|
There's More Than Just Interventionist Here and Isolationist There 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. Time to think outside the box. Enough is enough.
Why does the American government (and, to a degree, a large portion of the American people) feel the need to be part of everybody else's conflicts? Why does the USG insist on paying off (i.e. "international aid") hundreds of corrupt governments worldwide? Why does the USG have troops in over a hundred countries across the globe? Where did the idea that the USG has the right--and the duty--to meddle in other nations' regional affairs come from? Why, for example, did the USG overthrow Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala in 1954? Why did it go on to prop up dictator after bloody dictator in that country thereafter? Why did the USG support (to the tune of six billion dollars in military aid) a bloodthirsty junta-turned-government during that country's devastating civil war, between 1980 and 1992? Why did the USG get involved--via training, arms supplying, and financial aid--with the Contras of Nicaragua against their government? What made the USG feel justified in having such a stranglehold over Panama for most of the 20th century? Why did the USG get involved in Venezuela's internal politics in 2002 when it helped organize a coup against that country's democratically-elected leader, even if that leader is a pinhead? Why has the US been meddling in Colombia's internal politics and propping up private and state-sponsored violence in that country since at least 1988? Why did the USG get involved in the internal politics of Peru in the 80s and 90s, pouring money into the pockets of corrupt government leaders? Why has the USG meddled in the internal politics of Guyana? How about the USG's three unsuccessful coup attempts in Suriname? The USG's role in a coup in Brazil in 1964? Why did the USG get involved in Bolivia's internal politics, including taking part in coups and assassinations? Why did the USG back a bloody government in Paraguay headed by the criminal Alfredo Stroessner? Where did the USG think it inherited the right to interfere in Chilean elections? Why did the USG support and help fund a bloody dictatorship in Argentina responsible for the deaths of between 20,000 and 30,000 innocent people? Why did the USG get involved in the overthrow of a Portuguese political leader in 1975? Why did the USG sabotage elections in Italy in the late 40s? Why did it get involved in internal Italian politics in the 70s? Why did the USG get involved in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s and 00s, including arms shipments to various factions, the training of various factions, and actual involvement in the fighting itself? Why did the USG get involved a Greek civil war? And later, the internal politics of that country? How has the USG felt justified in pouring millions into Turkey, turning around and enacting embargoes on Turkey, getting involved in a coup, then going back to giving hundreds of millions in bribe money (woops, I mean aid) while ignoring serious human rights abuses, setting up military bases in the country, etc. etc. etc.? Wow. And this is just a smidgen from South and Central America and Europe. I haven't even gotten into Africa or Asia yet--and that includes USG's dastardly record of meddling in the Middle East. And I say all of this not as a denunciation of America (the "USG" and "America" are not the same thing by any means). On the contrary, I believe America is the world's greatest hope for liberty...if only it decides to follow its Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded! So--this, my friends, is foreign interventionism. This is what the Constitution gives no authorization for. This is what flies in the face of the principles of limited and restrained government as espoused by the Constitution's framers. Foreign interventionism breeds hate. It costs lives. It means that America gets stuck in age-old conflicts as well as new conflicts, neither of which the policy-makers in Washington usually understand at all. And extrication is extremely difficult, time-consuming, and costly in terms of both money and human life. I am not a foreign interventionist. Isolationism, on the other hand, says we not only stay out of everyone else's business, but we become entirely self-sufficient, closing the country off, like a fortress, to the rest of humanity. I am not an isolationist. Non-Interventionism states that we trade with people. We talk with people. We travel. As private citizens we strive to make a difference around the world both as individuals and through our own private charities, foundations, and human rights organizations. We are a beacon of liberty to the world by example. This is the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, and that difference is mammoth. "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." George Washington. And he lived in the days before telephones, TVs, the Internet, radio. Today, the plant of Liberty has all the tools it needs to grow, to spread. Dictators and tyrants and armies can't stop it, not forever. ...Except when those armies are OUR armies! America should be source of liberty (it certainly possesses the founding documents and principles to be so). Instead, Washington is sending out armies. Intentions don't matter--we're still sending out armies. This means we're making millions of enemies. We're meddling in hundreds of regional conflicts. We're spread thin. And we're stunting the growth of that plant called Liberty.
|
