Posted on 03/28/2006 7:27:52 AM PST by quesney
Some interesting thoughts from a friend based on a Washington Post op-ed today on the Christian convert facing the death penalty in Afghanistan (link to that op-ed follows):
----
The problem Bush faces is that democracies are rare. There are even fewer examples of one democratic nation transforming another country into a democracy. Bush is wrong in saying that democracies don't attack each other. Hitler was democratically elected and it devolved into a tyranny. Same thing happened in Haiti and in much of South America. Trading partners tend not to attack each other. The wisdom of George Washington's Farewell Address again comes through: Trade with everybody...but avoid their political entanglements.
As outsiders we can judge Afghanistan and the Middle East with disgust. They are barbaric but Islam has been around for 1600 years and its becoming more militant. If Bush or any western leader thinks they can intervene and transform these countries into the judeo-christian models we have in America, Canada, Austriala and UK (that's about it), then they don't have a full appreciation of history and human nature.
Bush liberated Afghanistan but since he chose to intervene again in their affairs to save face with the media, the Afghans are now carrying signs that say 'Death to Bush'. You can accuse them of being ignorant and ungrateful but is it wise to draw the ire of crazy people when what you need from them to protect your own country is their docility?
----
Unfathomable Zealotry ("Is This My Fellow Man?") Richard Cohen Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701299_pf.html
"If you are expecting an intelligent discussion of various views on foreign policy based on their merits from the Bush-cultists, then you're wasting your time. You'll be much more popular just posting pictures of mushroom clouds over the Middle East. Come on, all the cool kids are doing it."
I guess I expect more of the Free Republic form (or should I put Free Republic in quotes?)
"Your post implies that the US was essentially pursuing an isolationist foreign policy before 9/11...which is 100% inaccurate...American foreign policy since the end of WWII has been anything but isolationist...the American government, military, special ops, money, influence, corruption, support for dicatators, training of paramilitary groups, etc. has grown unabated since the end of WWII...and indeed since the end of the Cold War (truly a policy that makes no sense from the perspective of the average American)...much or even most of American foreign policy is carried out through programs unknown to most Americans..
Closing down all of the huge military bases that the American military continues to maintain around Europe and Asia...pulling American troops and military advisors out of the 130 countries that our acknowledges they are present...ending all foreign aid...shutting down some of the huge, "international" (but American-controlled) agencies such as the IMF...all of this will do more to reduce America's status as the world's most reviled country than all of the good will wars we could ever wage"
BINGO!!! So many of our problems today are the consequence of veering so far away from what the founders intended and advised. And we're reaping the whirlwind from ignoring their wisdom. It's time to show some humility -- we can't single-handedly change human nature. We can't change a corrupt world except perhaps over time by setting a good example.
I'm pretty surprised that we haven't found viable alternatives; after the high prices in the 70's, we should have made it a high proirity.
This is a frequent area of confusion among the "kill 'em all" crowd. They equate isolationism and non-interventionism.
What exactly does it mean to be a "friend" yet not "interfere"?
Use the example of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this has been precisely our relationship with Saudi Arabia: a "friend", yet we do not "interfere" in their internal affairs. (We look the other way, even bow down to, their insane zealotry.)
All it has gotten us is to be put on the top of the enemies list of the Saudi opposition terror organization (i.e. Al Qaeda).
You can't be a "friend" and not "interfere" (or at least be seen as "interfering"). There is no such thing.
Sure they do. We typically pay the countries rent and employ some of their citizens. Not to mention intangible benefits from being under the US security umbrella. Which of course can free up a country to have a lavish social-welfare system.
In some cases the mere suggestion that we close down a base here or there draws whines and shrieks. From them.
Oil is a commodity which has value to humans. There's no "getting out of" trading it. The notion makes no sense.
I sometimes think that it would be a proper use (national security) of federal power to limit or stop the importation of Middle Eastern oil.
Oil is a commodity. It does not get stamped "This Is Middle Eastern Oil" to allow us to clearly identify the "Middle Eastern Oil" you suggest we prohibit Americans from buying. We could, of course, make a stupid rule that no American person/company could purchase oil from a person/company located in "The Middle East". However, the only thing that would accomplish would be to create an artificial middle-man market, countless shell companies created in France, Germany and Switzerland (and on and on and on...) for the sole purpose of buying oil from The Middle East and then selling it to us as "French", "German" or "Swiss" oil. They'd take a cut and we'd pay higher prices for the effort, thus shooting ourselves in the foot.
How would you prevent this? (And on what basis?)
So, are liberals isolationists these days?
The people that get called "liberals" in American politics are indeed isolationists on many things, yes. One thing they are not is actually liberal.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
This would include eliminating MFN status as all nations would be equal. Interaction as is necessary with government oversight on trade.
Use the example of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this has been precisely our relationship with Saudi Arabia: a "friend", yet we do not "interfere" in their internal affairs.
So those military bases on Saudi soil don't exist? How about we allow Russia to be a fully run, controlled, and with no oversight Russian base in the middle of, say Mississippi. No interference from them and little to no interaction with the Russians. How do you think the citizens of that state, let alone citizens of other states within the union, see that? After all, they wouldn't be interfering....
But Congress couldn't "do something about the Saudis" the way you imply, even if they tried. The market is global. If the Saudis wish to flood the market, they'll flood the market. U.S. Congress cannot stop them. We can decide to Not Buy oil from the Saudis all we like, but that's not going to stop Europe or (especially) China from doing so.
Unless of course we actually invade Saudi Arabia or something... but I doubt that's what you have in mind.
I'm not sure it's possible to "just trade" with the rulers of a nation-state and not be implicitly involved in their political problems.
When you buy a good from someone, implicit in that exchange is a tacit understanding that they are the legitimate owners of that thing. So, to trade is to grant legitimacy. If you see a thief steal someone's car and then buy that car from the thief, then like it or not, you're involved. By the same token, if some ruling regime are usurpers with no right to rule, and we "just trade" with them, then we've essentially (1) accepted stolen property and (2) made ourselves the enemies of that regime's dissidents.
"Still, let's not get involved", you say. Well, sounds nice, but what if the regime's grip on power is shaky? No American businessman in his right mind is going to feel comfortable making a business deal on the basis of a handshake, with a regime that can barely stay in power. He's going to want solid legal footing and to know that his government will back him up. Thus, you get lobbying pressure. We're involved.
Meanwhile the regime's dissidents have formed a terror organization and started to target us. So, we're involved.
Finally, obviously all this time that regime is receiving dollars from the people it's "just trading" with. It can turn around and use those dollars to buy... weapons to put down its dissidents? influence on the world stage to get people to look the other way? T-bills? Any way you slice it, we're involved.
To trade is to be involved to some extent or another. There's no such thing as "trading but not getting involved". I guess that's my main problem with Washington's idea.
Since you believe that U.S. foreign policy between 1950-1980s ignored Washington's wisdom, one thing's for certain: if we hadn't "ignored Washington's wisdom" we may not have won the Cold War.
All examples of the "meddling" people have listed on this thread as having led to 9/11 were done as part of fighting the Cold War. I guess what you're saying is we shouldn't have fought the Cold War?
[Use the example of Saudi Arabia. It seems to me that this has been precisely our relationship with Saudi Arabia: a "friend", yet we do not "interfere" in their internal affairs.] So those military bases on Saudi soil don't exist?
Well, not anymore, right? :-)
Yes, yes, I know what you meant, but note that we stationed military on their soil at their (the ruling regime's) request, to help defend them from an enemy neighbor. And first of all, it's not clear to me how stationing military on cloistered bases is "interfering in their internal affairs". As I said, we largely left their internal affairs alone. (Maybe you mean something else by that, something non-obvious)
If you think our government should not have chosen to help defend that regime, on what basis? You're the one arguing on the side which wants us to be impartial among nation-states and not interfere/meddle/judge their internal affairs. Saudi Arabia was the enemy of an enemy and a business partner of several of our citizens, why on earth would we have turned down a request to help defend them? Wouldn't that require judging their internal affairs rather than being dispassionate?
As for this:
But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences...
It seems to me that our military presence in Saudi Arabia was not part of a "commercial policy" per se, but a national security one. More accurately still, it was a combination. Because part of what I'm saying is that you can't so easily separate trade from politics in the first place.
How about we allow Russia to be a fully run, controlled, and with no oversight Russian base in the middle of, say Mississippi. No interference from them and little to no interaction with the Russians. How do you think the citizens of that state, let alone citizens of other states within the union, see that? After all, they wouldn't be interfering....
I would not like it, most people would not like it, and therefore it's doubtful our democratically-elected government would (openly and/or knowingly :) make the decision to invite those Russians. However, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, it is a dynastic monarchy. That's the way it is. That's how that nation-state manages its "internal affairs" (and remember, you're the one who doesn't want us "interfering" in a nation-states "internal affairs", not me!)
Well, that government did decide to invite our military to station there. What's the problem?
Are you going to say, The problem is that Saudia Arabia's government a nondemocratic tyranny and so we shouldn't have helped it like that, and we should have also understood that its lack of legitimacy would cause us problems if we did? If so: Congratulations, you're a neocon! ;-)
"And would we have been? If we hadn't, for decades, ignored Washington's wisdom?
Since you believe that U.S. foreign policy between 1950-1980s ignored Washington's wisdom, one thing's for certain: if we hadn't "ignored Washington's wisdom" we may not have won the Cold War.
All examples of the "meddling" people have listed on this thread as having led to 9/11 were done as part of fighting the Cold War. I guess what you're saying is we shouldn't have fought the Cold War?
"
You cant be selective about specific -- either we were true to Washington's wisdom or we weren't. If we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, there might not have been a WWII or a Cold War -- and on and on. Impossible to prove, but possible. For a long time we haven't been faithful to Washington's wisdom, leading to this viscious downward cycle of getting ever more deeply involved in other people's hopeless problems. You can't just take one specific war or time period in isolation. Anything you point up I can argue is a mere symptom/result of not being faithful to the founder's wisdom in past situations. I argue we are worse off than we would've been if we had followed our original course.
These excerpts from the founders deserve to be reposted again, again and again. I challenge any of the critics to say they were wrong. Just look at the mess we're in today and how far back it goes. They'd be appalled by our stupidity and hubris.
--John Quincy Adams--
America goes not abroad in search of monsters to
destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. She is the champion and
vindicator only of her own.... She well knows that by
once enlisting under other banners than her own, were
they even the banners of foreign independence, she
would involve herself beyond the power of extrication
in all wars of interest and intrigue, of individual
avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors
and usurp the standards of freedom.
-- George washington --
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are
recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But
even our commercial policy should hold an equal and
impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive
favors or preferences; consulting the natural course
of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means
the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing;
establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to
give trade a stable course, to define the rights of
our merchants, and to enable the government to support
them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that
present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit,
but temporary, and liable to be from time to time
abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances
shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is
folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors
from another; that it must pay with a portion of its
independence for whatever it may accept under that
character; that, by such acceptance, it may place
itself in the condition of having given equivalents
for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with
ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no
greater error than to expect or calculate upon real
favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which
experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
I suppose. Also moot. Just about as moot as you can get in fact.
I argue we are worse off than we would've been if we had followed our original course.
Better way to phrase this would probably be, "I assert we..." (etc.)
BTW, I'm not sure there was a very long time period in which we actually did follow what you think/assume was our "original course". How long after 1789, 10 years tops? Or don't the Barbary pirate wars count as "meddling"...
It's very hard for me to keep straight what's "meddling" and what's "okay" in the eyes of a Washington's-Farewell-Address-Quoter (WFAQ), you see. For some reason it always seems to miraculously coincide with wars the WFAQ doesn't like vs. wars the WFAQ likes.
"Your forgetting what else Washington said, " if your feeling blue, try some leeches". Honestly its the freaking 21st century!!!"
So I guess that means we should toss the Constitution. It is, after all, so 18th-century.
"As any recovering drunk in AA will tell you, what we're doing is ENABLING them."
Bingo -- the rest of the world is arguably less mature than it would otherwise be forced to be if we weren't constantly bailing it out or leaving people with the impression that we'll eventually bail them out of making tough and better choices and taking responsibility for themselves.
"We shouldn't be enablers. let 'em sink, or swim on their own....well, the only problem with that is do we really WANT Western Europe to fall to Islamofascism?"
Maybe that would be a good thing in the long-term. The best way to preserve what you have is to be threatened by the prospect of losing it. They've taken their freedom for granted. Maybe they need to be reminded of how precious it is. Maybe it would turn them around. There's some evidence that's already happening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.