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.

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.