Foreign Policy

[TrueLight]

neoconservatism and their philosophy. quite interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTsSboJSFU

also have to stick an article on, i just wish his message was listened to.. oh well..

America at War: The Missing Election Issue
By Doug Bandow
Published 11/15/10

"Americans have voted, and voted for change. Real change.

Yet the most important area requiring change is one that received virtually no attention on the campaign trail: foreign policy.

No doubt, wild spending and mounting debt threaten America's fiscal future. ObamaCare will deliver worse medical care with fewer choices at higher cost. Extreme proposals for "cap and trade" could wreck the economy. Reform is needed on more than a few domestic issues.

But the U.S. is at war. Two wars, in fact. Americans are dying.

Yet virtually none of the 435 candidates elected to the House and 37 elected to the Senate on November 2 talked about either war. Former Bush aide Peter D. Feaver explained: "The big strategic consideration is that the electorate is energized over jobs, not over the war right now."

Unfortunately, "out of sight, out of mind" appears to be the motto for most Americans. Like past imperial powers, war has become both constant and largely invisible. Military personnel die and funerals are held; service men and women are injured and families suffer. But most Americans go about their lives with little sense that their government is sending fellow citizens to kill and to die in the name of the American people.

Even more blame falls on the candidates, however. They are supposed to be debating America's future. They should be offering contrasting visions of the future. They should be debating where and how the U.S. should be at war. And whether the U.S. should be at war at all.

Unfortunately, both parties are complicit in today's welfare/warfare state. President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress demonstrated that they spend money like Democrats. In their six years together the Republicans tossed money at virtually every program. They were as bad as Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic Congress when it came to upping domestic discretionary spending. In fact, the GOP-backed Medicare drug benefit was the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Johnson's "Great Society."

Moreover, war has become a constant under Republican rule. With the enthusiastic support of his party, President Bush launched two costly adventures overseas. And that's not enough for many GOP leaders and activists, who sing about bombing Iran, advocate attacking North Korea, suggest military action against Syria, and propose confrontation with Russia. When it comes to war, some Republicans never can have enough -- at least as long as other people are doing the fighting. Indeed, the new House leaders are markedly more hawkish than their predecessors.

However, Democrats have proved to be no better on either score. The expansive and expensive welfare state is a Democratic inspiration. Republicans have been mostly me-too, other than the Bush push for the Medicare drug benefit. Even there, GOP candidates attempt to defend their big-spending performance by claiming that the Democrats eventually would have forced passage of an even bigger program. Moreover, President Barack Obama and the Democrats have set new records for domestic spending.

Nor do Democrats live up to their reputation as peaceniks. Until recently it was Democratic presidents who routinely took America into peripheral Third World conflicts, most notably Korea and Vietnam. President Bill Clinton's MO was intervening militarily where no noticeable U.S. interests were at stake: Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Somalia. Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq. President Barack Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, making it his own. And many Democrats are even more fervent than Republicans for war with Iran.

In fact, Washington Post columnist David Broder suggested that President Obama adopt a warlike course towards Tehran in order to improve his political changes in 2012. True, Broder denies "suggesting that the president incite a war to get reelected." However, Broder's meaning was unmistakable.

Shortly before the Democrats' electoral drubbing Broder wrote: "With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, [the president] can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve."

Surely no one wants Iran to have nukes, but Broder offers no evidence to back his claim that "Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century." That country is economically weak and politically divided; it is surrounded by states determined to limit its power. And for Tehran to use any nuclear weapons that it develops would be suicidal -- Israel has an overwhelming deterrent, as does America. Ahmadinejad is a vile demagogue, but there is no evidence that he is suicidal. There certainly is no evidence that those who actually control the Iranian military -- Ahmadinejad does not -- are suicidal.

Yet Broder assumes the American people would reward the president politically for raining death and destruction down on another people. After all, they look and talk different, and thus really shouldn't count in Washington's calculations. Unfortunately, Broder probably is right, at least in the short term.

What better evidence is there that the U.S. needs real change?

War is sometimes necessary. But not often, thankfully. No other state can match America, the globe's only superpower. Terrorism remains a threat, but not the existential kind like World War II or the Cold War. The answer to terrorism is better intelligence, improved international cooperation, and limited use of Special Forces, drones, and other limited means.

In fact, intervention and war make terrorism more likely. As the U.S. has expanded operations in Pakistan and Yemen and backed foreign African military forces in Somalia, those nations have become greater incubators of terrorism. Unfortunately, Washington appears to be creating terrorists faster than it can kill them.

But war is more than bad foreign policy. It also undermines republican government at home. The U.S. accounts for roughly half of global military spending. Iraq alone will end up costing at least $2 trillion and probably more. The expense of fighting the war in Afghanistan is spiraling upwards. Yet Uncle Sam is effectively broke.

The national security state also threatens civil liberties. Randolph Bourne famously observed that "war is the health of the state." That's why traditional conservatives opposed interventionist foreign policies and large military establishments.

There is a more basic moral point, however. War is fundamentally immoral. Peoples possess a basic right to self-defense, of course, but the burden of starting a conflict is exceedingly heavy, even if done nominally for humanitarian purposes. Alas, American policymakers now treat war as a matter of choice and threaten to bomb and invade other nations for almost frivolous reasons. That people will be displaced, maimed, and killed is viewed as merely a minor, even incidental, cost.

The American people voted for change on November 2. One of the most important changes would be to require American foreign policy to be consistent with a republic. Military intervention should always require overwhelming justification; war should always be a last resort. Rather than attempt to transform the world, Americans should concentrate on preserving their freedom."

Doug Bandow
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1198