The Failure of US Interventionism

The banner of United States foreign policy is stained crimson with the blood of the dead. Unconstitutional US policy fueled the hatred that drove Arab extremists to attack the USS Cole, bring down US Embassies and slaughter thousands of Americans on September 11th in a series of cold-blooded terrorist strikes. These same policies are also responsible for the heavy-handed US reprisals in the war on terror that have resulted in the butchery of hundreds of thousands of non-combatant Afghan and Iraqi men, women and children. A new era of unceasing war, needless pain and unjustified carnage has been ushered in - expedited by the grand ambitions of those in power that form US foreign policy based on a lust for wealth.

There is but one justifiable goal of US foreign policy; it is a narrow goal as expressed in the United States Constitution: the preservation of our national independence. It can be stated unequivocally and emphatically that there can not be found in the US Constitution one shred of justification for the US government to "liberate" other peoples, uplift their societies, feed their starving masses, rescue them from tyrants, determine the nature of their governments, choose what weapons they may build and maintain, or change their regimes. The only moral and justifiable goal of US foreign policy is to work exclusively toward the nationalistic goal of the preservation of the Republic.

A US foreign policy is a decision made by the government to use means or tactics to realize an international goal. For example, during the Cold War era, it was the foreign policy of the United States to contain the spread of communism. The means or tactics involved in this goal included the effort to rebuild post-WWII Europe, rearm Germany and Japan and form strategic alliances in NATO.

(Article continues below)

We know from the US Constitution that the aim of US foreign policy is to preserve the national independence of the United States of America. Knowing this fundamental principle allows for us to gauge the legitimacy of any foreign policy. We may ask therefore, "Were the means by which the US carried out the foreign policy of containment constitutional?" Let us look at one of the tactics used to answer this question: the US entry into NATO.

What is NATO? NATO is an acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is an alliance of countries that work together to implement the North Atlantic Treaty.

The original signers of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, and therefore the original members of NATO, were: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and the United States.

The North Atlantic Treaty was written and signed in 1949. It arose because of the growing strength of the Soviet Union after World War II (which ended in 1945). Right after the war, the Soviet Union consolidated itself under communism and strengthened its armies. At the same time, Europe was exhausted and in shambles. The United States implemented the Marshall Plan in 1948 to help rebuild Europe, but the European countries would not have the strength to fight against the Soviets. The United States and Canada would be needed to provide the force necessary to counter any attack from the Soviet Union.

The North Atlantic Treaty was written to bond the United States, Canada and Europe together in case the Soviets attacked any of them. The treaty states that if any of the member nations is attacked, all of the nations signing the treaty will respond to the attack together. Therefore, any attack anywhere on North America or Europe would cause a very large response.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, NATO's original mission was complete. NATO, however, was never dissolved. Today, the United States remains a member of NATO and is still under obligation to go to war to protect other member nations (now totaling 26) - even if such a war has little to do with the preservation of US sovereignty.

We return again to the question of whether the US foreign policy of containment was justified based on the means used to accomplish said goal? The answer is a resounding "No". First, American tax payers were placed under the grievous obligation of funding the rebuilding of war-torn Europe. Erecting thousands of buildings and repairing European museums has nothing whatsoever to do with the preservation of our Republic. Second, the giving and selling of weapons to Germany and Japan were to help them protect Germany and Japan from the communist threat - not to protect the United States from communism. Third, by joining NATO, the United States made it a policy to marshal its own resources and manpower to go to war to protect other countries without regard to whether such a war had any relevance to the security of the Republic.

It must be remembered that it was largely due to our NATO alliance with the nation of France that the US entered the Vietnam War. France, unable to retain its imperialist strangle-hold over the Vietnamese seeking independence, appealed to NATO for help. The fact that Ho Chi Minh was tied to the communist movement required the United States to live up to its NATO pact and enter into an unjust war with the Vietnamese. How many tens of thousands of Americans perished far from home in the steaming jungles of Vietnam? How much discord and civil unrest erupted domestically as a result of the US involvement in Vietnam? The specter of our failure in that unconstitutional war, and the phantoms of untold numbers of the dead, loom over our nation still.

Looking at the fruits of recent and present US foreign policies, we see nation after resentful nation scattered throughout the world - seething with anger and unquenchable loathing of America. Why are we so hated? The answer lies, in part, in the refusal of those dictating US foreign policy to heed the constitutionally mandated policy of non-interventionism.

President George Washington wrote on August 25, 1796:

"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under themselves; and that, if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration." (Writings 13:263)

The transition from non-interventionism to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was congruently insidious and imperialistically fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum, which was steadily filled by a US presence. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20th century, it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default. But does that justify interventionism or prove it is in our best interest?

Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved, and new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope exists. In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door, with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored.

A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we did not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose - with unintended consequences.

The result is that the action taken turns out to actually be detrimental to our national security interests. Ron Paul attempted to educate Rudolph Guiliani and the American public during a Presidential debate on this issue of "blowback", thusly termed by the CIA. Rudolph showed no signs of comprehension and continues to support US imperial conquest. No effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role, and if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish.

There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries - whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power - to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians, prior to 9/11, was not to be as long-lasting as it should have been. President Bush’s invasion of Iraq wasn’t popular in Russia, considering the $40 billion trade deal between Russia and Saddam Hussein in early 2001. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, it was more than a bit ironic that we found the Russians promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while America was promoting war.

This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia.

And now, thanks to George W. Bush, the unconstitutional practice of preemptive war has been introduced in America. Our Commander in Chief unjustly invaded Iraq and now our troops sit amassed on the borders of Iran and Syria. Americans need ask the question as to whether national security requires that we continue to escalate global chaos by use of Bush’s doctrine of anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war" If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world.

Our failed foreign policy has prompted the US to assassinate Saddam Hussein and to try to replace the government of Iraq. Evidence surfaced after the invasion that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein wasn't readily accepting UN inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the real reason U.S. policy was belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task - the dawn of a new century of unceasing bloodshed.

The term "foreign policy" does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the federal government have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but can't declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for Congress to assume the responsibility given it and to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly granted to Congress.

We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations- no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to non-intervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.

Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens' rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we're in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example - not force and intimidation - just as it is in trying to improve personal moral behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.

Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the highest priority. Protecting individual liberty should be our goal. This does not mean, however, that our troops should follow our citizens or their investments throughout the world.

The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to
great risks financially and militarily.

In conclusion, it should be restated that the only moral and justifiable goal of US foreign policy is to work exclusively toward the nationalistic goal of the preservation of the Republic. The unconstitutional and often unwelcome occupying power and presence of the US military in dozens of nations around the world is breeding animosity and extremism. As long as America chooses to interfere with the internal affairs of other peoples and nations, we have no right to complain when those peoples or nations choose to express their hatred of America. We must take back our government and return to constitutionally sound foreign policy.

Ron Paul is our best hope to accomplish these aims.

 

Web PrisonPlanet.com