Afghanistan and Iraq

In an attempt to understand the neo-con position regarding the Middle East, I've read a lot of the neo-con writings, including Norman Podhoretz's book -- World War IV. Podhoretz makes some good points regarding the danger of terrorism, and the failure of the paleo-conservatives, isolationists, realists and liberal internationalists to come up with a better response to terrorism than Bush's two-prong attack on Afghanistan and Iraq, but only as his points relate to the resistance of the Bush Doctrine being an obsession to destroy Bush and put Israel in its place rather than an alternate solution to terrorism. His points justifying preemptive attacks and the goal to democratize the region are not very good points, but then I'm a crazy non-interventionist -- not an isolationist, though, because I think we should interact globally through free trade while maintaining a policy of defensivism against terrorism -- more about this at the end of the post.

It appears there's a lot of pressure now for the U.S. to return to liberal internationalism, yet, there isn't much movement going on to reverse what Bush started. The rhetoric coming from the Whitehouse is influenced by liberal internationalism, but the actions are a continuation of the Bush Doctrine. You could say that we've gone too far to turn back in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I'm not sure this is correct -- we could pull out now and claim we've done everything we can, and that the region is now responsible for its own destiny, that this is as close to victory as you can get in this type of war with this type of enemy. I can't imagine anyone calling a pullout now a defeat, except the most ardent neo-cons who have been thoroughly discredited by the media and universities and liberal establishment as Podhoretz shows in his book. Obama won, so he can now establish his own doctrine as Commander-In-Chief.

The liberal internationalist rhetoric hasn't produced much support for a continuation of the two wars and the U.S. is practically going it alone, although I don't hear the cries of unilateralism, but that's another issue. The neo-con position is that a pull-out would encourage the terrorists to continue their war against the U.S., and would make Israel vulnerable, that it could be another Viet Nam-type disgrace, but I'm not sure this is the reality now -- perhaps a couple of years back it would have been. I don't really know how Obama is going to do anything different, though, than what Bush was doing. Oddly, there has been little indication of the long term plans regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. The recent report I linked to above shows some support for an early pullout from Iraq, but the adminsitration might be worried that an early pullout could backfire -- isn't this the neo-con position? Plus, even if the administration pulled out early in Iraq, all indications are that it would do so in order to concentrate more effort on Afghanistan -- but to what purpose?

I don't know -- it seems to me that the image projected is one of liberal internationalism, but the actions are more neo-con. Obama might be trying to put his own style on the leadership, but the goal seems to be to democratize the region. It could be a more realist goal of stabilizing the region, but this remains to be seen -- one thing is for sure, liberal internationalism is not working so far. And, to be fair to Obama, I doubt he will use preemption as a strategy in other countries such as Iran or North Korea -- so, perhaps he's winding down the current situation, looking for an escape hatch, but it sure seems like he has grander plans for Afghanistan for some reason which are, so far, unrevealed.

In the spirit of my previous post - Private Voices in The New Media - I believe our continuing focus on politics and government is leading us astray, even in foreign policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the whole war on terrorism -- and this is where I disgree with neo-cons and whatever we call Obama's doctrine when it materializes -- perhaps roll-back of regimes who don't follow our global vision. In Afghanistan, the enemy is becoming invisible. Around the world, small countries have options other than the U.S. -- China and India -- and it's becoming mainly economic options. As we waste our resources over-seas, being bled by invisible enemies who pin-prick us to financial collapse -- and as we pull in at home, centralizing and regulating and hamstringing business -- other countries are making economic advances and increasing their influence around the world, while despite the liberal international rhetoric, we're seen more and more as the dinosaur with a big stick. The big stick approach will not work in the global economy.

We've got to get down to the business of production, business and competition. Our problem is not terrorism, it's wasting our resources on fear of terrorism, and wasting our resources trying to be the leader of the world. Let the world take care of itself, we'll all join in competition and those who stay behind in superstitious ignorance will change or collapse. Yes, we have to defend ourselves against real threats, but we're smart enough to figure that out, or should be, without falling into the trap of our Middle East presence where the plan is to bleed and distract us to death, slowly. While we play this political game of American world leadership (control), China and India are moving forward economicially, and we're going backwards.

Trade wars of the future

A tip of the hat to Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062902307.html

As the US economy weakens, the unemployment rate rises and congress places more tax burdens on US businesses, there will be pressure to protect workers from imported goods. Plus the unions are going to demand protection from Obama, since they helped him get elected -- just saving GM is not near enough.

The rationalization for protection will most likely be an emotional appeal like all the big item changes are -- save the sick and poor, save the American worker who has given his/her greatest efforts to this country, save the planet for our children -- always remember the children!

I can see this emotional appeal being marketed in the media with personal stories of tragedy, of families thrown from their homes because jobs were lost, of individuals with hard hats and sad faces standing next to an empty factory, stories of executives escaping with millions who are now traveling the world and living it up. Nationalism will likely come into play -- the American way of life, traditional jobs victimized by globalization, foreign countries paying pennies for slave labor.

If the government goes this route and starts a trade war, we could be in for a long, hard depression. The present situation begs for economic freedom, lower taxes on business, less strangling regulation and global free trade, not war. I know that hardly anyone anymore believes that a strong economy, unburdened by taxes on businesses, capital gains and income, will create enough economic activity so that government revenue will increase rather than decrease, but it sure beats starting a trade war by circling the wagons. It's the difference of allowing the people of this country to go and make things happen and government trying to enforce safety even if it means stagnation and economic decline -- the difference between dynamic and static.

War on terror -- global trade

It's a mistake to underestimate the danger in the world. Many countries are controlled by gangs of criminals determined to maintain power by any means possible. The instability of these countries continues to fuel regional and internal conflicts. There is also a history in the U.S. of our government misusing power and applying interventionist strategies causing needless conflicts and needless death and destruction.

There's evidence though that countries can learn from their past mistakes and develope more peaceful means by which to co-exist in the world. The risk of major powers fighting in world wars has been lessened through economic interdependencies and the assured destruction which would be caused by dangerous weapons of war more deadly and destructive than anything used in previous wars. Global trade and non-interventionist policies are the hope for the future, along with the demise of the power of nation-states. Global markets will deepen interdependence and lessen the importance of military dominance. A strong defense will be necessary for all countries, because the world will most likely never be safe from all aggression.

Ruthless tyrants are not amenable to the normal reasoned approach used by most of the world's countries to settle disagreements and develope treaties regarding co-operation and co-existence issues. These countries under tyrannical rule can not last much longer because they're falling too far behind in a world of technology and production. The ones relying on oil will fold when alternatives are developed and they have nothing with which to replace the income.

After 9/11 a response was called for to determine the extent of what we were dealing with, but now we know. Whether the response was the correct response will be determined by history, but we haven't experienced repeated attacks in U.S. There's not much benefit in being a second-guesser when all the information is not available.

It does seem that now we can begin readjusting our foreign relations policies. What we've learned about terrorism ought to enable us to create a much better defense against attacks, while preserving our rights as free citizens. There's no need to give up rights of privacy, or speech, or property, or person in general in order to combat terrorism. The threat is not greater than our Constitution.

I have no way of knowing the right timing, but at some point relatively soon the U.S. would be better off if we removed all military personell from overseas military bases and returned defense responsibilities to countries we've been supporting militarily. Global trade is the movement to a more peaceful world. Free trade coupled with a policy of non-military intervention would set the tone for the shift from military solutions to economic solutions. The rise of NGOs is a movement that should be encouraged globally so that no few nations are acting as Super-Police on the world stage. Supporting these organizations without political influence will be a tricky endeavor, but it's worth the effort. International politics within the incompetent mechanizations of the UN have failed. Just as private solutions are more effective intranationally, they'll be more effective internationally. The motives to find real solutions will be present, while statist politics will often benefit from conflict. The US would be smart to remove itself from statist politics.

Terrorism would have to stretch its hatred to lengths even sympathetic countries would find unbelievable if the US is no longer maintaining an interventionist policy in international affairs. This doesn't mean we back down from threats, it merely means we transcend the backward notion of interventionist military solutions and go beyond through technology and capitalist economic growth. We can build a defense system which will be capable of keeping the country safe and answering any real threat, but we must change the game and not be drawn into impossible conflict-games where terrorists and anti-capitalists make the rules.

Libertarian view of peaceful, global trade

Our country really began changing at the turn of the 19th century and from the beginning of the 20th century until now, much has been written about FDR, somewhat less about Hoover, much about Kennedy and Nixon, and very little about Eisenhower. Eisenhower became president shortly after I was born in 1953 and I suppose the years between 1953 and 1961 were fairly uneventful, although the wild changes of the 60's were beginning at the end of his second term. I recently reread Eisenhower's farewell address and here is an except:

"in the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the hugh industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Eisenhower appeared to be a man who understood the reality of security but also the ever-present danger of military power unharnessed.. It's easy to look back in time and criticize certain military involvement such as the World Wars, Korea and Viet Nam, but one has to wonder where we would be today with more caution and restraint regarding our military power and influence. From my reading of history the country became too militaristic at the turn of the 19th century (although many in the public wanted peace and stability) and our vision of being a super power spreading "good" in the world caused us to act without caution all too often.

Going forward I think the US should be very cautious using military might and influence. Although it's still a dangerous world, for the most part the developed nations have moved beyond imperialism and ideas of world domination. We have the opportunity to replace war with peaceful trade. There's still the reality of terrorism, but how much of this is enflamed by the reality of our military might and the perception of the US trying to economically dominate the world? I'm not sure. I'm sure the motives of those causing conflict are diverse.

However, it seems to be time for a policy of strong national defense and miltary non-interference in the affairs of other countries. I also think it's time to withdraw from the UN and cease any western alliances built on military considerations. America has an opportunity to lead the world by example into the future. Free trade and military non-interference could place us in a neutral position if the miltary-industrial complex could be realigned to merely a national defense system with the purpose of protecting the country from foreign attack.

NGO's, truly disconnected from governments, could be strengthened, through their own efforts and goals, to handle international affairs so that politics and ulterior motives are removed from the interactions of nations resolving global problems. The nation-states have been too conflicted, too embroiled in political concerns.

The global economy doesn't need the obstacles of military involvement -- the global economy needs a new openness that allows the people of the world to peacefully trade and share all the technological advances which are being created daily. Regional conflicts aside, the world is ready for a long reign of peace and trade -- belligerent nation-states are hopefully becoming something of the past, to be replaced by diverse, peaceful cultures competing and co-operating in the world market to raise the standard of living for all.

The realist hawks will snicker and squawk, but it makes sense that the more information and knowledge we acquire, the more the evolution toward peaceful trade will become a reality. The fact that cultures are interacting more closely than ever in history tells me we'll lose our fear and ignorant differences in time. It's the self-serving governments of nation-states that are holding back progress. This is another reason why a libertarian vision of limited governments is an important vision -- if we can't gain freedom from the shackles of nation-states, then the world will be trapped in conflict.

Perhaps we should revisit non-intervention

Separating isolationism once and for all from non-interventionism would help clarify a reformed approach to foreign relations and national security. The US has become such a major power that's it's time to revisit non-intervention before more entanglements lead us into a dangerous quagmire -- we are well acquainted with quagmires. Non-intervention would include political and military non-intervention while allowing free trade, technological co-operation, immigration and cultural exchange.

Understanding our power and how our presence changes the dynamics of any international situation, or the internal conflicts of other nations, will guide us in understanding our future role in the global "community" -- I use "community" loosely because it's more of an unformed idea than an actuality, yet all nations communicate to deal with global problems, or what leaders call global problems.

Many think that the world is too dangerous and there are too many threats to our security for us to withdraw militarily and politically, yet I'm not sure this premise has been thoroughly examined, and the question remains if defense and intelligence are sufficient to deter the threats without a physical presence in other countries. Then there's the question of humanitarian intervention in nations where starvation, despotism and genocide call for a response from a powerful nation like the US.

These are difficult and complex issues and there are no simple answers, perhaps no answers at all, merely a decision to continue combatting the problems as situations arise based on past similar situations given the presenting facts -- yet this puts us at risk of dealing with symptomatic problems with symptomatic solutions and never creatively dealing with the fundamental problems -- a whack-a-mole policy of intervention with a growing tendency of preemption guessing where the next mole might pop up.

Are we leading the world toward a peaceful, global co-operation of prosperity, health, security and free trade, or are we being led to confusion, diffusion, attrition and bankruptcy? How well has intervention worked? Perhaps intervention was necessary in the past, but now needs to be reevaluated. Our reputation in the world is such that wherever we intervene, motives will be questioned, emotions and prejudices will be inflamed.

The first question that needs to be asked is -- What would happen if the US developed a non-intervention policy and announced a five year gradual withdrawal of all military personnel from overseas and that all bases would be closed, plus a withdrawal from the UN and a dissolution of all alliances with all nations? Would the UN take up the slack? Would some other nation insert its influence therefore guiding weaker countries in a direction unfriendly to the US -- would it matter? Perhaps our influence economically through peaceful, free trade would be enough to offset a loss of military and political influence. There's the danger that countries with imperialistc ambition would begin consolidating power by overtaking weaker countries --perhaps the UN would prevent this or perhaps they wouldn't. The risk might be too great to allow other countries the freedom to work out their own destinies. But I don't see this as an inevitable consequence.

For one thing, imperialism would be a difficult strategy in the 21st century. Nationalism and cultural differences present barriers to countries just going in and taking over a country -- it would be costly to maintain compliance and most countries don't have the resources to deal with the resistance and the negative reactions from other countries. The economic sanctions that could be applied to keep ambitious countries in line would most likely be enough to prevent forceful expansion.

As for humanitarian intervention, NGOs would most likely fill a void left by the US. Hopefully, true NGOs, not dependent on government subsidies, would be stengthened so that political motives are removed from the efforts to resolve the problems of struggling nations. The goal would be to allow non-goverment solutions to develope through the un-coerced interactions between nations in crisis and organizations specializing in assistance and conflict resolution. At first this seems like a naive approach but all the political manuevering of the past has only complicated matters, producing poor results, resentments and corruption. 

It's at least worth considering the consequences of a non-interventionist policy. It would surely change the game. With all the money we'd save by closing bases and removing our assistance, we could develop stronger defense systems and transfer the savings to productive economic activity. The world is still a dangerous place, but is our presence through intervention making the world safer or making it more dangerous? Large businesses which want to freely trade in a global market where there is stability and growth would be better served supporting NGOs in developing peaceful routes to global prosperity. I understand that madmen and despots of all stripes stand in the way, but it's worth considering more creative ways to deal with them -- super-power governments aren't doing such a splendid job of it.