(In his 1999 book, A Republic, Not an Empire, Buchanan argued that the U.S. should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany.)
Totally? That's a strong statement, and one you can't support.
I happen to agree with Buchanan on number of issues, but his reputation is well deserved. Let's review some of his eccentric views, from this book alone, starting with the premise. Referring to American efforts to defend liberty around the world as "imperial" speaks directly to our Marxist and Islamist enemies. He's literally playing into their hands from the left. And each of the examples he cites are well-understood as situations where American power actually fought imperialism, from Spanish in the 19th century to Arab in the mideast during the whole 20th century, to Soviet during the Cold War. From
Pat Buchanan in A Republic, Not an Empire
On Defense: US hegemony will backfire to create a less secure world
Our hegemonists our confident that America’s power is too great for any to resist. History teaches otherwise. Every attempt to establish hegemony incites resentment and hostility. Weaker nations instinctively seek security in each other, creating the very combinations the hegemonists most fear. It is a law of history: The thesis calls into being the antithesis; the weak collude to balance off the strong.
On War & Peace: We attacked Yugoslav territory without Congress’ approval
Before Clinton ordered air strikes on Yugoslavia in the early 1999, US forces had never fought in the Balkans. But today there are 8,000 US troops in Bosnia and a US occupation army in Kosovo. America engaged in acts of war against a nation that did not perpetrate any act of violence against the US or its allies. Clinton’s original ultimatum to Yugoslavia--to attack its troops and sovereign territory if it did not remove its forces from Kosovo--was made without the formal approval of Congress.
On War & Peace: Kuwait: using force on Iraq was a non-vital imperial burden
Iraqis saw in Kuwait oil-rich and undefended land left behind by a defunct British Empire. In 1991 America had the power and will to force Iraq to disgorge Kuwait. But the day is coming when Americans will tire of imperial burdens. The Gulf, too, will come to be dominated by the most powerful of its littoral states. America must one day soon decide what is vital and what we can let go.
On Foreign Policy: Manifest Destiny OK; Imperialism is not
Annexation of Texas, the Southwest, and California [in the 1800s] was Manifest Destiny, not imperialism. These lands were contiguous, largely empty, easily defensible with a small army, and involved no entanglement with the great powers of Europe. Imperialism is the rule of other peoples against their will, & most Americans recoiled at the idea of colonzing Mexico. The Mexican War was a historic inevitability. Two emerging countries collided along a disputed frontier; the stronger prevailed.
On Foreign Policy: Pre-WWI US wasn’t isolationist; but expansionist
Woodrow Wilson is said to have been the first president to lead America out of “isolation,” but this is a myth. The US was never isolationist. [In the 1800s], America was the most expansionist nation on earth, and by 1900 [under President McKinley], had become an empire. [McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt] made decisions based on what would enhance US power and glory. McKinley and TR were imperialists, not globalists; unilateralists, not multilateralists.
On Foreign Policy: US should have re-armed in 1930s when Japan invaded China
From 1921 to 1933 there was no foreign menace to cause America to re-arm. Germany was defeated, disarmed... and democratic. Japanese militarists did not take the first step toward Asian empire until 1931-32 [when] they occupied Manchuria. By invading, Japan had slammed shut the “open door” there and destroyed the political foundations of [current] treaties. At this point, [the US and UK] should have come out for naval rearmament. Neither did.
On Foreign Policy: War guarantees to Poland kept Hitler from attacking USSR
The British-French declarations of war [after Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939] impelled Hitler to attack in the West to secure his rear before invading Russia. By redirecting Hitler’s first blow upon themselves, Britain & France bought Stalin two extra years to prepare for Hitler’s attack--and thus saved the Soviet Union for communism. Had Britain & France not given the guarantee to Poland, Hitler would almost surely have delivered the first great blow to Stalin’s Russia. Britain & France would have had additional years to build up their air forces and armies. Had Britain & France not given the war guarantees to Poland, there might have been no Dunkirk, no blitz, no Vichy, no destruction of the Jewish populations. Ultimately, it was not Poland that benefited from Britain’s war guarantee to Warsaw -- but Stalin.
On Foreign Policy: Hitler was no threat to US; sought mastery of Europe only
Following his victory [over France in 1940], Hitler made no overt move to threaten US vital interests. As of mid-1940, his actions argue that beneath the overlay of Nazi ideology, he was driven by a traditional German policy of “The Drive to the East.” In this analysis, Hitler had not wanted war with the West. Hitler saw the world divided into four spheres: Great Britain holding its empire; Japan, dominant in East Asia; Germany, master of Europe; and America, mistress of the Western Hemisphere.
On Principles & Values: Original “America First” in 1940s to keep US out of WWII
The America First Committee was born in 1940, after France fell. The committee’s principles [were]: - The US must build an impregnable defense
- No foreign power can successfully attack a prepared America
- American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war
- “Aid short of war” weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad
On Foreign Policy: FDR forced Japan to attack US as back door to WWII
In early 1941, FDR froze all Japanese assets, cutting off trade, including oil. Without oil, the Japanese empire must wither & die.. The oil embargo was “economic war” against an oil-starved nation. FDR knew the consequences of an oil embargo & approved, because he wanted Japan to attack. A war with Japan was the only way he could take us to war in Europe. FDR seemed anxious to get into the war, [but was] elected on a promise to stay out, [so] FDR needed to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot.
On War & Peace: Kuwait War benefited Iran; not US
I did not believe Kuwait was vital to the US. Saddam, after all, had stolen Kuwait’s oil to sell it, and Saudi Arabia could be defended without a war on Baghdad. The nation most likely to acheive hegemony in the Gulf is Iran. Iraq, a third as large and populous, was the Arab counter. If we destroyed it, Iran would be the beneficiary and the US would be left with the obligation to contain both nations, an open-ended commitment America would be unwilling to sustain.
On China: Truculent but contained China is no threat
As China has grown powerful, it has grown truculent. Beijing has disrupted Taiwan’s elections, invaded offshore islands, sold missiles to Iran, sold nuclear technology to Pakistan, and persecuted Christians, Tibetans, and dissidents. Yet, despite its bellicosity, China does not today threaten any vital US interest, & its emergence as a world power need not mean inevitable conflict. For China is already contained - by geography. [The only likely point of conflict without] a blue-water fleet. is Taiwan
On China: Support Free Asia with materiel but no troops
So long as the US guarantees the security of the nations of Free Asia, they, like Europeans, will never undertake to provide for, or to pay for, their own defense. The US should thus unilaterally declare in force the Nixon Doctrine: in future Asian wars, America will provide the weapons of defense for free nations, but Asian soldiers, sailors, and airmen must do the fighting. As the century closes, we should end our role as a front-line fighting state in Asia, and become Free Asia’s arsenal of democracy.
On Foreign Policy: Dissolve Asian security treaties, they’ll defend themselves
While the US should maintain military relations with the friendly states of Asia, we should dissolve all security treaties that require us to go to war, instantly, in the event of an attack on Thailand, Australia, or the Philippines. No vital interest of ours is at risk in those nations. Only by taking away the security blanket will we shock Free Asia into doing what is should have done long ago: organize militarily, as it has economically, to provide for the common defense.
On China: Don’t aggravate Beijing, but don’t appease
US policy toward China should be neither to aggravate bor to appease Beijing. But allowing China to run near $60 billion annual trade surpluses at our expense, while we guarantee low-interest loans to Beijing from the World Bank, is appeasement. American imports and investments there are financing military forces that may one day threaten Asia and the US fleet. As trade and aid have not made China more reasonable, the US should treat China as the Great Power rival it claims to be.
On China: Supporting role only in case of Chinese attacks
Should China move against any of its neighbors, including Taiwan, these nations would surely arm to defend their liberty. But the first defense perimeter of Free Asia should be manned by Asians themselves, united in regional alliances, with the US relegated to a supporting role. Like Shakespeare’s Fortinbras, it has been the role of America to come in at the end, not at the beginning of the family wars of Asia and Europe. Let other nations play Hamlet.
On War & Peace: Israel: Provide for self-defense, but concede land for peace
Israel will not know peace as long as it occupies Arab land. - The US should end foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, which runs to $5 billion yearly, and lay out the elements of an honorable peace:
- return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and their demilitarization
- Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, with a right of return if Hezbollah uses the territory for attacks.
On War & Peace: Palestine: a flag, a land, a capital in Jerusalem
- [An honorable peace with Israel should include]:
- a flag and land of their own for the Palestinians
- a Vatican enclave-capital in Arab East Jerusalem
- any Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza should be demilitarized
- a permanent commitment to Israel of access to US weapons to enable it to maintain a security edge, with Israeli guarantees of no further technology transfers to China.