United Liberty

I am currently enrolled in a Foreign Policy class at my university. Ever since I was introduced to Ron Paul’s theory of non-interventionist foreign policy I have become very interested in the subject. Sadly, it was in a way hard to grasp his ideas because they have been such a minority viewpoint in the United States today. Nevertheless, after reading “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” I had a much greater understanding of his viewpoints and their justification.

Even though the class has already started, I have already been presented with a seemingly obvious notion: Americans do not care much about our foreign policy. They are generally apathetic and believe it does not affect them significantly. This apathy has been changed somewhat since 9/11, but it is still generally true that something like health care or another domestic issue will be given much more attention than foreign policy.

It is clear that those who want America’s foreign policy to be changed must link our foreign policy to our domestic policy. How does it affect us here, on our home turf? Why should we care what our nation does abroad as long as it keeps us safe? I believe there are a few very simple yet profound answers to this question that, at the very least, should spark debate and bring foreign policy higher on the issue attention cycle:

America’s foreign policy makes us less safe

When I scanned the front page of the local paper here in St. Paul, Minnesota, something stuck out to me (and no it was not the headline about the devastating loss the Vikings suffered last night).  An article written by Rick Montgomery titled Poll: More Americans want U.S. to ‘mind its own business’ immediately grabbed my attention, especially the sub-title “Rising isolationism highest in people younger than 30.”

Of all of Ron Paul’s views, his non-interventionist foreign policy was the hardest for me to grasp. This was partly due to the natural complexity of the issue, but also my own lack of knowledge surrounding the topic. I read Paul’s “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” and was enlightened about some of the more intricate aspects of Paul’s views. He raises some great points and offers an argument that runs so against our current foreign policy that it is hard for an average American to grasp: our foreign policy has made us less safe and more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

What I read in Montgomery’s article was impressive:

To one poll question, roughly half of Americans agreed that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally” and let others get along on their own. To another question, 44 percent said “we should go our own way” and not worry whether other nations disagree.

Both questions are vague and mean different things to different people, the pollsters concede. But when asked similar questions in 1964, not even one in five Americans thought going it alone or staying out were good ideas.

Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) has it right:

There is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan. The Center for Defense Information said a few months ago that we had spent over $400 billion on the war and war-related costs there. Now, the Pentagon says it will cost about $1 billion for each 1,000 additional troops we send to Afghanistan. One Republican Member from California told me recently that we could buy off every warlord in Afghanistan for $1 billion.

Fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by all this spending. Conservatives who oppose big government and huge deficit spending at home should not support it in foreign countries just because it is being done by our biggest bureaucracy, the Defense Department.

We have now spent $1.5 trillion that we did not have—that we had to borrow—in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eight years is long enough. In fact, it is too long. Let’s bring our troops home and start putting Americans first once again.

Thank you, Rep. Duncan, for speaking out.

Due to our increased military presence, anti-Americanism is on the rise in Pakistan:

For weeks now, the Pakistani media have portrayed America, its military and defense contractors in the darkest of lights, all part of an apparent campaign of anti-American vilification that is sweeping the country and, according to some, is putting American lives at risk.

Pakistanis are reacting to what many here see as an “imperial” American presence, echoing Iraq and Afghanistan, with Washington dictating to the Pakistani military and the government. Polls show that Pakistanis regard the U.S., formally a close ally and the country’s biggest donor, as a hostile power.

[…]

The Pakistani government has repeatedly stated that joining the U.S. “war on terror” has cost the nation an estimated $34 billion and ministers frequently lambast the U.S. for trespassing on Pakistani territory with use of spy planes to target suspected militants — an emotive tacit for the Pakistani population.

Ambassador Patterson said that “the (Pakistani) government could be more helpful” in combating the anti-American controversies, which took on a new fever pitch since the beginning of August.

The weak Islamabad government appears unable to come to the defense of its ally and even tried to score some popularity points by joining the U.S.-baiting.

A widely believed conspiracy contends that America is deliberately destabilizing Pakistan, to bring down a “strong Muslim country”, and ultimately seize its nuclear weapons. Pakistanis, especially its military establishment, also are distrustful of U.S. motives in Afghanistan, seeing it as part of a strategy for regional domination. Further Pakistanis are appalled that the regime of Hamid Karzai in Kabul is close to archenemy India.

It used to be the case that politics ended at the water’s edge, but no more:

JERUSALEM — Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee slammed President Barack Obama’s policies toward Israel on Monday in a visit here that underscored the tensions between the Obama administration and the Israeli government over Jewish settlements in what traditionally have been Palestinian areas.

Huckabee criticized the Obama administration’s calls for ending such settlements and said Obama’s position had only encouraged the Palestinian government not to negotiate with Israel.

Democrats in Congress may be backing down from their support of Manuel Zelaya:

There are tentative signs from Democrats in Congress of support for the forces that removed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya from power at the end of June.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of a key House subcommittee with jurisdiction over Honduras, roundly criticized both factions at a Friday hearing. But he also stopped short of calling for Zelaya’s immediate reinstatement, which he’d done in previous statements.

Editors Note:  If you have also read Dr. Kennedy’s and Michael Powell’s recent articles on this topic, you’ll find that the opinions and beliefs of United Liberty writers can be quite varied. We see that as one of our strengths on this blog and appreciate the spiritual, political and cultural differences that allow us to see things from a different perspective.  What’s interesting to note however, is that despite the different viewpoints represented in these articles regarding the roots and causes of the conflict, one thing that is agreed upon is that the proper course for America is the re-adoption of a non-interventionist foreign policy.  And as always, comments are welcome.