
Covert United States foreign regime change actions
QUOTE
The United States government has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed regime change) without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Many of the governments targeted by the U.S. have been democratically elected, rather than authoritarian governments or military dictatorships. In many cases, the governments toppled were replaced by dictatorships, sometimes installed with assistance by the U.S.Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coup d'états, and other, often illegal, activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The U.S. has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Some argue that non-transparent United States government agencies working in secret sometimes mislead or do not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders and that this has been an important component of many such operations. See Plausible deniability. Some contend that the US has supported more coups against democracies that it perceived as communist, or becoming communist.
Notwithstanding a history of U.S. covert actions to topple democratic governments and of installing authoritarian regimes in their places (see, e.g. Iran 1953, below), U.S. officials routinely express support for democracy as best supporting U.S. interests and as protecting human life and health.
UNQUOTE
Crime or what?