Posted on 07/19/2009 11:09:55 AM PDT by camp_steveo
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
~ George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments." ...
more: http://mises.org/story/2514
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
So let’s just keep on doing it, even though it is obviously not what the framers intended?
I don’t see the logic.
There...corrected.
In any case, however, the US was not out there intervening. We were non-interventionist, and Congress waited more than half a year after war was declared against us before authorizing defense of shipping!
I think that makes the case quite clearly that the Founding Fathers (Federalist or Dem-Rep) were not of the "World Police" mindset.
Many conservatives fail to recognize that our foreign policy is managed by big government liberals entrenched in the state department. This was made obvious when big government liberal, George Bush, was continually undermined by “his” own state department.
I pointed out the "private contractors in Iraq bleeding us dry" issue several years ago on FR, and almost got my head ripped off by most of the posters, Wolfie. I was told that "I didn't understand how crucial private contractors were to the war & rebuilding effort".
Okey dokey, didn't go there again -- but I agree with you!
It’s safe to go there now. Bush isn’t running the show anymore, so all that stuff is bad again.
And what were those wars about? Protecting our commerce and protecting our territory. There were direct American interests involved to which the combatants were a threat.
There is a difference between pacifism and non-interventionism.
Pacifism says "never fight a war".
Non-interventionism says "only fight your own wars, when you have to, to protect your own country's direct interests, and do it legally. Don't go traipsing all over the world looking for a fight with people who aren't your enemy and aren't directly a threat to your country's interests."
It's wrong to confuse the two concepts -- because there is a big difference between America steering her own ship (non-interventionism), and America attempting to control all the ships in the world.
I am glad this got posted. I think it really needs to be discussed.
I am strongly opposed to the re-emergence of the Ron Paul FP doctrines in the Republican party:
1. These policies by any name, caused 911. The world because this is not 1776 is composed of no less than 150 sovereign states that would delight in seeing America at the bottom of a crater. They continue to delight in the massive harm that came to this nation on 911. Since 1776, the same interests that prompted the attack on Islamic pirates at their base in Tripoli confronts enemies that can pack a far more lethal array of force against our nation.
2. There is no indication that the 150 nations of Hate would interpret our “non-intervention” policy as anything but an open call to proliferate and exchange whatever deadly materials for bringing this nation to an instantaneous and deadly end.
3. Despite the extensive concert of Evil arrayed against us, the Bush doctrine remains the most effective foreign policy exercise since the end of World War II. Yeah, I actually do believe that. The Bush doctrine explicitly defeated by military means: 1) Afghanistan, Iraq, and Liberia. The Bush doctrine explicitly defeated by diplomatic means: 1) Libya, Syria, ABu Sayaf rebels, Sudan, and Russia.
4. Bush built an alliance with India that remains a radically potent alliance in the WOT and the potential conflict with China. India is a better potential ally and trading partner than China.
5. Bush turned the tide of Islamism on the continent of AFrica forging major alliances with Ethiopia, Southern Sudan, Liberia to name a few. Bush brought a sense of heroism about America that is unprecedented.
The shameful display of contempt by Republicans toward the President Bush is one of utter cowardice in the face of a pro communist anti freedom anti war movement that truly has no problem with war but that it be against our very freedoms and capitalism. The idea that America is the Great Torturer and the World is the vast Innocent is utterly depraved and a grotesque premise from which to build a foreign policy.
Count me OUT of the Ron Paul Camp!
Where is the Constitutional authority for that one?
It irks me no end that we are paying disproportionally with our tax dollars for that Socialist love-fest and increasing our debt by leaps and bounds here at home.
That is the whole point. RP confuses Constitution and foreign policy. Our Constitution is based on a certain view of human nature and individual's destiny. These things are unchangeable (conservatives believe), hence our references to the Founders' intent when we are concerned with LAW.
Relationships with foreign nations is an altogether different animal. Whatever intent our Fathers had was correct only in the short term. Need I point out that most extant countries did not even exist then?
Their original intent might have been viable and practical because we were protected by two vast oceans. Now we are vulnerable not only to attacks from Russia and China but even to a bunch of terrorists.
In sum, RP's line of reasoning is simply invalid, and his position in untenable.
No, his policy is completely valid and possible.
Please tell me how it would affect the US should we pull back our military from around the globe?
I could tell you at lenggth about the consequences. But I never said we should pull back our troops.
" his policy is completely valid and possible."
Again, I did not say his POLICY was invalid; I said his line of reasoning was such. Please disagree, if you so choose, with what I actually said rather than what you think I should have said.
I could tell you at lenggth about the consequences. But I never said we should pull back our troops.
" his policy is completely valid and possible."
Again, I did not say his POLICY was invalid; I said his line of reasoning was such. Please disagree, if you so choose, with what I actually said rather than what you think I should have said.
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.