pana Loc: are we there yet?

This se******n is from chapter 7 of Laurence Vance’s War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy, now available in the Mises Store.

The WikiLeaks revelations have shined a light on the dark nature of U.S. foreign policy, including, as Eric Margolis recently described it: “Washington’s heavy-handed treatment of friends and foes alike, its bullying, use of diplomats as junior-grade spies, narrow-minded views, and snide remarks about world leaders.”

As much as I, an American, h**e to say it, U.S. foreign policy is actually much worse. It is aggressive, reckless, belligerent, and meddling. It sanctions the destabilization and o*******w of governments, the assassination of leaders, the destruction of industry and infrastructure, the backing of military c**ps, death squads, and drug traffickers, and imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism. It supports corrupt and tyrannical governments and brutal sanctions and embargoes. It results in discord, strife, hatred, and terrorism toward the United States.

The question, then, is simply this: Can U.S. foreign policy be fixed? Although I am not very optimistic that it will be, I am more than confident that it can be.

I propose a four-pronged solution from the following perspectives: Founding Fathers, military, congressional, libertarian. In brief, to fix its foreign policy the United States should implement a Jeffersonian foreign policy, adopt Major General Smedley Butler’s Amendment for Peace, follow the advice of Congressman Ron Paul, and do it all within the libertarian framework of philosopher Murray Rothbard.

Thomas Jefferson, our first secretary of state and third president, favored a foreign policy of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” This policy was basically followed until the Spanish-American War of 1898. Here is the simple but profound wisdom of Jefferson:


“No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another.”



“We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe.”



“I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.”



“We have produced proofs, from the most enlightened and approved writers on the subject, that a neutral nation must, in all things relating to the war, observe an exact impartiality towards the parties.”

No judgment, no meddling, no political connection, and no partiality: this is a Jeffersonian foreign policy.

U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. After leaving the military, he authored the classic work War Is a Racket. Butler proposed an Amendment for Peace to provide an “absolute guarantee to the women of America that their loved ones never would be sent overseas to be needlessly shot down in European or Asiatic or African wars that are no concern of our people.” Here are its three planks:

1. The removal of members of the land armed forces from within the continental limits of the United States and the Panama Canal Zone for any cause whatsoever is hereby prohibited.

2. The vessels of the United States Navy, or of the other branches of the armed services, are hereby prohibited from steaming, for any reason whatsoever except on an errand of mercy, more than five hundred miles from our coast.

3. Aircraft of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps is hereby prohibited from flying, for any reason whatsoever, more than seven hundred and fifty miles beyond the coast of the United States.

Butler also reasoned that because of “our geographical position, it is all but impossible for any foreign power to muster, t***sport and land sufficient troops on our shores for a successful invasion.” In this he was echoing Jefferson, who recognized that geography was one of the great advantages of the United States: “At such a distance from Europe and with such an ocean between us, we hope to meddle little in its quarrels or combinations. Its peace and its commerce are what we shall court.”

And then there is our modern Jeffersonian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, the only consistent voice in Congress from either party for a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention. In a speech on the House floor several months before the invasion of Iraq, Ron Paul made the case for a foreign policy of peace through commerce and nonintervention:


A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas.



We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations — no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO.



The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

For the libertarian framework necessary to ensure a foreign policy of peace and nonintervention, we can turn to libertarian political philosopher and theoretician Murray Rothbard:


The primary plank of a libertarian foreign policy program for America must be to call upon the United States to abandon its policy of global interventionism: to withdraw immediately and completely, militarily and politically, from Asia, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, from everywhere. The cry among American libertarians should be for the United States to withdraw now, in every way that involves the U.S. government. The United States should dismantle its bases, withdraw its troops, stop its incessant political meddling, and abolish the CIA. It should also end all foreign aid — which is simply a device to coerce the American taxpayer into subsidizing American exports and favored foreign States, all in the name of “helping the starving peoples of the world.” In short, the United States government should withdraw totally to within its own boundaries and maintain a policy of strict political “isolation” or neutrality everywhere.

The U.S. global empire with its 1,000 foreign military bases and half a million troops and mercenary contractors in three-fourths of the world’s countries must be dismantled. This along with the empire’s spies, covert operations, foreign aid, gargantuan military budgets, abuse and misuse of the military, prison camps, torture, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, nation building, spreading democracy at the point of a gun, jingoism, regime changes, military alliances, security guarantees, and meddling in the affairs of other countries.

U.S. foreign policy can be fixed. The United States would never tolerate another country building a string of bases around North America, stationing thousands of its troops on our soil, enforcing a no-fly zone over American territory, or sending their fleets to patrol off our coasts. How much longer will other countries tolerate these actions by the United States? We have already experienced blowback from the Muslim world for our foreign policy. And how much longer can the United States afford to maintain its empire?

It is time for the world’s policeman, fireman, security guard, social worker, and busybody to announce its retirement.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-11/guest-post-how-dismantle-american-empire

vernon

a great post right on the money

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

How long has it been since our ships "steamed"? Do you realize this is 2014, Pana?

You seem to forget Jeffersonianism led to three wars--the war with Britain in 1812, the Mexican War, and the Civil War. We sided with Napoleonic tyranny in 1812. In contrast Washington and Hamilton wanted to lead an American bricade to aid the Brits against the French. Daniel Webster and the Whigs opposed the Mexican War, partly because they did not want expansion of s***e territory.

You quote your "heroic" general source to the effect that America has geographic protection against any enemy. That was true at one time. It hasn't been true for almost a hundred years now. Are you forgetting Pearl Harbor? 9/11? the invention of weapons of mass destruction?

We forced representative "puppet" governments on Japan and on South Korea after WWII and by 1970 the economic success and strong self-governments there were the basis on which the Chinese withdrew from international c*******m, reached Chinese/American accommodation, and focused on its own economic development. Britain's empire in the 1800s and first half of the 1900s wasn't exactly "politically correct" but the Brits created freedom and self-government in south Asia and Africa without which the world would not be moving toward freedom and self-government...without which the "Third World" would have gone C*******t and the Cold War would have resulted in a half-c*******t, half self-government divide today instead of the end c*******m came to in the 1980s. Geopolitics is as dirty and ambiguous as national politics, as uncertain and imperfect, but our foreign policy as was the case with the Brits through five centuries of the development of freedom and self-government is aimed not at empire but a future civilization where freedom and self-government are assured on a universal basis...a "federal" union of nations like our federal union of states. That wouldn't happen if we had stayed out of WWI, WWII, had not fought the Cold War (including the lost battle in Nam...we don't always win every battle), and surely we face this one more challenge to the future of freedom and democracy as the Muslim world t***sitions from feudalism to forms of freedom and self-government hopefully without a tyrant phase like Napoleon, Wilhelm II and N**ism, Stalin and international C*******m, the Japanese imperial phase in those nations t***sitions from feudalism.

pana Loc: are we there yet?

You accuse me of not being up to date then jump directly back to 1812.
I didn't bother reading any further since you don't even seem to know what your point is.

vernon

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

In other words Pana tha yella banana ran again. ha. Didn't want to address the total contradiction of his version of American war history and American history. Pana banana, that yella fella ran again the fourth time. Oops, his poor brain cells are exploding again, angry yella fella that he is. Did you read any further than yella this time, Pana? Any brain cells left in your short supply? Any more pasta to post? Want to explain yourself and your pasta concoctions? Any words to address to your fella comrade right wing extremists here on OPP?

Oh, hi, Vernon. You joining in on the anti-American chorus Pana composed? Aren't you one of the self-proclaimed Tea Party "patriots"? ha.

pana Loc: are we there yet?

Here is a tip for you little jonnie. If you want someone to read your post you have to save the insult till the end like this dumb ass.
Now go run around and make those propellers on your beanie cap spin really fast for me. Hurry up. I will time you. :lol:

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

Spinning beanie caps are about your speed together with spinning right wing extremist story lines through pasta postings. Want to dish up some more anti-American imperialism pasta for us ignorant beanie cap children to devour and become recruited into the OPP right wing extremist sheepie flock?

No thank you, Pana, it smells just like the other right wing political garbage dished out on OPP, just fancied up with a little Putin puddin dressing. Put putt putttt.

pana Loc: are we there yet?

Good boy. Now go play somewhere else. The adults are having a conversation.
This trained seal actually thinks people are reading his posts. Bawahahaaaaa.

jonhatfield Loc: Green Bay, WI

What adults? Vernon? He's not a conversationalist, just an applauding audience of one. Moreover, unless I'm mistaken, you're only a student sheepie studying off-stream RWE-funded "institute" propaganda, not quite adult--though perhaps you aspire to certification and hiring by such propaganda mills. Go Faux!

You should be thanking me for being the only one who thought your post worth responding to, even if my motive was only about defining another peculiar aspect of the right wing extremist movement phenomenon.

pana Loc: are we there yet?

Here's your fish. Now back up on your half barrel till I call you.