“Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government does it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy.” - P.J. O'Rourke, Author/Humorist
“Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good government at home.” - William Gladstone, British Prime Minister
“Here is my first principle of foreign policy: good government at home.” - William Gladstone, British Prime Minister
The Issue: Involved Long-Term Alliances
The Republican View - My interpretation of the main stream republican view on alliances is that you can never have too many good friends. Almost anyone we’ve ever been good friends with is deserving of our support militarily, financially or both. And while most republicans complain about the UN and its leftist globalist view of things, republicans seem to be ok with listening to their orders to fight who they want, how they want, and where they want. Libya is a terrific example for both of these complaints. The UN warned that Libyan civilians may be killed so NATO sprung into action. France and Great Britain were the two primary countries who wanted this action, and we decided to join in. As of late many republicans have turned against the war, but at the very beginning their immediate reaction was to support it. Interestingly enough, the republican support came in spite of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ warning against it and stating that there are no American interests present in this action. Since the beginning though, one of the biggest republican complaints was not that we are fighting on behalf of an Al-Qaeda backed group of rebels, or that the president didn’t consult Congress let alone seek a declaration of war, it was that the United States wasn’t “leading” on this issue. Yes, what really angered republicans was that an ally was “taking the lead” instead of us. The problem isn’t that we are broke, we don’t have anything to gain from this war, or that we are essentially aiding and abiding a group hell bent on destroying us and our allies; its that we weren’t the ones using the bully pulpit to try to suck our friends into the asinine war. Republicans want to bend over backwards to appease allies or do their best to make new ones from scratch (the reason we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan). Our good friend Iraq, who we fought and spent to liberate from Saddam Hussein voted to block Saudi Arabia’s proposal to increase OPEC’s oil drilling. That’s what friends are for, right? Saudi Arabia, which is the kind of friend who smack talks you behind your back and who only goes through the motions when it comes to your wish that they prevent people from training to kill you, still seems to be a much better friend than the friend you spent over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to save. But… we don’t want to lose our friends do we?
The Libertarian View - Libertarians and Constitutionalists often site the words of our founding fathers when it comes to allies. This is best summed up by Thomas Jefferson’s phrase in his inaugural address, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." George Washington in his farewell address stated, “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.” In case Washington’s words are a bit challenging to understand there, he was essentially saying “The best policy for us to follow when it comes to other countries is extending trade but to stay out of their politics. Their politics and policies has very little impact on us so it serves us best to stay out of their diplomatic relations with other countries.” James Monroe similarly stated, "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." Libertarians generally want to be an economically and personally free version of Switzerland, who no one wants to attack. With that being said, libertarians still want the strongest military in the world, only without commitments and only intervening militarily whenever we are attacked. While I agree with their general sentiment, not having reliable allies can be problematic if in the event we do find ourselves threatened. And had we not embargoed Japan’s oil in the early 1940s, they never would’ve attacked Pearl Harbor and we may not have joined the war to stop Hitler.
The Compromise - We can have allies who have our back and whose back we have, without us having to fight for them when they are wrong or when they are handling business that is totally irrelevant to us. In the 1980s, we had no real meaningful involvement in the Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina, aside from helping the British with some logistics. In the Sinai War between Great Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt in the 1950s, Eisenhower refused to get involved, aside from helping negotiate peace. Today, the thought of those three friends of ours getting in a war without us being involved seems incomprehensible. Yet, the “special relationship” as it is often called between England and the US suffered no long term ill effects, and obviously we are still very good friends with Israel, however France has become much more worthless since then. We can have a few very good friends who we will protect if they are attacked, but we don’t need to fight their wars for them, particularly if its of no interest or us or if they are on the wrong side legally/morally. I’m not saying that our friends have a habit of doing things that are wrong, but the distinction should be made anyway. If Israel, England, or Canada gets nuked we should definitely get their back. Otherwise it should be a case by case basis, with more often than not, us erring on the wisdom of our founding fathers.
The Issue: Terrorism - Its causes and how best to combat it
The Republican View - The republican view on terrorism after 9/11 was that its causation was because the terrorists hate our freedoms. In other words, terrorists blow themselves up and kill thousands of innocent civilians because they disapprove of our Constitutional liberties, and American culture makes low cut shorts acceptable for women and in some states gays can get married. As Americans began to realize how fallacious that argument was, they’ve now determined that terrorists act because they want a global Muslim caliphate (for everyone to live either under Sharia law or convert to Islam). As a result, most republicans prefer the strategy of fighting them “there” (the Middle East) so we don’t have to fight them here. Though traditionally a democrat ideology, republicans who support our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are supporting the idea of nation building. This includes building infrastructure, modern conveniences, and protecting the people of those countries in an attempt to modernize them and creating good will towards Americans and making them a future ally. Though also typically a democrat ideology, the republicans are insisting on carrying out this goal despite the unpopularity in the nations, because they believe that one day the peoples of those nations will come to the realization that they were wrong and the Americans were right.
The Libertarian View - Libertarians view Islamic terrorism as being the violent and savage reaction from our unwanted influence in the Middle East. This view is called unpatriotic and anti-American by a few prominent figures, but I’ve yet to determine if its because those individuals are uninformed, ignorant, or are just belligerent. To clarify, the libertarians obviously don’t view America as evil, just that the terrorists react savagely to our actions benevolent or otherwise. The equivalent would be if I see you drop a stack of papers and go to help you pick them up and then you stab me. I wasn’t wrong in my intention, I wanted to help you, but its quite clear you didn’t feel the same way about my help. Libertarians never bought into the argument of the terrorists hating our freedoms. When Bin Laden attacked us on 9/11, the messages he issued explaining his actions stated that this was retaliation. He viewed America at war with Islam for having a permanent military presence in the Middle East, most notably its bases in Saudi Arabia, which they view as a holy nation because Mecca and Medina lie within its borders. Also, he opposed the US’ temporary actions in Mogadishu (what the movie Black Hawk Down was about). The libertarian view is that we should do less of the things that make the Islamic radicals mad, so they’ll have less of a reason to despise us, and therefore there will be less terrorists. Just so there’s no confusion, libertarians obviously want to defend ourselves if we are attacked, they supported going into Afghanistan initially… They just don’t view us intervening as passing the cost-benefit test. But as you may be able to tell, at times this is in direct opposition to the Republican view.
The Compromise - The view terrorism in an economic style of breakdown. Lets say of the radical Islamic terrorists 20% of them hate us for our support of Israel, 15% hate us for our permanent military presence in the Middle East, 10% hate us because someone they knew was killed or heard people nearby were accidental civilian casualties, 10% want to the entire world to live under global Sharia law, 15% hate us because they view the Middle Eastern wars as a modern day crusade, and 35% hate us for supporting the dictators who have oppressed them for years. I have no idea what the actual percentage breakdown is or if I’m leaving out reasons why the terrorists and insurgents hate us, but for this example lets go with it. And lets say there’s 25,000 terrorists (just made that number up, I have literally no clue as to how many of them there are). Bin Laden for example didn’t organize the 9/11 attack because he wants global Sharia law, he hated Americans, Israel and their presence and influence in the Middle East. Though, chances are he probably wasn’t opposed to the idea, as one of his biggest issues was stopping American influence (culture and political) in the Middle East. By ending the Middle Eastern wars and withdrawing from the area, you could cut the number of terrorists by 15,000. So you could eliminate 60% terrorists and save money while doing so. and not necessarily generate pro-American support because our cultures are too far different and in some ways they are incompatible, but you could generate less anti-Americanism in the region. Changing the attitude of the populace over there from hating us like many Americans hated the Germans and Japanese during WWII to the way most Americans hate the French which isn’t passionate because we despise their arrogance, their attitude, their worthlessness, their stench, and such. Now, with this being said there’s still 10,000 terrorists to deal with. The remaining people, like the one’s who are influenced by radical imams who promote Sharia law in the West, and the family and friends of accidental civilian casualties are going to hate us until the day they die. Luckily in the Middle East they live in incredible poverty, so vast majority lack the means of extracting their vengeance. But more competent security at our ports, airports, and borders can keep us safe from them.
Lastly we come to the issue of Israel. Libertarians would say that Israel can handle its business just fine, as its demonstrated throughout the years; and that our influence on Israel has actually prevented her from attacking her enemies and signing non-American approved peace treaties. Republicans say that we need to keep financially supporting them and if needed, militarily supporting them as well. I believe that if the US were to cut off foreign aid to all nations (Israel would lose $4 billion a year, its surrounding countries that hate Israel would lose a combined $12 billion), Israel would still net benefit from the decision. I also believe that churches and synagogues across the country would raise money yearly to support them. We’ll say the sum total of the donation would be $2-2.5 billion. Israel getting that much a year with its opposition getting $0 still is a great benefit to Israel. I’m not sure if that’d less then the hate from the 20% of terrorists who hate us for our support of Israel, but we’d have no official tie they could point to. With that being said we could secretly tell Israel that if Israel were to get attacked, we’d bomb the Hell out of their attacker. The only drawback would be the potential moral hazard caused by them being maybe acting a bit more aggressively than they do, with their new found confidence. However, no deal is perfect, and overall this is probably much better than the status quo. Obviously this compromise favors a more libertarian view but it would make us safer, cost us less money and lives, and still allows for us to protect our good friend if needed.
The Issue: Our Overseas Commitments
The Republican View - The republican view of 800+ bases in well over 100 countries is that we need to be there to keep the peace and prevent hostilities from breaking out. They view us as a/the source of stability and removing us would cause absolute chaos.
The Libertarian View - The libertarian view of our commitments is that they put our troops in harms way, cost us over a hundred billion a year which doesn’t provide any conceivable benefit to us, and that it allows for more people to live under socialism because most countries we are in don’t spend near the amount on defense that most nations need, so essentially we are picking up the tab for their defense. Libertarians believe in self reliance, and other nations shouldn’t rely on us for their convenience.
The Compromise - I think we should eliminate all of our bases overseas aside from 20ish. The 20ish bases outside US territory would be for staging in case something big does break out and we MUST get in. The 20 bases would be in countries around the world that we are good friends with so that they receive the economic benefits from our troops spending money. The bases would reduce anti-American sentiment from nations who are tired of us being there (which is a lot of them). If a nation can afford its defense, it should pay for it. By providing defense for Canada, Europe, and Asian nations such as Japan and South Korea, we are allowing them to be more socialistic than is otherwise sustainable. In fact, the point I use in arguments to generate this point is that we are creating democrats overseas, i.e.: we are giving these nations handouts in the form of defense, when they should pay for their own. What we republicans and libertarians oppose is the welfare state, and that’s exactly what we’ve created by paying for the defense of so many nations. Donald Trump gained support for his remarks that nations that have our bases in their borders should pay us for the protection. Obviously this suggestion would help in terms of the financial issue our bases abroad cause… But our military shouldn’t be treated as mercenaries, if that’s what they wanted, they’d join a private security firm like Blackwater or enlist in the German military. Not to mention, there’s other issues of our government earning a profit to protect countries, we could easily extort more nations like the mafia does when they offer “protection” to small businesses. Third, if they pay us for the service, like a private citizen would a bodyguard, they may feel emboldened to start trouble, knowing they pay a flat rate for their protection. Our soldiers shouldn’t be put in harm’s way unless they are protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic, as their oath states.
The Issue: Foreign Trade Policy
The Republican View - Republicans usually agree that free trade agreements are beneficial to both nations (supposing there isn’t an absolute advantage by one nation, also supposing the republican doesn’t represent a union area, and also supposing the “republican“ isn‘t Donald Trump). However, when it comes to countries that the United States has a volatile past with or that we are: at war with or are threatening with war, its common for us to embargo them or vote in the UN to put economic sanctions on. The only time many republicans sympathize with the UN is when the country is lobbying for the sanctioning of a country.
The Libertarian View - Libertarians, like republicans, support free trade. The difference is that libertarians view economic sanctions as an act of war, and oppose their use unless war is imminent or is in progress. Libertarians like most republicans, don’t like the UN, even if they are supporting an issue libertarians back, because the UN is a constant threat to our sovereignty as a nation. Libertarians also support trading with even unethical nations with terrible human rights records, such as Cuba.
The Compromise - One must ask themselves, “Do libertarians love communism or support the oppressive Castro regime?” No, libertarianism is essentially the antithesis to communism. The reason libertarians support trading with Cuba is because it will improve the quality of life of Cubans and will also benefit the US, being able to buy products they currently aren’t able to. Nations we trade with can often go from unfriendly to neutral or friendly. Vietnam and China are great examples, they were oppressive isolationist communists that we were hostile to; then we opened up trade with them. Since then, while both nations are still mostly communist and still have terrible human rights records, they are more prosperous and their citizens have much higher qualities of life. We should leave the UN, as we don’t need to be their police force to fight for causes they believe are just and pay hundreds of billions a year to have them tell us how we should act. Sanctions should also be saved for nations we are at war with. Most nations we are at war with have a terrible dictator at the helm, and very rarely do they care about the well-being of their people. When the UN was considering sanctions on Iran to try to discourage them from creating a nuclear weapon, the thought was that the economic hardships it would impose on Iran would stop their government from going through with it. The Islamo-fascist regimes in the Middle East are among the most oppressive in the world, its complete lunacy to think that they are going to react favorably. When the people of their country grow poorer and become unemployed, they aren’t going to blame their leaders more than they already do. They are going to view the United States and its allies as the reason they are going hungry. If you want Iran to ever rise up and overthrow the current regime, the best way to go about it is supporting the people covertly like we did in Afghanistan in the ‘80s, supporting mutually beneficial trade policies to help their people become more wealthy, and avoid angering them with policies that negatively impact them.
There are definitely some differences in the republican and libertarian views of foreign policy. To clarify, when I describe the republican views I’m more or less referring to either the RNC (Republican National Committee), or the views of the Republican leadership in DC, not all republicans. There is for example, the Republican Liberty Caucus, an organization in the Republican party for libertarians. In the House of Representatives there is a handful of RLC members and some libertarian-leaning conservative members who don’t subscribe to the republican party’s conventional wisdom. Despite the differences, compromise isn’t impossible. I wouldn’t expect us to embrace a fully libertarian view, and in some cases I don’t endorse a fully libertarian view. What’s important is for us to head in the right direction. We need to abandon “the conventional wisdom” that has landed us in the dire straights we find ourselves in on every front. We need to go back to policies that made us into the prosperous nation we are. We need to embrace liberty and look to the words of our founding fathers for wisdom. Doing this would lead us to a foreign policy that would make us: more prosperous, well-liked, richer, and safer.
No comments:
Post a Comment