warmongering.
There's no need to surgar coat it ... interventionism leads to
warmongering.
The USA is not the world police or a charity organization.
The current interventionist policy our leaders in DC have adopted was
penned by Paul Wolfowitz in the Defense Planning Guidance.
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new
rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or
elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by
the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new
regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any
hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under
consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
It's a failed policy driven by fear.
In July 2008 Joe Klein wrote in TIME magazine that today's
neoconservatives are more interested in confronting enemies than in
cultivating friends. He questioned the sincerity of neoconservative
interest in exporting democracy and freedom, saying, "Neoconservatism
in foreign policy is best described as unilateral bellicosity cloaked
in the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy."
Why is American foreign policy and military intervention focused
almost solely on the middle east when countries on its own doorstep
which provide it with vast amounts of oil are being allowed to drift
out of American control?
On Sep 7, 9:32 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whoops!
>
> Ron Paul's Controversial Statement Exposes Foreign Policy Rift*By* *Tim
> Danie* <http://www.americanthinker.com/tim_daniel/>l
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/ron_pauls_controversial_statem...
>
> Tea party favorite and libertarian stalwart Congressman Ron Paul
> fanned<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54822.html>the flames
> of controversy last week, stating to WHO radio's Simon Conway
> that he in fact would not have ordered the Osama bin Laden kill, preferring,
> rather, an arrest and civilian-court trial for the 9-11 mastermind. Paul's
> statement was met with full-throated
> derision<http://rightwingnews.com/war-on-terrorism/moron-paul-says-we-shouldnt...>in
> GOP circlesas the "crazy uncle in the attic" became all-the-crazier
> with his simple
> admission.
>
> Pulling the curtain away from the issue, did Ron Paul simply expose a giant
> chasm between two foreign policy trains of thought in the conservative
> movement?
>
> I'm not as anti-war as Ron Paul and neither are most conservatives. For
> instance, the Congressman's stance against waterboarding Gitmo detainees
> will never be viable in mainstream Republican opinion. His shocking
> statement on the bin Laden kill mission's legality is another. Regardless,
> strains of Paul's foreign policy libertarianism are being discussed in
> circles that up until recently might not have been.
>
> On radical Islam, many conservatives find themselves in-between
> libertarians<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http...>and
> strong defense, Goldwater
> conservatives<http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Barry-Goldwater/dp/0895...>:
> those who want a strong defense yet find themselves leery of the "any war,
> any time, anywhere<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/you-ve-come-long-way-baby_555622....>"
> neo-conservative credo that has dominated recent American foreign policy.
>
> More and more conservatives today favor a formal congressional declaration
> of war (as required by Article One, Section Eight of the
> Constitution<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http...>)
> and are also overwhelmingly leery of the perpetual nation-building limbo
> that the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq have become. A telling moment
> exemplifying this theme took place when Obama's recent engagement in Libya
> found more opposition on the conservative side than the anti-war left. Some
> of the reaction was partisan, certainly, but fatigue with myriad wars --
> sans discernible timetables -- is palpable in pro-defense circles.
>
> Libertarian-leaning conservatives often find themselves closer to Ayn Rand's
> views of a strong military and defense guided by American exceptionalism and
> rational, effective self-defense. Rand offered no tolerance for anti-war
> libertarians, unendearlingly calling
> them<http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,125000,00.html>the
> "hippies of the right," but that doesn't mean that a coming together
> of
> the two sides is a non-starter in confronting the excess of the Pentagon's
> sub-trillion-dollar budget.
>
> For instance, departments in the Pentagon overlap, often serving no higher
> purpose than oversight of lower tier departments. Calling for the
> elimination of this kind of redundancy is immediately palatable. Another
> option is found in eliminating the practice of departmental spending based
> on the previous year's allocated budget. Many departments engage in a mad
> rush at the end of the budget year in order to match spending numbers and
> avoid cutbacks. Departments and managers should be rewarded for saving
> taxpayer dollars, not the opposite. Confronting this largess is also
> immediately achievable.
>
> Freshly minted Kentucky Senator Rand Paul also notes the unnecessary cost of
> myriad Cold-War-era military bases across the world. U.S. garrisons in
> wealthy nations over sixty years after the resolution of World War II, the
> senator from Kentucky argues, are simply unnecessary and unaffordable. A
> rational discussion on closing these bases could find much-needed common
> ground.
>
> The most important approach -- or whole enchilada, if you will -- is
> policy-driven and philosophical. As our nation teeters on the edge of the
> bankruptcy, we can no longer afford the decades-past vision of government
> both domestic and military. Instituting reliable withdrawal timetables for
> both Iraq and Afghanistan -- withdrawal that serves both the respective
> missions in those theaters of war as well as the blood, sweat, and tears of
> the troops that served there* *-- would signal a monumental start in setting
> boundaries for our government. Beyond these steps, nothing short of a
> complete reevaluation of the mission and purpose of the United States
> military is needed today.
>
> Because the Republican chasm on spending does not stop at the doorstep of
> foreign policy, many of the Herculean decisions before us will be all the
> more difficult. All of the top-tier GOP presidential candidates in the 2012
> race have big-government skeletons in their respective closets. Candidates
> like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt
> Gingrich, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and former Utah Governor
> and Chinese Ambassador Huntsman do not hold consistent views or track
> records on the proper, limited role of government. The two
> libertarian-conservative<http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/gary-johnson-vs-ron-paul-res...>candidates
> in the field are
> the only ones that hold such a distinction both domestically and in the
> realm of foreign affairs.
>
> Given the dire financial position that this nation finds itself in and the
> tough leadership and consistent Reagan-esque vision required to confront it,
> trustworthiness on the issue of cutting government spending is vital. A
> rethinking of our nation's foreign policy and overall role of government --
> or in the least, spirited discussion -- may just reconcile the divide taking
> place among fiscal conservatives, defense hawks, social conservatives and
> libertarians that find their home in the GOP.
>
> Our financial future and status as a free nation depends upon the success of
> the discussion.
>
> *A resident of California and small business owner, Tim Daniel blogs daily
> at **leftcoastrebel.com* <http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/>*.*
>
> .
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment