Have A Problem With Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy?

I have no problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy--never have. This isn't because I am some naive kook who doesn't recognize the danger in the world and the realty that there exist bad men who desire to do bad things. I assure you I do, but my knowledge of this reality is not enough to skew my reality in the field of foreign policy.

One reason I find Dr. Paul's foreign policy position so easy to digest is that it was to some degree or another the mainstream conservative position for some time up until the last decade. It's nothing new, and its nothing I haven't encountered countless times before. One can easily  look back to the great conservative leader Robert Taft in mid-twentieth century or much of the Republican establishment during the Clinton Administration for modern examples of those staking non-interventionist foreign policy positions in our modern times. Even then-governor George W. Bush of Texas held firmly to this position as a candidate for president, though he betrayed this position during his presidency. Of course, one need merely to look to our Founding Fathers' wisdom as the prime example of non-interventionist foreign policy. The non-interventionist position is nothing new and nothing I have reason to fear as some newfangled crackpot scheme. It is actually classical wisdom that has consistently held true.

Another reason I find no problem with the foreign policy of Paul and others who promote non-interventionism is that I am a student of history and politics. I understand that the claims made by Paul and others are no wild works of fiction, but rather, sound statements that line up with the realities of the day and the historical narrative. I don't fear enemies beyond their capabilities because I don't base my assumptions on war propaganda or media monster-weaving. Rather, I base my positions on fact and reason.

It is amazing how level-headed one can think if they weigh the claims of talk radio, mainstream news outlets, and the like, to see if those same claims hold water. Blind acceptance leads to both ignorance and poor position taking, and one who avoids such reckless behavior can easily avoid both. We should each strive to hold sound positions grounded in fact, regardless of the issue. And holding such positions often involves challenging mainstream assumptions.

It is not my intention to right every wrong or change every heart with this post. I merely would like some who hold such strong convictions against the foreign policy of those like Ron Paul to begin testing those convictions--to begin to think about these issues in a new light which has not been darkened by the shades of hearsay and falsehood.

Please begin this journey by watching the video below. See why so many veterans and active duty military have come to trust and support an Air Force veteran from Texas named Ron Paul. Moreover, see why so many experts in the field of foreign policy break from the mainstream media and political pundit's narrative and believe that Dr. Paul is right about these issues. Lastly, see why you  as an American should support the foreign policy of Paul and restore our nation to a position of a sound foreign policy and a strong national defense.

I beg you to please take the time and watch this video.

Anti-War Conservatism is Conservatism

Please do yourself a service and read Jack Hunter's latest over at the Daily Caller, dealing with what exactly constitutes a conservative (and constitutional) foreign policy position. Hunter rightly points to the history of the conservative movement to show that there is nothing "leftist" about opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.

Some of the loudest voices on the right continue to categorize Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “leftist.” It is true that like many on the left, Paul has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, our decade-long presence in Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Libya.

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative...

...Is Barack Obama a “conservative” for having a foreign policy similar to Bush’s? If “Bush kept us safe” was a mantra conservatives were comfortable using to obscure his big-government record, has “Obama kept us safe” by carrying on with the same wars, starting a new one in Libya and taking out Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul now attacks Obama’s foreign policy just as viciously as he did Bush’s and on the same grounds.

Is Obama the conservative and Paul the liberal?

Read the entire article here.

Ronald Regan and Foreign Policy

In Jack Hunter's latest op-ed he takes on the neoconservative's latest round of crying "isolationism" when conservatives oppose perpetual and unnecessary war. Mr. Hunter properly attacks the neocons' misguided and misinformed claims and uses Ronald Reagan--a standard-bearer of the modern conservative movement--as an example.

What's a 'Neoconservative?'

Once again, the American Conservative's Jack Hunter does a great job in his analysis.

A Blow to the President's War in Libya

On Friday, the US House overwhelmingly rejected the Obama Administration's military action in Libya. This comes days after Secretary of State Clinton openly voiced frustration over members of both parties' refusal to go along with the President and months after the White House first entered into this unnecessary and unconstitutional new war.

The New York Times reports:

Over the last few months, there has been increasing hostility toward the Obama administration in the House among both Democrats who oppose the war and many Republicans, who cite Constitutional issues, over the president’s refusal to seek authorization from Congress for the operations in Libya. They say such authorization is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Speaker John A. Boehner has repeatedly warned President Obama that the House considers the situation untenable and would seek to intervene through resolutions and its power of the purse.

The House then quickly moved to debate a second resolution, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney, Republican of Florida, that would prohibit the use of money for military operations in Libya, allowing financing only for support operations like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — essentially requiring an end to direct American combat activity like missile strikes. The measure, which has the support of Republican leadership, was intended to severely limit America’s role while not completely leaving NATO allies in the lurch.

The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is not expected to pass such a measure and therefore it is unlikely to have any practical effect on the Libyan operations. Still, the measure would send a strong signal to Mr. Obama that he lacked full Congressional support, reflecting in large part a nation weary of war.

While there is still much to be desired in the effort to end the wars we wage, this is a positive action. We are finally seeing actors in both parties standing up and saying "enough is enough," opposing the warfare state. We who have long been part of the conservative/libertarian anti-war movement, should welcome those who are now seeing things our way and hope we can once again be peaceful nation that seeks national defense over military adventurism. We must, if we are to long endure.
 

The Case Against War in Libya

A bi-partisan group of United States congressmen recently brought a lawsuit against the Obama Administration, claiming the administration is in violation of the War Powers Act and is, therefore, carrying out illegal military action in Libya. One of the plaintiffs, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, today released a defense of the lawsuit over at the Daily Caller, which is well worth your attention.

Paul writes:

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya...

 

Please continue reading the article here.

The Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right

Pat Buchanan has an encouraging piece over at The American Conservative regarding a number of those on the right's recent return a conservative, anti-war position. This is truly encouraging news to those of us who have for years championed the constitution and called for a end to our nation's unnecessary and unconstitutional military actions abroad.

Buchanan writes:

"What explains the shift in political and public sentiment away from military interventionism?

First, the length and cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — the first in its 10th year, the latter in its eighth — with their endless bleedings of American blood and treasure for inconclusive results.

Over 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded and $1 trillion sunk, with a real possibility a U.S. pullout from Iraq in December could result in civil war, and a fear that the Afghan War, where the Taliban now conduct jailbreaks of 500 men in Kandahar and fight on the Af-Pak border in battalion strength, may ultimately be lost.

A second cause is our fiscal crisis. America cannot afford any more wars, or more billions in foreign aid to balance budgets of Arab countries whose treasuries have been looted by departing despots.

Third, there is the sense in Congress that it has let itself be steadily stripped of its constitutional power to declare war."

 Head over to The American Conservative's website and read the whole piece here.

Jack Hunter: Have We Forgotten 9/11?

Once again The American Conservative's Jack Hunter provides fantastic perspective on the issues of the day. In the following he takes to task US foreign policy after 9/11.

Bin Laden's Dead: So What?

Apparently, 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden has been killed. This could and should be good news to anyone seeking an end to the wars we are fighting and closure for the victims of those atrocious attacks some 10 years ago. But I fear the death of bin Laden will do little more than fuel blind displays of nationalism and, in the short-term, appease those demanding results in the so-called "War on Terror."

Before I get as excited as those on the internet and elsewhere about Bib Laden's, I must question whether the death of this monster will lead to any real change in US foreign policy. For the death of bin Laden bringing no lasting effect is no good news at all.

Osama bin Laden's hate was fueled and recruitment was aided by US involvement and occupation in the Middle East. Does that mean he was innocent of his crimes? Not at all! It just means that the US helped create and aid the very enemy we then fought to destroy. Our own CIA reported such, and we would be wise to prevent such behavior in the future. We must not repeat our past mistakes, if we are to achieve real, lasting victory in our current aims to crack down on terrorism as well as be successful future endeavors. 

If we do not put a stop to a foreign policy that helped create and aid monsters like bin Laden, there is no victory in his death. Others like him will merely rise up to replace him.

Ten years ago we began our efforts to track down the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Since then we have developed an alarming appetite for war, seen our civil liberties trampled upon one by one, scores of lives have been lost, numerous dollars and resources have been spent, and our country looks far less like America and more and more like a tyrannical empire. Perhaps, bin Laden has had more success than many are willing to give him. Therefore, let us repair the damage done and return to constitutional governance. Let's act to prevent such atrocities in the future.

I would have preferred we'd dealt with bin Laden through the constitutional means of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but we have brought him death nonetheless. Now let's put to death any policies that would bring about another bin Laden or aid his desired pursuits--such as taking the lives and liberties of others. If we do not, bin Laden is dead, but so what?

Washington Foreign Policy in Four Easy Steps

Sarah Palin's Stand Against Egyptian Self-Determination

While taking jabs at the Obama Administration's handling of the Egyptian uprising over the weekend, Sarah Palin once again showed why she is unfit to lead this or any country.

In a weekend interview, the former Alaskan governor was critical of the White House for "not doing enough" regarding Egypt.While any true conservative or libertarian should be critical of the administration's handling of the situation (Likewise, they should also have been critical of US policies leading up to this crisis.), Palin argues for a position that is perhaps even more flawed than that of the White House.

Politico reports:

Palin said the administration must get more information and find out who "fills now the void in the government." She said the U.S. "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

She did not offer specifics for how she would handle the crisis, saying only: "We need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with."
In speaking out about the administration's handling of Egypt, Palin joins at least two other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich and John Bolton.

Palin has indeed firmly joined with the neoconservatives on this issue as she often does. Likewise, her comments show an alarming disdain for State sovereignty. To say that the United States "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood is truly outrageous.

Egypt is a sovereign nation, and the people of Egypt--not the US--should and must decide who will lead their country forward. I must admit that my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite limited, but many credible sources claim that the group would not necessarily be bad for the country. However, even if they would be, the Egyptians have the right to self-determination. They must forge their own path into the future, and the United States must stop interfering with the affairs of Egypt--whether we are propping up dictators or trying to "spread democracy."

Of course, calling on the United States to return to a foreign policy envisioned by the Founders, leaving the Egyptians to move forward and govern themselves according to their own desires, is anathema to Palin and her neo-con cronies. For Palin, anything less than the US choosing and propping up a hand-picked puppet is unacceptable. 

In typical Palin style, her comments feature a partisan attack, offer no solution, and lacks any clear understanding of the issue. Palin would have us further entangle ourselves in a situation we have already had too much of a hand in. Her position is all-around flawed. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it runs counter to the American Founding vision.

As for me, unlike Sarah Palin, I stand with the Egyptian people against overbearing government--whether that government is in Cairo or DC.

Interview: Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism

Jack Hunter, the Southern Avenger, provides an informative interview with the American Conservative's Daniel McCarthy on the topic of "neoconservatism" (as opposed to true conservatism) in the video below. Check it out whether you are seasoned or new to the issue. It is well worth the time.

A Constitutionalist's Perspective on WikiLeaks

By now chances are that you have heard about the latest WikiLeaks release and have either formed an opinion or sought out the opinions of others. Originally, it was my intention to keep my mouth shut regarding the issue because there are plenty of folks out there giving their opinions and demanding you agree with them. Some have offered balanced assessments, while most--I feel--have spouted ridiculous untruths, based on misguided ideological or partisan bias.

(It is not my intention to get into the nuts and bolts of the released WikiLeaks content in this post. For a good overview I recommend this article. It gives a sample of the content and the situation surrounding it.)

To properly inform one's perspective on the issue, one mustn't be taken in with the alarmism being thrown around. Likewise, one must separate the judgment involved in the releasing of the leaks from the legality of the actions. 

The absurdity coming from many opponents rests on a major misunderstanding--one where personal feelings have clouded proper criticism. Many have called into question the wisdom in releasing documents that could harm US-foreign relations. Such questioning is fine, and I believe sensible people can find themselves on both sides of the fence. Some can find the actions of WikiLeaks to be foolish; others can find them harmless or even heroic. I am not asking anyone to fall into either camp. I am just asking for people not to buy into foolishness.

Congressman Peter King is one of the most vocal peddlers of such foolishness. His blatant disregard for reality and the First Amendment is alarming. King's call for WikiLeaks to be classified as a terrorist organization and statement that the releasing of the WikiLeaks files is "worse than a military attack" proves he is a bit off his rocker, operating in a different world that ignores reality and constitutional freedoms. Anyone who has seen the content of the leaks can easily recognize the treat is one of political embarrassment, not military logistics. Moreover, even Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted that the last WikiLeaks release--which actually did pertain to current military action--yielded no casualties or lasting military failures, contrary to the dooming prophecies of neocons, alarmists, and warmongers alike, who made such claims.


Globalists, administration officials, and neocons may very well have reason to be alarmed at the latest round of WikiLeaks releases, but the chances that our men and women in the military have reason to worry over the works is slim to none. Their only worry should stem from leadership in both parties being ever willing to put and keep them in harm's way.

Clearly, if we are to value freedom, we must not compromise it even when the situation proves difficult. We must protect the freedom of speech and press at all costs, especially when doing so is unpopular. This does not mean, however, that we must agree with the content of that speech or press or even the decision of those producing the content to produce it.

What is being lost in the public discourse is that the wisdom of the leaks can be questioned while upholding the right for the information to be made public. We need not demonize to show disapproval. Calling the releases foolish is one thing, calling it terrorism is quite another. That is where many of the critics fail. Instead of merely disagreeing with the decision for the information to be released and offering their reasons why, many critics demonize WikiLeaks and create unfounded claims against the release of said information.

Whether you agree or disagree with the decision of WikiLeaks to release the information; there is no right to call their actions terrorism. Once again: calling something unwise or reckless is one thing; claiming terrorism and calling for a suspension of constitutional rights is quite another.

Over the past week I have seen utter hysteria over these new leaks. Looking at them objectively, I laugh at how bent out of shape some are getting over the incident--especially considering how tame the leaks are compared to the last batch. What I find most alarming is how quickly people are willing to label the action of WikiLeaks "terrorism" and completely throw the Constitution out when considering the matter. Moreover, the true colors of many pundits and politicians is being well displayed. We see how globalist many are in their concerns, how deep neoconservatism has imbeded itself into modern political thought, and how much of a battle those of us who desire a humble and constitutional foreign policy still have to fight.

When considering the WikiLeaks issue I was reminded of my hero Thomas Jefferson's words to Charles Yancey where he wrote, "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."

I think we know where Mr. Jefferson would have sided on the issue.

I leave you with the words of Ron Holland, which echo my own sentiments:

I join with real conservatives not the false neocon war advocates hoping these leaks do not threaten our troops or necessary intelligence operatives. Still Americans must understand it is Washington and economic interests that have actually placed our troops at risks in foreign military wars and occupations not in the real interests of the United States, the nations invaded or civilians killed.

Wither the Neocons? by the Souther Avenger

Once again the Southern Avenger offers up a pointed and perfect commentary. I love it. Take a watch a be the wiser for it.

We Who Dare Say No to the War

I really enjoyed this video of the Mises Institute's Jeffrey Tucker interviewing Tom Woods about his book We Who Dare Say No to War. It's fantastic and worth your time.



A blurb on the book:

The rap on those who oppose war is that they are "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" or not supportive of American ideals. How can this be when war itself has been a main enemy of freedom for Americans themselves? When the war is on, government is unleashed. Those who oppose this are the greatest friends of freedom, especially because they dare to oppose the regime when it matters most.

We Who Dared to Say No to War uncovers some of the forgotten but compelling body of work from the American antiwar tradition speeches, articles, poetry, book excerpts, political cartoons, and more - from people throughout our history who have opposed war. Beginning with the War of 1812, these selections cover every major American war up to the present and come from both the left and the right, from religious and secular viewpoints.

Hat Tip: Young Americans for Liberty 

Forgetting the Troops by the Southern Avenger

Ike and Iron Man by the Southern Avenger

Republicans War Fetish by the Southern Avenger

Sanctions Will Not Stop a Nuclear Iran...It's Bad Policy

Continuing down a path of poor policy, President Obama has made it clear that he supports tough sanctions on Iran to prevent nuclear arms development. The policy is misguided not because Iran cannot prove to be a threat; it very well could, and its leadership is less than trustworthy--to put it lightly. Rather, sanctions are never good policy!

If the goal of the Obama administration is to defend the United States, then sanctions against Iran will do little to provide for it. Contrarily, Iranian sanctions will merely provide for innocent people suffering and the emboldening of Iran's leadership.

If history has taught us anything about sanctions, it is this: The innocents of a sanctioned country suffer while the corrupt leaders thrive, and the goals of the sanctioning country are never truly met. Likewise, the so-called "targeted sanctions," which have gained popularity in the past few decades, have proven both ineffective in meeting security goals and in shielding the populace from suffering.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul rightly noted on the House floor back in December:

As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. 

Dr. Paul could not be anymore right. The harm in sanctions go beyond the pain inflicted upon the populations of targeted nations; our national defense is put in jeopardy as well. 

Osama Bin Laden, himself, noted US sanctions as one of three main reasons for his holy war against the United States. In his evil response, one thing is evident: Nations remember when a hegemonic power causes suffering. Misguided policy will breed ordeals in the future which we will be forced to face, and the scars of the past are hard to overcome. 

It is clear that sanctions do harm. The evidence cannot be hidden, and even the government itself has defied its own policy and confirmed that sanctions don't work.

Jacob Hornberger notes:

Recall the brutal sanctions that the U.S. government enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years. Every year, they were causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children from infectious illnesses, malnutrition, etc. Those deaths didn't cause Saddam Hussein to leave office, which is what the U.S. government wanted. Equally important, U.S. officials were indifferent to the deaths of all those Iraqi children. In fact, the official U.S. position was that those deaths were "worth it," the term used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright when asked about the deaths by "Sixty Minutes."

 Because we know the track record of sanctions as one of failure and harm to civilian populations, those who value liberty and a strong national defense should be the first to come out against them. No conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist can consistently support these brutal and ineffective measures.

If Iran poses a true threat, sanctions will only heighten that threat. The Obama Administration would be wise to consider a vastly different policy.

Confused Confederates