|
McCain: Another century of "stability?" Ah, more of the same: politicians acting like they know and understand history, the concept of liberty, or the role of government intended by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this month (April 2008), John McCain appeared on the David Letterman Show and discussed Iraq and the War on Terror. More specifically, he tried to explain his "one hundred years if necessary" comment by pointing to similar necessities in the past--like our stationing of troops in Korea, Germany, and Japan. L: Quickly, John, and I hate to say "quickly," four thousand American soldiers dead since we went into Iraq, another thirty thousand wounded, untold Iraqis dead. We rarely hear that number. What would that number be? A quarter of a million? Half a million? M: I think it's hard to make the assessments, but it's in the hundreds of thousands, obviously, and millions more fled the country. This is, uh, this has been a very, very tough and frustrating time. L: Exactly, and irrespective of one's view at the time, because everybody knew there needed to be some action and everybody...was absolutely in favor or doing something...um, now, knowing it maybe was not the proper course, what the hell are we left with? You say we're going to have troops in there for a long, long time-- M: Can I clear that up? So here's where McCain tries to justify his past statements supporting an American troop presence in Iraq for "a hundred years" if need be. Enlighten us. L: Well, I understand what you're talking about. You can't just walk out without a presence, you can't just leave that mess-- M: Exactly, but also what I meant, David, really was that after the Korean War we left troops in South Korea, after the war with Japan and Germany we left troops there-- So now we're holding up the Korean War and its aftermath to justify the possibility of stationing troops in Iraq for decades, perhaps a century or more? My question to you, Mr. McCain, is this: why are those troops still there? What are they doing these days in Japan? In Korea? In Germany? What purpose do they serve? Why do Americans pay for this global military presence? Most importantly, what lessons can we learn from the past fifty to sixty years in this regard? The interview continues: L:--Not ideal, but that's what's called for. Really? Do tell us why. M: And they provided stability in the region. An argument could be made against this statement on a number of levels. Firstly, did they provide "stability?" Do they now? Many would disagree. Instead of forcing other nations to work out their own problems, a few ill-informed policymakers in Washington decide it's in America's--and the world's--best interest to inject the country into the middle of age-old feuds and centuries-old hatreds half-way across the world. What have our troops done in Korea? Many would argue we've prevented the North Koreans from invading the South, and that may have been true decades ago. But who is seriously going to argue that North Korea would invade South Korea today? They'd be obliterated. South Korea is more than capable of defending itself. And yet, there we are. No one talks about leaving. And therein lies the problem. Once government gets involved in something, be it a large-scale program or some sort of military occupation, it's near impossible to extricate it. And all the while billions and trillions of dollars are flushed down the toilet year-in, year-out, forever. What are our troops still doing in Germany? McCain says we're providing "stability" to the region. Really? How so? It's been almost twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell. Why are we still there? Why aren't the European countries defending themselves? Why is a combination of American taxpayer dollars and American young men and women required to subsidize the defense of first-world Europe? "Stability in the region." Right. Same goes for Japan. Ask any Japanese person if they want us there. Ninety percent of the time the answer is an emphatic "No!" Are we providing "stability in the region" or are we simply breeding something that ranges from a growing uneasiness to a bitter hatred of the United States around the world? I've lived for at least two years on five continents, and I can tell you that a "positive" article about "America" is a rarity from India and Singapore to Ethiopia, South Africa, and Germany. Even the countries we're supposed to be providing "stability" and protection for (like France) are learning to truly loathe us. Secondly, what right does the U.S. government have in this regard? What does the Constitution say about this sort of thing? The fact is that the government has no authority to station its troops en masse across the globe (this is a whole new topic that we can delve into later). The point of the Constitution was to limit government. What was it Thomas Jefferson said? Oh yeah: "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." Hear, hear. And the same goes for the rest of the world. For those who disagree, at least I have George Washington on my side: "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world," he said. My, how things have changed. These days, there is no candidate for president who would agree with that in any way, shape, or form (except for Ron Paul, of course). Mr. McCain, unfortunately, is no exception. Far from steering clear of entangling alliances, it is now our policy not only to enter into them, but to station our troops by the hundreds of thousands in sovereign nations all over the world for decades, possibly centuries. I see no end in sight. So much for the Constitution and America's founding principles meant to restrain government. And there's not a lick of difference between any of the surviving three candidates--McCain, Clinton, and Obama--when it comes to the U.S. foreign policy of interventionism.
|