Isolationism and interventionism are the two traditionally opposing philosophies of U.S. foreign policy. Both have been tried and tested but the question of which is better remains. Due to the historical failures of interventionism, isolationism is the best route for U.S. policymakers to take going forward.

When the U.S. engages in foreign politics, the goal is usually democratic nation building. Democratic nation-building is when the US goes to other countries and attempts to convert their government into a democracy, which has been historically done through force. The U.S. has an extremely poor track record when it comes to interventionism and democratic nation-building. The US has left a wake of destruction and instability in many cases where it uses this tactic. Much of U.S. involvement in other regimes in the 20th century reflected broader geopolitical tensions.  The U.S. engaged in proxy wars, where American intervention  would support one side, while Russia or China would sponsor the other. One of the primary examples of this is the Vietnam War, which is seen as one of the largest American military failures. These proxy wars have devastating effects on the environments in which they take place, setting nations back years in their economic and political progression. Washington is no longer engaging in direct competition with China and Russia, instead, it is going geographically and targeting other countries. Just like in the Cold War, the U.S. is looking to topple regimes whose policies it disagrees with. We find our military in random places around the world, solely because China or Russia has influence there. These proxy wars can be devastating and can fully destroy a country and leave thousands of civilians dead. Historically, the U.S.’s geopolitical foes such as Russia and China have shown little concern for the cost of these conflicts, including the civilian lives at stake, so by engaging these powers the U.S. is only fanning the flames of destruction. One case study is Syria, where the U.S sponsored the Syrian rebels, while Russia backed the established government, which only led to more armed conflict. This instance is a clear example of the amount of casualties, destruction and instability that can occur when the U.S. engages in proxy wars to expand its sphere of influence.. Additionally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq exemplifies the dangers of interventionist policy. Despite the Bush administration’s justifications for the war, which alleged Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” and was linked to terrorist organization,  the main goal of the invasion was to turn Iraq into a democracy by capturing dictator Saddam Hussein. The invasion resulted in the death of  roughly 200,000 Iraqi citizens. After the war, the U.S. did not adequately work to revitalize the region and help prevent more deaths. Instead, they left a war-torn country with no leader and rampant instability to try to set up an entirely new government by itself. Consequently, a civil war broke out that increased the civilian death toll in the country to roughly 300,000 since the U.S.’s initial invasion, and the US even sponsored a side of the civil war, which further escalated the violence. Even in the few cases that democratic nation-building does work, we have seldom been able to keep those countries as democracies due to the extreme instability and animosity towards the  government put in place by the U.S. Due to the high costs of U.S. interventionism and the minimal positive change it has enacted, there is absolutely no reason we should be continuing it.

If the U.S. wants to keep its international dominance, it must pursue isolationism. Isolationism often comes in the form of soft power,where a country maintains a strong influence over another region without having our military forcibly occupy it. Soft power comes in the form of having a strong military and strong cultural values, which the US possesses. A more indirect role for the U.S. in foreign affairs will make countries want to be our allies, both economically and in conflicts. These countries see the atrocities of China and Russia and understand how much more beneficial being an ally of the US is. Furthermore, we invest in our soft power not by sending troops, but by sending aid. By helping countries in times of crisis, we gain their support and they enter our sphere of influence. Using Africa as a case study, we can see this working clearly. For a long time, China has been the predominant trading partner of Africa. Chinese economic practices in Africa are unethical, however, entailing loans that are impossible to pay back and extremely inflated, exploitative interest rates. This debt traps African countries and forces them to be aligned with China. Recently, however, the U.S. has sent large amounts of aid to the continent, with hundreds of billions approved by Biden to help revitalize African infrastructure and economies, as well as raise people out of poverty. As a result, Africa has some of the highest approval ratings of the U.S. compared to other regions. Africa thus willingly spreads American democratic ideals, as opposed to being forced to spread authoritarianism. Soft power has much more success than force, as it avoids causing bitterness or resentment through violence. Countries that want to be our ally or seek protection from the United States speak more fondly of U.S. foreign policy. Countries want our military to protect them, not attack them. By avoiding direct military involvement in global conflicts, we will gain more spheres of influence, prevent many wars and loss of life, and combat authoritarianism through democracy.