Why Oppose Interventionism? ---- because we know who promotes it and why let'em fund their charities with their own soldiers and money
On Oct 10, 8:32 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Why Oppose Interventionism?What conservatives have forgotten – and > libertarians rememberbyJustin Raimondo, October 10, 2011 > I often hear a variant of the following from conservatives (and some > liberals) when confronted with theforeign policy viewsoflibertarians: “Sure, > I’m all for a more peaceful foreign policy, but you guys take it too far – > isolationism won’t work in our increasingly interconnected world. Besides, we > have real enemies we have to deal with.” > There are several problems with this response. First, there is no such thing > as “isolationism” andno such creatureas an “isolationist.” Sure, there are > some who oppose international trade –labor unions, for one, and other “fair > traders” – but libertarians are not included in their ranks. The > “isolationist” label wascooked up by interventionistsas a scare word to > define the terms of the foreign policy debate and smear their opponents as > unrealistic troglodytes.The War Partyis the one really consistent advocate of > what might be called isolationism: byforcefully interveningin the internal > affairs of other nations, by occupying countries and effecting “regime > change,” we isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and retreat into an > imperialist cocoon, cutting off all normal – i.e.economicandsocial– > relations, andlaying the groundworkfor the kind of “blowback” that results in > terrorism directed against the US and its allies. > Secondly, it would be impossible to take the principle of non-intervention > “too far.” Properly applied, that principle means US foreign policy is to be > formulated and applied in accordance with the concept of non-aggression: that > is, US policy would be consistent with thelibertarian axiomthat the > initiation of force is always wrong, andalwayslead to bad results. Nothing > bad can ever come of abjuring aggression. On the other hand, an inconsistent > or erroneous interpretation of the non-interventionist principle could have > equally disastrous results: e.g. the failure to repel an attack on the US in > the mistaken belief that such an action would be “interventionist.” > Yes, but – our imaginary interlocutor might reply – weren’t we attacked on > 9/11, and aren’t our actions since then fully justified? > This brings us to an essential corollary of the non-aggression axiom: that > retaliatory force is justifiedonly against those who initiate its use.Which > means:invading Iraq– andoccupying Afghanistanforover a decade– is out of the > question as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The invasion and > occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as dramatic and earth-shaking as these > actions were, did not bring us a single step closer to taking out Osama bin > Laden and his cronies: that happened only when we engaged in the kind of > old-fashioned and decidedly un-dramaticpolice workwhich enabled us to track > the terrorist leader to his lair – and then we were in and out of there in a > matter ofhours. > All of which proves that weknowhow to go after terrorists and terrorism inthe > right way– but we’d rather not, unless it’s preceded by a long series of > wars, because there’s a whole other agenda behind our endless “war on > terrorism.” And with the extension of America’s wars of aggressioninto > Africa, and a “regime change” campaign underway againstIran,Libya, > andgod-knows-who-else, that agenda is not hard to fathom. > The United States has been lording it over the rest of the worldsince the end > of World War II: the United Nations, anembryonic world government, was > established at the behest ofAmerican elites. They saw it as the instrument of > an emerging “world order” in which Washington, along with its junior partners > inLondon,Paris, and –for a while– Moscow, would extend a controlling > influence over the entire globe. > During the cold war era, asramshackle Russiacowered under the pretext of > “socialism in one country,” while the US used anticommunist ideology as a > rationale to buildan empire of bases– andUS-supported dictatorships– in Asia, > Africa, and the Middle East. The interventionist impulse drove us to > supportthe Afghan mujahideenin their war of “liberation” against the Soviets > – and led to the peculiar concatenation of circumstances that made the > creation of al-Qaeda possible. > Funny how, at every turn, America’s great “allies,” who owed their continued > existence to US generosity, wound up becoming our worst enemies. > FromLend-Lease to Stalinto US aid to Afghan “freedom-fighters,” the lesson of > history is clear: blowback from one era wafts easily into another. We > arestill payingfor the sins of our 20thcentury politicians. > Not that our 21stcentury “leaders” are doing a better job: far from it. The > post-9/11 era has seen us replicate every mistake we ever made,times ten. In > its ferocity and scope, America’s post-9/11 rampage has no precedent in > history:the Mongol invasions, which depopulated large portions of Asia, and > extended into parts of Europe, were sporadic by comparison with the > relentless American march through the Middle East and Central Asia. It took > Genghis Khan and his descendants a hundred years to build an empire on > thescaleUS policymakers have constructed in just the last decade. > The sheer velocity of intervention has picked up, as if our rulers are in an > awful hurry to create that “world order” Washington policy wonks > areconstantly telling usis necessary fortheirour own “security.” > This escalation, you’ll note, coincides with theescalating economic > crisisthat has gripped the international banking system based onfiat money > and government debt– the biggestfinancial weaponsin the War Party’s arsenal. > Without the ability to “monetize” the debt – that is, “pay” the debt in > devalued dollars issued by the Federal Reserve – America’s matchless military > machine and the empire it defends would not exist. > The real estate “bubble,” the hi-tech “bubble,” and all the many instances > ofmalinvestment created by the Federal Reserve– the “private”gang of > banksterswho really run the US economy – have their reflection in the foreign > policy realm. Sure, we’re going bankrupt, yet you can be sure thebubbleof > American imperialism is going to be the very last to pop. Our wise and > benevolent rulers would sooner see 90 percent of homeownersforeclosedthan > give up a single one of theircherishedcolonial possessions. In thedecadentand > rapidlyfailingpolitical culture of what was once a great country, hubris is > the defining characteristic of our elites. > Libertarians oppose our foreign policy of global intervention because the > history of America’s wars is the story of how Big Government came to dominate > the life of the nation. The outcome of every military conflict with the > exception of the American Revolution has been a series ofunprecedented > extensionsof government control into new areas. Wartime “temporary > emergencies” inevitably hardened into routine regulations, and measures that > were formerly unthinkable – e.g. Lincoln’sshutting down of opposition > newspapers, Truman’sseizure of the steel millsduring the Korean War, > the“PATRIOT” Act, etc. – entered the realm of possibility. In wartime, when > expressions of dissent are met with “Don’t you know there’s a war on?”, the > collectivist mentality is dominant: the whole nation is militarized, and > failure to march in lockstep is considered evidence of “treason.” > Libertytends to perishin such an atmosphere, as itnearly didin the war > hysteria following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. > Libertarianism seeks to limit the power of government as much as possible. > This means opposing the extension of governmental power in every > instance,including its extension abroad. That’s why conservatives, > whoagreewith the libertarian program of cutting government to a bare minimum > on the home front, are caught in an unsupportable contradiction. They are > faced with the conundrum of opposing, say, aid to the elderly and sick in > this country, while supporting “foreign aid” that supposedly advances our > “national interest.” > In reality, the flow of American tax dollars abroad only advances the > economic interests of ourthieving sock-puppets, and certain USexporters, who > vacuum up those aid dollars as quickly as they are appropriated. In economic > terms, the game of empire is a bust, a net loss by any measure. Conservatives > used to know this. It was that old right-wing reactionaryGaret Garrett– > prolific writer, noted editor, and prominent enemy of the New Deal – > whosaidof the American Imperium that it is an empire without precedent in the > history of the world because “everything goes out and nothing comes in.” > It was the conservatives ofGarrett’s timewho were first accused of being the > dreaded “isolationists,” and now their lineal descendants hurl the same > charge atus. That’s due to a lapse of historical memory, the saddest case of > political amnesia ever recorded. In their more reflective moments, > conservatives may wonder why Big Government has only gotten bigger over the > years, andneverany smaller. The best they’ve managed to do is todecrease the > rate of increase– albeit only incrementally, and temporarily. > Conservatives won elections, yet still the “march of progress” was always in > the direction of bigger and more aggressive government. This happened, and > continues to happen, due to their blind spot on the question of war and > peace: thereflexive belligerenceof the cold war years, and theperseveranceof > neoconservatism in spite of its catastrophic failures in the realm of > policyandpolitics, has created an inner contradiction at the core of the > modern conservative credo. Conservatives must choose between the moral and > political strictures ofthe Constitutionand theperverse joysof militarism. We > can have a republic, or we can have an empire: we cannot have both. It’s as > simple as that. > Our message to American liberals varies very little from this essential > axiom. The problem is that modern American liberals trace their ideological > lineage back to the left wing of the New Deal, and are constantly invoking > their hero,Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as an example for President Obama – > their current hero – to follow. I’ll bet the Japanese-Americans among their > number are a little shocked to hear this, but being so very polite, they no > doubt fail to remind their progressive friends of such inconvenient details > as theinternment camps. > In terms of sheer deceptiveness and demagogic power, no American president > has ever been such an effective warmonger as FDR. He not onlylied us into > war, as Clare Booth Luce so trenchantly put it, but he executed his war plan > in such a manner as to make the next war – the “cold” war that sometimes got > very hot – practically inevitable. Liberals who complain – rightly – about > the erosion of civil liberties in Obama’s (and George W. Bush’s) America will > find nearly all the legal precedents were set during FDR’slong and > repressivereign. > Yet the liberal-left of that time didn’t make so much as a peep of protest as > Japanese-Americans were hauled off to concentration camps, “subversive” > newspapers were banned from the mails, and various dissidents on the right > and the left were prosecuted for “sedition.” Indeed, the left-wing media > gloried in the persecution of the Japanese, with commie cartoonist Theodor > Seuss Geisel, a.k.a. “Dr. Seuss,” givingfull ventto the mostviciousbigotry – > from a “progressive” and impeccably “anti-fascist” perspective, of course. > WhenLawrence Dennis, a widely-read author and former US diplomat, was tried > for sedition on the grounds that the pro-Hitler German American Bund > hadcitedhis writings, the American Civil Liberties Union was nowhere to be > found. > Theneoconized conservativesand theObama-ized liberalsare immune to the > anti-interventionist argument, and are quite naturally hostile to > libertarianism. The only hope, if hope there be, is in the new movements that > are emerging on both sides of the political spectrum: the so-called Tea > Party, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, which are both in rebellion – in > their different ways – against the ideological status quo. While both are > also misguided in their separate ways, it is only in the context of a serious > rethinking of what it means to be on the “left” or the “right” that a real > challenge to the War Party will emerge. > There are many signs that this is happening, but it is too early to tell if > these forces will ever jell into a unified movement with a coherent critique > of the modern Warfare State. All we can do at the moment is to push both > sides, ever so gently, inthe right direction, provide the space for a new > realignment – and hope for the > best.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/10/09/why-oppose-interventionism/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
