Rescue the Republican Party from the Interventionists

Rescue the Republican Party from the Interventionists
By Doug Bandow
Published 04/27/11

The U.S. government is essentially bankrupt, with debts and other unfunded obligations filling the horizon. Yet virtually every rich ally of America has its hand out, expecting U.S. taxpayers to pay for its defense. And policymakers of both parties are only too happy to oblige.

Washington also is intent on remaking the globe. While fighting a bitter guerrilla war in a Central Asian nation and occupying a Middle Eastern country, the Obama administration has started bombing a North African land. There apparently is no foreign war in which Democrats and Republicans alike are not prepared to launch.

Yet most of the leading voices in the Republican Party are upset that the U.S. government isn't doing more abroad. In promoting social engineering around the globe GOP politicians sound like liberal Democrats. The U.S. should spend ever more money and fight more wars overseas. To instead focus on solving America's problems is to be labeled a so-called "isolationist," at least in their warped way of thinking.

One most fervent Republican laptop bombardiers is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Sen. Graham has never found a war that he didn't want America to fight. He has never found another nation which didn't deserve to be bombed, invaded, or occupied by U.S. forces. To no one's surprise, he is one of the cheerleaders for attacking Libya. The lack of any discernible American security interest hasn't deterred him from demanding that the administration oust Moammar Qaddafi from power.

Sen. Graham also enjoys spending money. He currently wants Washington to increase foreign aid for Egypt after having provided tens of billions of dollars in the past. Never mind that those past transfers have disappeared. Don't worry that it isn't clear who is in charge now. And don't be bothered about who is going to be in charge if elections are held. More good money should be dumped after bad: "Any Republican who says the U.S. shouldn't be spending money in Egypt right now doesn't understand the benefits." If only the good senator would explain what they are.

However, Sen. Graham is not entirely disconnected from reality. He recognizes that the American people are less than enthused about proposals for new wars and more outlays overseas. Indeed, he worries that "it doesn't take long before" the Republican party "finds a war-weary nation and exploits it." He seems particularly worried about the new Tea Party generation, and the "unholy alliance" between politicians like Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), and some on the left, such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), which could promote a constitutional noninterventionist foreign policy.

Graham fears a foreign policy debate because he realizes that he speaks only for the small political elite which run Washington. Wannabe social engineers naturally flock to the imperial city and they believe the U.S. should act as an imperial nation. In contrast, most Americans, whatever their overall philosophy, have little desire to forcibly remake the world. They are extremely generous, but tire of being taken advantage of by friends and foes alike. They believe in freedom, but see little reason why Americans should die defending other nations which are well able to care for themselves.

In fact, what Rep. Paul and most Americans believe is the best kind of internationalism. Most foreign relations should be among peoples rather than governments. Americans should be free to engage others. To trade for mutual economic advantage. To cooperate to promote shared interests. To provide aid in response to tragedy or poverty.

The U.S. government also has a role: protecting the liberty, territory, and prosperity of Americans. Washington should act militarily only as a last resort and to protect U.S. security. The U.S. government shouldn't sell out American interests by allowing other nations to make decisions for America in the name of misguided internationalism. And U.S. policymakers shouldn't sell out American values by attempting to impose Washington's policies on other nations.

The hyper-interventionism advocated by Sen. Graham runs against the most basic principles underlying the American republic. The colonists revolted against imperial rule. They did not set up a new nation in the hopes of imposing imperial rule upon others.

Moreover, they wanted a limited government dedicated to the protection of individual liberties. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a republic at home while enforcing an empire abroad. Even if that empire imposes a lighter yoke than previous variants.

As Randolph Bourne famously observed, "war is the health of the state." The U.S. currently accounts for half of the world's military spending. In real terms, America spends twice what it did on the military just a decade ago. And Washington today spends more in inflation-adjusted dollars than it did at any point during the Cold, Korean, or Vietnam Wars. It does not do so to protect America. It does so in an attempt to run the world.

Yet intervention never seems to end. Instead, intervention begets intervention. For instance, supporting dictators in Cuba and Nicaragua helped trigger communist revolutions, which then led to American attempts at counter-revolution.

The U.S. ousted Iran's democratically-elected government in 1953. A quarter century later the Islamists pushed out America's friendly dictator. The U.S. then backed Iraq against Iran, only later to turn against Iraq when it acted aggressively -- as Washington had feared Tehran would do. But ousting Saddam Hussein reestablished Iranian dominance in the Gulf, leading the U.S. most recently to back the Sunni monarchy in Bahrain in its crackdown on Shia democracy demonstrators, lest the latter turn to Iran. Rabid neocons want to start bombing Iran yesterday. And so it goes.

Sen. Graham is a prime example of unprincipled intervention. A couple of years ago he was supping with Moammar Qaddafi in Tripoli and discussing military aid. After all, the good colonel had given up his nuclear programs, taken on al-Qaeda fighters, and rejoined the "international community." Now Sen. Graham wants the U.S. military to oust Qaddafi. If the rebels take over and turn out to be other than Western-style liberals, next year Sen. Graham is likely to be advocating a new, American-backed war of liberation in Libya.

Alas, most of the names mentioned as possible Republican presidential contenders seem to share Sen. Graham's enthusiasm for sending young Americans out to bomb, invade, and occupy other nations for most any reason other than America's defense. Indeed, Libya is most closely modeled after Kosovo, where President Bill Clinton appeared to go to war because there were absolutely no U.S. interests at stake. Thus, he could feel good about himself. Never mind what was right for America.

The starting point for American foreign policy is America, both its values and interests. The best way to advance them is to construct a foreign policy of restraint, one devoted to respecting and protecting a republic with a limited government based on individual liberty.

The result is not isolationism. To the contrary, the American people should be freely involved in the world as traders and travelers, spurring commerce, sharing culture, and providing charity. Americans should be simultaneously teaching and learning. The U.S. government, too, should be engaged, cooperating with other states and international organizations when appropriate.

But promiscuous meddling should be avoided. And war always should be a last resort. Uncle Sam should not be an imperious scold, an obnoxious overlord, a moralistic dictator. Such a role is unbecoming a nation created to be a shining city on the hill, an example to the world. Perhaps more important today, it's an impossible role for an improvident power which can't pay its bills. The time for imperial neoconservatism is over.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1424