I concluded my last post with the idea that “Americans should no longer have to choose between Big Government at home, or Big Government abroad.” In this post, I will address Big Government abroad, and refer to ideas expressed previously on this website. This argument will carry with it an indictment of our current foreign policy, which means well, but has awakened broad disapproval from the American people, rendering a division with no foreseeable way of reconciling the differences between America’s Hawks and Doves. Common ground must first be sought for it to be found.
The time could not be more critical to find common ground; it’s a dangerous world out there. Just look at the last two days of piracy off the Horn of Africa for confirmation. Somali “pirates” – another word for “terrorists” – have seized a Saudi oil tanker, a Thai fishing vessel, a British supertanker, and an Iranian cargo carrier. In fact, there have been eight ships seized in the last twelve days. The Saudi vessel is carrying 2 million barrels of oil and is three times larger than a US aircraft carrier. We must go beyond asking how the Administration, or specific parties, deal with our problems, and instead start hammering out an American way forward. Do we negotiate with terrorists? We are the most powerful nation in the world, and as such, have some responsibility in setting a relational tone with other nations, to be emulated throughout the world. How do we relate to tribes with which we share little similarities in mindset?
Ultimate resolution between our Hawks and Doves will necessitate a restructuring of our nation’s overall world view; this is the only way to save our nation from global misperception and subsequent attacks. Attacks on America (and our interests) inevitably lead to a reaction. Establishing an encompassing, general foreign policy mindset to face any threat is therefore the challenge facing this generation.
Money, and specifically our economic relationships to other nations, remains the primary inhibitor to any coherence in foreign policy. This troubling reality is sacrificing our national security for our economic interests. Why do we treat China differently than we do Russia? Why do we treat Saudi Arabia differently than we do Iran? Follow the money.
These countries all have documented civil rights violations, on similar levels. Civil liberties remain the pretext for freedom and self-reliance throughout a country. We claim to fight for the advancement of freedom abroad, but turn a blind eye to a nation’s domestic policies if it behooves our foreign policy with them. Free market principles should, in turn, promote the freedoms they are based upon; otherwise our economic partners are simply exploiting a system they have no interest in defending.
While we have a solemn responsibility throughout the world, we must determine whether or not we want to return to a Republic, or plummet into an Empire, which would ultimately fail. Arguments against a strong national defense posture abound, and counter any impulse to expand our influence abroad. Republicans, hesitant to break ranks on this issue, need to listen if they want to save their party.
Point: resisting hegemony
Those who have come before us have offered words of caution regarding these impulses towards hegemony. Felix Morley, one of the founders of the conservative weekly publication Human Events, stated in his 1957 essay, “American Republic or American Empire,” “We are trying to make a federal republic do an imperial job, without honestly confronting the fact that our traditional institutions are specifically designed to prevent centralization of power… at some time, and at some point, however, this fundamental conflict between our institutions and our policies will have to be resolved.”
During World War II, the Republican Party’s chief idealogue, Senator Robert A. Taft, aka “Mr. Republican,” stated that, “Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.” In their book, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, Robert Kirk and James McClellan wrote, “The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas has not been heartening, and the American Constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption.”
Do these sentiments represent the same Republican Party of today? Obviously not. In my last post, I said, “The libertarian wing of the Republican Party has a stronger seat at the table today than it did before the election.” Our incoherent foreign policy regretfully illustrates this notion. The stifling of ideas from the wings has crippled the Republican Party. I hate antiwar pacifism as much as the next guy, but these arguments within the GOP must be heard in order to stay afloat. As John McCain said in his first appearance since his concession speech (on Jay Leno), “Our party has a lot of work to do. We just got back from the woodshed.”
Congressman Ron Paul, in his 2008 manifesto, The Revolution, quips, “It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionalism, occupation, and nation-building.” Personally, I remain restrained in the call for non-interventionalism, although I lend credence to these arguments, especially when delivered sensibly.
These sentiments are saturated in Thomas Jefferson, highly idealistic, and do not seem practical for our current situation. While non-interventionalism could be a final goal of sorts, it should be recognized that it may not be achievable in the next fifty years, if at all. I’d like to cite the root of my hesitation with some personal references. As Patrick Henry said in his famous 1775 speech, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”
Counterpoint: promoting liberty
I toured the National Holocaust Museum with my wife the weekend before the election, just to get my mind right. I would contend this shocking reminder was somewhat of a catalyst in my decision to book a flight home in order to vote. My absentee ballot had been denied due to an administrative error, so I made a lot of phone calls the day before the election, and was registered to vote over the phone with the Texas Secretary of State’s office. I kept coming back to the claims of Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden: “Mark my words… It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama… Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy… gird your loins…”
I also remember my last day on watch as the Officer of the Deck on the USS Gonzalez in the Persian Gulf in July 2005. My ship was transiting the Straits of Hormuz when a Iranian Coastal Patrol Craft cut us off in a show of force, with their crew manning the rail, standing at attention. Was this sheer stupidity? We had ten times the fire power as them. Was this bravado? I recognized a strong sense of national pride present among the Iranians. This truth was reinforced thirty minutes later, when an Iranian P3 flew over our ship, taking pictures of us. I, in turn, got a few pictures of them.
Iran is perhaps the largest benefactor from our Iraqi invasion; let’s face it, we are much less likely to invade another Middle Eastern country, no matter what the costs, and the Shiites profitted greatly from regime change in Iraq. So considering their added strength and our diminished authority in the region, when the Iranian President professes his desire to “wipe Israel off the face of the map,” we should pay attention. Almost five years passed between the time Hitler invaded Poland (1939) and the American invasion of Normandy (1944); the Nazis began killing the Jews in 1938, during “The Night of the Broken Glass,” before the War even started. Consider these facts: jihad does not mean holy war, it means “to struggle;” Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison, which is German for “my struggle;” how long should we disregard the words of those who might – might – do us harm? How long do we haggle and horsetrade with these people for oil, which has become a security crutch for Americans, while we sacrifice individual freedoms, along with our reputation and credibility around the world? Contrary to the bumper sticker, peace is NOT progress, specifically when built upon a loss of freedoms.
I also learned from my experience overseas that not all Iranians want to “wipe Israel off the map” or consider it a “stinking corpse.” I met some Iranians in Dubai who were as “Western” as any American: free market capitalists, classically liberal, not religiously/ideologically driven. When offered a higher level of individual freedoms, most humans will natually take advantage of them. We have to sell freedom around the world, not force it; otherwise, it’s not freedom. We have to understand the global Muslim community has much to offer America, when working in coordination with America’s interests, and not against them, but stored in our minds, the caution of Thomas Jefferson: “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”
2008 and Beyond
So now we are left with a conflict of interests – eternal vigilance to fight for freedom, and the need to resist “nation building” around the world. Political parties must work together to forge ahead in the Post-9/11, Post-Iraq world. In the wake of the 2008 presidential election, it is worth noting the high volume of international saber-rattling from the likes of China (nuclear submarine spotted trailing USS George Washington, an aircraft carrier), Russia (threatening to move missiles to the border of Poland to counter US Missile Defense), North Korea (closing the border with South Korea), and Iran (testing missiles near the Iraqi border). Guiding principles must be established to work with these nations, as Hans Morgenthau stated, to “bend, not break” the will of our international partners (as discussed in my (R)enaissance series, Part 2).
When we don’t have an overarching mindset for approaching international relations, we render well-meaning folks who want to get out of Iraq, as they feel our invasion was uncalled for, but would like to enter Sudan, to stop the genocide in Darfur, although the Sudanese government warns the United Nations against any intervention. A legitimate argument could be made for or against either invasion, based on the “Point” and “Counterpoint” above; the problem now lies in a lack of principles.
To advance the cause of freedom, respect sovereignty, and improve our image abroad, all arguments must be heard in the most transparent of ways. I believe it is worth spelling out a list of principles we all agree upon (however short that might be), and then going from there. Within this framework, our Hawks can serve as a deterrent globally, and the Doves act as an intentional impedement to conflict. This is why I favored John McCain for President in today’s world; he would be the proverbial dog on a leash, held back by the very liberally Democratic 111th Congress. We instead now have a unified government behind a shockingly new however very inspirational President. We will see how the Obama Administration handles crises as they arise.
This beckons a final thought: what constitutes Obama’s guiding principles in foreign policy? Let’s turn to the heads of media, as their job is to investigate and report. On the Charlie Rose Show, the Friday before the election, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw – two of the most respected members of the media – were quoted as follows:
ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.
BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.
BROKAW: No, I don’t either.
ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: You know that’s an interesting question.
ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches, two of them.
BROKAW: I don’t know what books he’s read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
I guess we are left with Obama’s mantra – hope – to get us through the next four years. The prayers and hopes of America are backing President-elect Obama, with, as he calls them, “righteous” winds of change in America’s sails. I look forward to living through these times with all of you, whether conservative or liberal, headstrong and determined, as a fellow American in a fallen world.
Share on Facebook
