Mixed Messages in America's Foreign Policy

Even as a private in the United States Marine Corps, I began to question the reasons that compel my country to send its young men, including myself, to risk life and limb in a needless conflict.

In October 3, 2007, I asked of these mixed messages:

Why do we expect trained killers, like myself, to enforce peace with the barrel of a gun pointed at those we claim to be fighting for?

The monster that is Saddam Hussein, the product of our interventionist policies, has been toppled and captured. Yet we insist in “staying the course.” How much longer?

It is troubling: that nearly four years later I find myself still asking these questions of not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Libya as well (not to mention our covert wars in over 120 countries);

That I am asking these questions under a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president who promised to end the war in Iraq;

That we are extending our presence in a “pacified Iraq” nearly a year after the war “ended” there;

That we are “withdrawing” from Afghanistan with an increase in troops;

That we are liberating Libya with bombs and leading the deposal of its dictator without ever being at war with them;

That our interventionist actions in Libya, which so mirrors that of our actions in Iran half a century ago, is being touted as a success and a new era of foreign policy;

And that we are providing material support to the very same Islamists we are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When confronted with these contradictions, it would be a mistake to conclude (as I did) that the message had been rendered obscure. That the lofty rhetoric of peace and liberty were merely lost in war’s misguidance. It is now clear that the message was never mixed, but had always been a travesty of the bloodstained truth: we must suffer perpetual war.

Civic Literacy Report: Elected Officials Know Less than the General Public

I could also title this post "Yet Another Reason for Year of Youth."

ISI recently conducted a civic literacy survey with 2,508 people and found that those who had held elected office scored an average of 44% vs. 49% for those never elected.

Among the more tragic statistics about elected officials from the report:

• Seventy-nine percent of those who have been elected to government office do not know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the U.S.
• Thirty percent do not know that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
• Twenty-seven percent cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
• Forty-three percent do not know what the Electoral College does. One in five thinks it either “trains those aspiring for higher political office” or “was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates.”
• Fifty-four percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Thirty-nine percent think that power belongs to the president, and 10% think it belongs to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
• Only 32% can properly define the free enterprise system, and only 41% can identify business profit as “revenue minus expenses.”

I'm guessing that the average Year of Youth participant -- or even YAL member in general -- could ace this test.  (I'm pretty sure that I could, though I admit I'm a little fuzzy on Sputnik.)  This is a great example of how much we need a new generation with a strong understanding of liberty, history, and the Constititution to win on principle.

Is it moral to use government funds?

The other day in my political research class the proffesor went on another rant about how much he despises libertarians and the right.  After a little back and forth about libertarinism in general he made the the following statement:

If libertarians really believed in their ideas, why would you attend this school?  Why would you accept Social Security or go to a public high school.  If you are true to your words you should not utilize any government service what so ever.

My reply to him was: "So what am I supposed to do about the roads?"

This later got me to think about the morality of accepting government funds.  I went to a public high school, drive on government roads all the time, pay taxes, and I attend a public college.  I have obviously used, and have benefitted from government funds.  For being so anti-state, I sure do use it a lot. 

This has always made me feel ucomfortable but I accepted it because school, and roads are for the most part monopolized  by the state.  However, I asked myself if I were out of school working full time and had a family that needed my income, would I take unemployment benefits if I were to lose my job all the sudden?  Would I apply for food stamps?

After some thinking I decided that I would take both, just as Rothbard and Walter Block have decided.

The Dangers of Libya

As rebel fighters take the capitol city of Tripoli, we should remember the dangers of meddling in foreign affairs. The Obama administration has called for Muammar Gaddafi to step down and allow the rebels to take control of the country. We have helped the rebels to overthrow Gaddafi's government with the assistance of NATO forces.