United Liberty
How to Defend Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:35pm | posted by David Carlson
Over the past few weeks I have had quite a few conversations with Conservatives which have led to a debate about interventionist versus non-interventionist foreign policy. It usually starts with them attacking Ron Paul for one reason or another (check out this article on Midwest Spin for an example). After I respond and question their criticism, it usually ends up being their disagreement with his foreign policy.
Foreign policy can be a very complex topic. I think that non-interventionists, for the most part, know why they support that policy much better than your typical interventionist. Many interventionists do not even understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationist.
If you support non-intervention you either have found yourself in a debate and had to defend non-intervention, or you will find yourself in one sometime in the near future. I have found there are a few things to keep in mind when you are in these debates:
1) Be ready to explain the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism is the foreign policy of North Korea. Non-intervention involves open dialogue, free trade, and minding your own business overseas. Two vastly different approaches. Just because you don’t support having a global military empire does not mean you are an isolationist.
2) Know some facts and figures. The United States has over 700 permanent military bases spread out across over 100 nations. Roughly 20% of the federal budget is military expenditures. There are facts and figures that give proof that 1) our military expenditures are financially unsustainable and 2) we most certainly have a foreign policy of intervention and global imperialism.
3) Be Ready to talk 9/11. Ask the interventionist why they think we were attacked. If they say it is because we are a free and prosperous nation, ask us how they expect us to be in perpetual warfare? By that logic, there will always be terrorists trying to attack us (unless we become a socialistic nation). Should we just constantly be fighting over seas until the end of time? Then explain the non-interventionist viewpoint: we were attacked here because we have been over there for over half a century; meddling in their affairs and maintaining a troop presence. Be absolutely sure to cite Chalmers Johnson’s great book Blowback and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. There are many more books on the subject you can cite, just make sure you read them!
4) Prepare for a frustrating conversation. Oftentimes, at least in my own experience, the interventionist will refuse to defend their view. If they say they don’t have time ask if there is a time in the future they will be able to talk. If they are on twitter and say they can’t discuss such a complex topic give them your email and say you would love to move the conversation to that. They may just end up making it about Ron Paul and how he has no chance of winning President. Explain you are interested in interventionism versus non-interventionism, not Ron Paul. One day Ron Paul will pass away and the discussion will have to move to his policies, not the man.
5) Remember your goal. Your goal is to start a dialogue and hopefully make the other party question their views, or at least create some sort of cognitive dissonance. They might not turn from interventionists to non-interventionists overnight, but they should start thinking a little harder about why they are interventionists. Present your views, question theirs, and defend your points.
Never be scared about talking foreign policy. The only reason there would be to not discuss it or try to avoid discussing it would be if you are not certain your view is better. If you don’t think your view is better, the responsible thing would be to figure out what you really believe! If your view is better, you have nothing to fear.
Good luck!
I would have to disagree with you a little on this post. Specifically point number 2 and 4.
If I was discussing foreign policy with someone, and they told me that the number of bases we have and the percentage of the budget is spent on military was proof that it is unsustainable, I would have to laugh. How is citing those two facts prove that?
Prepare for a frustrating conversation? That all depends on who the person is you are having the discussion with. You could say that someone should prepare for a frustrating conversation when debating ANY issue. There is nothing particular about the foreign policy issue that would make it more likely to bring about an emotional argument than many other issues. We aren’t talking abortion here.
You disagree with what parts of 2 and 4? I would say in any debate it is good to know some facts and figures, but particularly in foreign policy because in the conversations I have had the other party is ignorant of these facts. You have to go more in-depth than what I said, and I in no way meant for that to be the sole argument as to why it is unsustainable.
I said number four because foreign policy IN PARTICULAR has always resulted in a frustrating conversation. The other side, the interventionist, hardly ever defends their view. They usually just rant about how Ron Paul won’t become President (as if that is what the debate is about). You would be surprised, that’s all I will say. But it sounds like you aren’t disagreeing with me about the frustration aspect, just that I didn’t say that is particular to ALL conversations. Sorry the purpose of the article was to hone in on foreign policy, not all debate topics.
I usually get mass hysterics from pro-death supporters.
It’s always “Omg, Islamofacism is going nuke America if we don’t kill radical islamists living in caves!” even though our borders are so porous right now that Al Qaeda could literally walk right into our backyard. Or, my personal favorite is “We can’t leave now. Otherwise, we’ll be under Sharia Law!!!11one” which is idiotic considering we’ve played right into OBL’s hands (financial disruption, loss of freedoms, etc) by staying there to nation build.
Quite frankly, I think most of these pro-warriors are racists anyway. Sadly, war does create this atmosphere as soldiers are indoctrinated to hate Arabs so they are capable of pulling the trigger when it counts; depending on branch and unit of course. Not to lead into anything causal from the previous sentence, but I’ll just add that, I find it near impossible to argue with someone who either a.) has a financial incentive to keep the war going b.) has a deep seated hatred for Arabs or c.) is so scared of a rag tag bunch of cave dwellers that they’d draft their own mothers into the war just so these warmongers can sleep at night.
Seriously, the first thing these islamophobes always do is question your patriotism when questioning the War on Terror®! Oh, and the Patriot Act is so patriotic! Yes, my argument won’t get us anywhere and neither will theirs but I sure as heck am not pushing to make us go broke to pay for these endless wars. Hopefully people with clearer heads then my own can debate the merits of ending these Forever Wars. But when you know that hundreds of thousands of Arabs have died for us to continue to be so-called “free” while our own corporations are raping Americans by the millions, you tend to develop a severe case of apathy.
No, I’m not the violent anti-violence type either. For those who want to recreate the Weather Men era, just keep throwing fuel on the fire you fools! Sure I can understand wanting to stop a war, but violence would only further develop the Police State and eventually have legislation enacted that would reduce our freedoms collectively. I understand a decade of war with our treasure spent and our soldiers dying is vastly too long to fight. A decade, really? The most superior military in the entire world? This War on Stuff is beyond ridiculous and people who support it support the eventual financial collapse of America from being over-exerted all over the world.
In Soviet Russia, financials collapse you!
Hamas In Their Own Voices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg
It is very difficult to discuss non-interventionism in today’s environment. I always hold my ground with those who disagree. It does always end with them not being to adequately defend the position of nation-building and world policing. The “why do they attack us?” is rarely answered. I think the fact that it is unsustainable will come to fruition sooner rather than later when the dollar finally collapses under the weight of our crushing debt load. That or some other revolution occurs here in the US.
“Why do they attack us?” is actually quite easy to answer given that they clearly give us the answer…
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-and-smell-the-sharia/2005/11/21/i…
It will get easier and easier to discuss non-interventionism with US conservatives as they live under a Democrat President, but the day the next Republican President takes office all such ideas and principles will be abandoned, as they were when Bush took office. I well remember the revealed hypocrisy of American so-called “conservatives” on Free Republic back in 2000 (long before 9/11, which merely provided a powerful pretext and cover to go further than before).
Just as Obama tricked antiwar activists of the left into thinking he shared their principles only to blatantly dump them when they’d served his electoral purpose, so the next Republican Presidential candidate will undoubtedly do the same with conservative non-interventionists and opponents of big government.
Ain’t democracy (republican form or not) great?
Funny thing about sticking your head in the sand… It always leaves your ass exposed…
Post new comment