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.

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.