Trading in Burqas
(29 April, 2008)

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.

We're going to stick to the good old Republican presidential primary debates today as we delve further into the concept of isolationism vs. non-interventionism. Let's go over a few more pearls of wisdom from the man who could be our next president, Senator John McCain.

McCain: Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with al-Qa'ida, all they want to trade is burqas. I don't want to travel with 'em, they like one-way tickets.

This little joke about the terrorist organization responsible for thousands of innocent American deaths is extremely interesting because it reveals the Senator's absolute lack of knowledge when it comes to recent history and particularly U.S. foreign policy over the last 20-30 years. The fact that he could say this and get away with it is mind-boggling.

"I'm not interested in trading with al-Qa'ida." Mr. McCain here unwittingly made a point for Ron Paul and other non-interventionists when he made this assertion. He's right on! This is one of the purposes of a non-interventionist foreign policy: to prevent the government from forming relationships with unsavory characters who may later become our enemies!

How many times has that happened in the past? Five? Twenty? Fifty? It's embarrassing the number of "allies" who, ten years later, having been armed and funded by the U.S. taxpayer, turn around and morph into our mortal enemies. Osama bin Laden was armed and supported by the United States during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. We helped build training camps. We gave him guns and rockets and dollars.

Ten years later he's blowing up our embassies in Africa and masterminding the destruction of the WTC, the Pentagon, and probably the White House using large passenger aircraft. So we invade Afghanistan to topple a government we helped put in power, then, a couple years later, we invade Iraq with the aim of--you guessed it--taking out a dictator we'd helped support, arm, and fund just fifteen years earlier. Sound logical? Foreign interventionism rarely is.

And there are always unintended consequences. Blowback. This is agreed upon by the most informed in the academic and intelligence communities. So thank you, Mr. McCain, for stating emphatically that you don't want relations with al-Qa'ida. Where were you when we were supporting al-Qa'ida's leader, training its members, arming its foot soldiers?

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. McCain made an argument, albeit in a joking manner, in support of non-interventionism. None of us non-interventionists, from Ron Paul and myself to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, would have wanted relations with Osama bin Laden. We all would have known that there would be unintended consequences. Getting involved in foreign conflicts is dangerous, unstable, and better left off of the table. There will be blowback. It's a fact of life.

And somewhere, deep down, McCain obviously knows it, too. He said it, whether willfully or otherwise. That's not surprising, however. This is plain, simple, common sense.