Toward A More Libertarian, Less Interventionist Foreign Policy
David French writes at NRO:
Multiple constraints are driving America towards less intervention:First, our military infrastructure is shrinking, rapidly. With the drawdown from Afghanistan, the end of the Iraq war, the sequester, and continued budgetary pressures, we may well see an Army of less than 400,000 active-duty troops. Large-scale interventions require large-scale forces, and the smaller size of all the major branches of the military will create its own limitations.
Second, there is little military or civilian appetite for nation-building. Nothing short of a direct attack on our country or a close ally (like South Korea) would currently motivate Americans to put substantial numbers of troops on the ground in harm's way. There's a reason why millions of Americans grew tired of our engagement in Afghanistan (and, before that, Iraq) that had nothing to do with pacifism or even ideology: quite simply, while they wanted to defeat our enemies, they were weary of attempting to transform near-medieval cultures. By late 2006 the Surge may have presented the best chance to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq, but let's not forget that the Surge was made necessary by many of our own military and diplomatic mistakes.
Third, we're no longer naïve. We've spent decades throwing billions of dollars at ungrateful, brutal regimes. We've turned a blind eye to countless human-rights atrocities, and delivered pathetic platitudes about other nations, cultures, and religions -- all in an effort to make sure that hostile nations (to paraphrase Sally Field) like us, really like us. Bill Clinton invited Yasser Arafat to the White House more than any foreign leader and the Second Intifadah was his gift in response. And can someone help me make sense of the administration's bizarre embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt? There are good reasons why Rand Paul's call to cut off most foreign aid strikes a nerve with Americans; most of the aid hasn't worked, doesn't work, won't work, and still costs us billions.
Fourth, we trust the government less. It's not just the corruption (IRS, Fast & Furious) or the political cowardice (Benghazi), it's also the incompetence. Not even the most comprehensive security state in the world can survive incompetence. We have a distressing habit of identifiying and interviewing prospective terrorists -- only to let them walk free and launch attacks. What if we're not trading liberty for security but instead surrending liberty and privacy without getting a corresponding security benefit in return?
My father and both my uncles were enlisted, decorated, combat veterans of WW II. They all three served in the European theater. When I was a young teenager in the early 1960's all three of them at different times took me aside and told me there was nothing glorious or romantic about a shooting war. They all three came away with the firm attitude that no foreign conflict was worth one American's life.
They all three saw the Nazi death camps and hated the whole German people and totally discounted the excuse, "We didn't know about it".
One uncle said, "We haven't lost a damn thing across the ocean and those people only hate us more when we get them out of a jam as it proves how incompetent they are".
Fred Mallison at July 29, 2013 5:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/07/29/toward_a_more_l.html#comment-3824380">comment from Fred MallisonThank you so much for posting that, Fred. I agree with this notion. I think it's especially absurd that we keep trying to buy democracy in Middle Eastern countries with a culture utterly antithetical to it.
Amy Alkon
at July 29, 2013 5:23 AM
We keep trying to buy democracy by giving money to corrupt governments and dictators. How sane is that?
MarkD at July 29, 2013 7:47 AM
MardD: "We keep trying to buy democracy by giving money to corrupt governments and dictators."
I think the money itself is the motive and trying to spread democracy is just pretense.
Ken R at July 29, 2013 10:55 AM
"We have a distressing habit of identifiying and interviewing prospective terrorists -- only to let them walk free and launch attacks"
I just dont see much of a viable alternative here, unless you want to shred what little is left of the Constitution.
Isab at July 29, 2013 1:44 PM
I've never been in a shooting war. I can also understand your father's and uncle's thinking. The problem is that there was a balance in the U.S. between the hawks and the doves before Pearl Harbor was bombed. That changed the status and balance because the Japanese were allied with Germany and Italy.
The South Koreans were an ally of ours before they and us were attacked by North Koreans. So I give that a 50-50 split.
Desert Storm I which took back Kuwait was, in my mind, a valid and properly run war.
Vietnam, Iraq II, and Grenada were very questionable if not downright wrong.
Afghanistan, originally I think it was valid, but there was no defined objective and that leads us to today and the quagmire.
I'm not saying father and uncle were wrong, but it must be well measured and considered before we spend our blood, treasure and sacred honor.
Jim P. at July 29, 2013 4:58 PM
I agree with Jim. People who have been soldiers have no special moral authority on wars, good or bad, or why they were fought. Often they are the least able to see that the alternative to going to war is not a null set.
My father was a WWII vet, and spent three years slogging through the South Pacific.
Hind sight is 20-20 and most people are far too naive to even imagine the horror of the last 65 years, if the US had just sat on its hands and let Nazi Germany and Japan overrun the world.
Think that everything would just be peachy keen if we had just stayed out of it? Only an imbecile like Chamberlin would think that Japan and Germany, once they had crushed Asia and Europe, would not turn their guns directly on the US.
Isab at July 29, 2013 7:07 PM
"Third, we're no longer naïve."
Was this a quote from the summer of 1975 or something, post-Vietnam-adventure?
Or is it just the people who voted thumbs-up for Bush War 1 and Bush War 2 who are now screaming about the economic damage as it comes home to roost?
So fuck off with your "Now we know better". We knew it all along.
And Obama can kiss my ass for extending the other insane Bush policies. "Hope and Change" my veteran fanny.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 31, 2013 4:56 PM
Leave a comment