Note: A suggestion from Come Home America, team up with someone from another part of the political spectrum in your community and write an op-ed opposing US militarism. It was the cross-partisan nature of the opposition against the war in Syria that stopped the military attack from happening. We need to build a broad-based movement opposing war and militarism if we want to be successful in challenging American Empire. The article below prompted the suggestion.

It’s time to retire ‘isolationism’

The term is inaccurately used to describe the logic of those who oppose military intervention overseas.

The “isolationist” accusation is a convenient way to lump anti-war liberals with Tea Party conservatives.

However, the label is totally inaccurate.

It is not so easy to be an isolationist today unless you live in a cabin deep in some wilderness.

Supporters of American military intervention abroad, most recently in Syria, like to falsely pigeonhole opponents of military strikes overseas as “isolationists.”

War hawks, however, tend to ignore the bitter lessons drawn from the many less-than-successful interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

Bill Keller, writing in the New York Times, compared to the reaction on Syria to the pre-World War II period: “America is again in a deep isolationist mood.”

The “isolationist” accusation is a convenient way to lump anti-war liberals with Tea Party conservatives. It allows those who support military action to paint their opponents as out of touch — burying their heads in the sand and clinging to a bygone era. As Harvard professor Stephen Walt has remarked, “Hawks like to portray opponents of military intervention as ‘isolationist’ because they know it is a discredited political label.”

There’s just one problem with the label: it is totally inaccurate.

Merriam-Webster defines isolationism as “the belief that a country should not be involved with other countries; a policy of not making agreements or working with other countries.”

By this definition, you can oppose the use of force but endorse Secretary of State John Kerry’s robust diplomatic efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, negotiate an end to the North Korean nuclear weapons program and work to avoid war between India and Pakistan – all without being ‘isolationist.’

You can advocate educational exchanges with Belarus, Belgium and Burma even if you do not favor an exchange of bullets. That wouldn’t be isolationist, either.

You can back easing barriers to trade without resorting to the use of bombers to enforce trade agreements.

You can advocate sometimes working with highly imperfect international institutions such as the United Nations and International Criminal Court as possible vehicles for the international community to limit carnage so that the United States is not tempted to play the world’s policeman.

It is clear from this list that being skeptical that military force can solve global problems is not synonymous with being skeptical of an international role for the U.S.

There is a larger truth about the nature of modern society: it is not easy for nations, or for individuals, to “isolate” themselves from the globe.

Got a Twitter account for your 140 character message? You are in the company of a worldwide audience of about 550,000,000 people.

Are you nervous when a sell-off in the New York stock exchange, unrest in the Middle East or a slow-down of the Chinese economy affects economic performance in Cleveland or Laramie?

How about being proud when American singers, dancers, sports figures and actors thrill audiences in Mumbai or Moscow or Medellin? Culture spreads across borders whether you want it to or not.

So do diseases, tsunamis, terrorists, refugees and volcanic clouds.

It is not so easy to be an isolationist today unless you live in a cabin deep in some wilderness with no phone, Wi-Fi or electricity.

The notion of isolationism is equally unhelpful when it comes to describing mainstream opinions about the United States’ role in the world. An important question to raise before the military intervenes is: what are the costs, including possible unintended consequences, and gains and difficulty of achieving them?

When it comes to the debate over military intervention, isolationism is used to suggest that those who are skeptical of war are clinging to an idea that the U.S. should not engage with the world – when in fact, they are doing nothing of the sort.

Consign ‘isolationism’, as its being used by war hawks to distract from a much needed debate on U.S. foreign policy, to the dustbin of Orwellian doublespeak. What pro-interventionists are calling “isolationism” is simply a healthy skepticism about the morality and prudence of costly American intervention overseas.

Michael Ostrolenk is a conservative national security consultant who is the former executive director of American Conservative Defense Alliance. John Isaacs is the liberal head of Council for a Livable World and a former Foreign Service Officer.