Saturday, February 3, 2024

Ignoring Washington's Warning: The Detrimental Impact of Foreign Entanglements on the USA


George Washington's 1796 farewell address, cautioning against permanent alliances and foreign entanglements, was remarkably prescient. History, from World Wars to conflicts in the Middle East, underscores the wisdom of Washington's counsel in prioritizing national interests and sovereignty in navigating global affairs.

In his 1796 farewell address, George Washington, the inaugural President of the United States, offered timeless guidance that urged caution in forming permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. He cautioned against “permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” and warned about the potential dangers of being drawn into conflicts that do not directly serve the nation's interests. Regrettably, as this article explores, the United States has often ignored Washington's counsel, resulting in a series of foreign policy decisions that have had a detrimental impact on its interests and global standing.

Washington's Counsel Neglected: A Reckless Path in Foreign Policy

Despite George Washington's advice emphasizing flexibility, autonomy, and a focus on national well-being, the United States has indeed frequently deviated from these guiding principles. Washington's caution against permanent alliances and foreign entanglements was rooted in a desire to protect the nation from being drawn into conflicts that might not align with its best interests.

This article traces historical instances, from the World Wars to the present-day Middle East dynamics, highlighting how the nation's foreign policy decisions have not aligned with Washington's wise recommendations.

Historical Disregard: World Wars and the Cold War

During the initial stages of both World War I and World War II, the United States adhered to a policy of neutrality, as advocated by Washington. The nation aimed to avoid permanent alliances and foreign entanglements, focusing on its own well-being and avoiding involvement in conflicts that might not directly serve its national interests. However, the evolving global dynamics led the U.S. to reconsider its stance.

World War I saw the U.S. initially staying out of the conflict but eventually entering the war in 1917 on the side of the Allies. This shift was driven by factors such as unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany, the interception of the Zimmermann Telegram, and a desire to protect American economic interests.

In the case of World War II, the U.S. remained neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which prompted the nation's entry into the war. The attack served as a catalyst that galvanized public opinion and led to a departure from the policy of neutrality.

However, it was during the Vietnam War that the U.S. found itself deeply entangled in a protracted conflict, marking a significant departure from Washington's counsel. The Vietnam War, which lasted from the mid-1950s to 1975, was characterized by the U.S. commitment to preventing the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. The U.S. provided military and economic assistance to South Vietnam, ultimately deploying ground forces in a conflict that became increasingly controversial at home.

The Vietnam War demonstrated the unintended consequences and challenges of prolonged military involvement in a complex geopolitical situation. The conflict resulted in a significant loss of life, strained domestic unity, and had lasting impacts on U.S. foreign policy. The war prompted a reassessment of strategies, leading to a more cautious and selective approach to military interventions in subsequent years.

The Vietnam War, along with other engagements during the Cold War, raised questions about the wisdom of departing from Washington's advice to avoid permanent alliances and unnecessary foreign entanglements. It contributed to a broader national conversation about the costs and benefits of military intervention and the importance of carefully evaluating the alignment of foreign policy decisions with national interests.

Contemporary Fumbles: The Middle East Quandary

The complex landscape of the Middle East has been significantly shaped by historical alliances, particularly with Israel, and these alliances have played a pivotal role in dictating U.S. regional policy. Examining these entanglements reveals instances where the United States' commitment to certain alliances has constrained its strategic flexibility, contributed to unintended escalations, and sparked diplomatic challenges—echoing George Washington's warnings against such permanent alliances.

The United States' close alliance with Israel dates back to the late 1940s when the U.S. recognized the newly established state. Over the decades, this alliance has evolved and strengthened, becoming a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the region. While the alliance has brought about mutual benefits, it has also posed challenges in terms of strategic flexibility.
One notable aspect is the impact of U.S.-Israel alliance on relations with other countries in the Middle East, especially those critical of Israel's policies. Washington's support for Israel has, at times, strained diplomatic ties with nations that hold differing views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has limited the U.S.' ability to navigate the region with complete flexibility, as it seeks to balance its commitments to allies with the need to engage constructively with all regional actors.

Additionally, the U.S.-Israel alliance has, on occasion, contributed to unintended escalations in the region. For instance, conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, such as the Israeli-Arab wars and more recent conflicts in Gaza, have drawn the U.S. into regional disputes, leading to unintended consequences and heightened tensions. These situations underscore the challenges of managing alliances in a region with complex and longstanding geopolitical conflicts.

Furthermore, the U.S.-Israel alliance has been a focal point for criticism and diplomatic challenges, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The perception of U.S. bias towards Israel has complicated efforts to broker peace and has been a source of tension in broader regional dynamics.

Washington's warnings against permanent alliances in foreign policy were rooted in the idea that such commitments might entangle the nation in conflicts not directly aligned with its national interests. The Middle East, with its historical and ongoing conflicts, illustrates the potential consequences of such entanglements. The U.S. has found itself navigating a delicate balance between supporting its ally Israel and avoiding unnecessary entanglements in the region's intricate web of conflicts.

NATO Alliances and Russia: Navigating a Collision Course in Geopolitics

The entangling alliances of the USA with NATO have set the stage for a complex geopolitical dynamic and put the nation on a collision course with Russia. NATO, established in 1949, operates as a military alliance committed to mutual defense in the face of an attack on any of its member countries. Over time, the expansion of NATO and its activities have emerged as contentious issues between the USA and Russia, straining their relations.

A significant factor contributing to this tension is the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, several former Eastern Bloc countries and Soviet republics have joined NATO, bringing the alliance's presence closer to Russia's borders. Russia perceives this expansion as a security threat and an encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence. The USA's endorsement of NATO expansion has heightened Russia's sense of being surrounded, fostering a security dilemma.

The security dilemma is evident as NATO's expansion and the strengthening of its military capabilities are interpreted by Russia as a direct threat to its national security. In response, Russia has undertaken its own military buildup, creating an escalating cycle of mistrust and competition between the two powers.

Divergent interests in regional conflicts have further fueled tensions. NATO's involvement in conflicts such as the Balkans in the 1990s and more recently in Ukraine has been a source of contention with Russia. The USA's alignment with NATO positions in these conflicts clashes with Russia's historical and strategic interests in these regions, contributing to a collision course between the two powers.

The deployment of NATO missile defense systems in Eastern Europe has added another layer of friction. While NATO claims these systems are defensive, aimed at countering potential threats, Russia perceives them as a direct challenge to its strategic deterrent capabilities. This has escalated hostilities and raised the specter of an arms race in the region.

Additionally, cybersecurity concerns have modernized the conflict. Both the USA and NATO have accused Russia of engaging in cyberattacks and interference in their internal affairs, further straining relations and reinforcing the perception of a collision course between the two nations.

The USA's efforts to isolate Russia have encountered unanticipated problems, leading to a strengthening of opposition within the BRICS grouping. In response to perceived aggression, the USA implemented economic sanctions to limit Russia's access to global financial markets and technology. However, these measures prompted Russia to diversify its economic relationships, particularly with other BRICS members such as China, allowing it to withstand some of the intended isolation efforts.

Diplomatically, attempts to isolate Russia have resulted in a more united front within BRICS against perceived Western interference. BRICS nations, including Russia, have emphasized the importance of multipolarity in international relations and enhanced diplomatic cooperation as a countermeasure to isolationist policies. Joint statements, diplomatic support, and collaborative efforts on global issues have fostered a sense of solidarity within the BRICS group.

In response to isolation efforts, Russia has strengthened strategic alliances, especially within the BRICS framework. Despite diverse political systems and interests, BRICS member countries share a common desire for a more equitable global order. Russia has found diplomatic and strategic support within BRICS, and the group's collective voice has been used to challenge what its members perceive as unfair practices or attempts at hegemony by Western powers, including the USA.

Russia's role as a major energy exporter has further enabled it to leverage its position and form energy partnerships with other BRICS nations, contributing to economic resilience and solidifying its role as a crucial energy supplier within the BRICS community.

Additionally, attempts to isolate Russia have fueled a desire within BRICS nations to counterbalance Western influence in global institutions. Russia, along with other BRICS members, has advocated for reforms in international organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank to make them more representative and inclusive. This united push reflects a shared goal of reducing the dominance of Western powers in global governance structures.

Detrimental Aspects Ignored: The High Cost of Foreign Entanglements

The United States has paid a high price for disregarding George Washington's advice on avoiding permanent alliances and foreign entanglements. The departure from Washington's counsel has compromised decision-making autonomy, resulting in unintended consequences, strained geopolitical relations, and diplomatic challenges.

Firstly, the U.S.'s inclination towards long-term alliances has compromised its ability to make independent and flexible decisions. When entangled in complex alliances, there may be pressures to align foreign policy decisions with the interests of allied nations, potentially sacrificing the nation's autonomy in pursuing its own best interests. This lack of autonomy can be seen as a departure from Washington's original vision of a nimble and self-determining foreign policy.

Secondly, departing from Washington's advice, the U.S. has engaged in military interventions and alliances with long-term consequences that were not always foreseen. Involvement in conflicts such as the Vietnam War, Iraq, or Afghanistan has led to unintended consequences, including prolonged military engagements, loss of lives, and geopolitical ramifications that were not initially anticipated.

Moreover, critics point to instances where long-term commitments and alliances have strained U.S. relations with other nations. Washington's caution against permanent alliances was based on the idea that aligning too closely with one nation could create tensions with others. The U.S.'s historical alliance with Israel in the Middle East, for example, has strained relations with nations critical of Israel's policies, limiting the flexibility to engage with a broader range of regional actors.

Additionally, long-term commitments and entanglements have led to diplomatic challenges, particularly when the interests of allied nations diverge. Navigating these complexities requires delicate diplomacy and can create challenges in managing relationships with both allies and other nations, potentially hindering the pursuit of broader diplomatic objectives.
Lastly, the U.S. can find itself tied to alliances that may no longer align with its evolving national interests. Changing global dynamics and geopolitical shifts may render long-standing alliances less relevant or even counterproductive. Washington's advice sought to avoid such entanglements that could potentially lead to the nation being committed to alliances that no longer serve its best interests.


The deviation from George Washington's counsel on permanent alliances and foreign entanglements has proven to be detrimental to the United States. The profound and far-reaching consequences of entangling alliances have manifested in foreign policy decisions that often diverge from Washington's advice, resulting in unintended consequences. These deviations pose threats to autonomy and compromise the nation's ability to make decisions in its best interest.

Historical instances, such as the Vietnam War and U.S. involvement in conflicts in the Middle East, vividly illustrate the challenges and unintended consequences of disregarding Washington's counsel. Driven by strategic considerations and alliances, these engagements led to protracted conflicts with significant human and financial costs.

In the contemporary context, the United States continues to grapple with the repercussions of entangling alliances. The complexities of navigating global affairs, forming alliances based on shifting geopolitical dynamics, and managing diplomatic relationships with a multitude of nations highlight ongoing challenges. When foreign policy decisions deviate from Washington's principles, there is a risk of compromising the nation's autonomy and effectiveness in pursuing its best interests.

A reassessment of the current foreign policy in light of Washington's principles becomes crucial to avoiding further pitfalls and securing the nation's long-term interests on the global stage. The call for a reevaluation reflects a broader sentiment among critics advocating for a recalibration of the U.S.'s approach to alliances and foreign engagements, emphasizing the paramount importance of prioritizing the nation's best interests. This recalibration is essential to avoid further pitfalls and to secure the nation's long-term interests globally. There is a need for greater consideration of the potential consequences of alliances, a commitment to flexibility in foreign policy decisions, and a more nuanced approach to navigating the complex web of international relations, all with the understanding that the well-being and interests of the United States must always come first.



James Parrish Hodges, Ph.D., Author

Winner of the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge Medal of Honor
Member: National Speakers Association, American Society for Training and Development


Cynthia F. Hodges, JD, LLM, MA
Attorney and Author

Auriga Books, LLC
Email: cyn (at)




No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comments. They will appear once they have been approved.