Posts in "Foreign Policy"

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 3 of 3)

zachfoster — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:14:48 +0000

Continued from Part II: How the Right Justifies Killing

Part III: How the Liberty Movement Resolves the Deadly Contradiction

Enter the liberty movement—the libertarian school of thought which resolves the great and deadly contradiction between the left and the right. Libertarianism is classically liberal and traditionally conservative, upholding alike the rights of unborn babies whose existence is viewed as inconvenient and foreigners with a language and a faith unpopular in the West. Unlike most of the leftists and rightists in America, libertarians hold the view that all human life is sacred, regardless of whether the party in question is a fetus, a prisoner of war, an unrepentant White Russian counter-revolutionary, or a Muslim who holds Israel in low esteem.

While they do oppose abortion on most counts, they will typically concede the choice to a woman if the pregnancy threatens her life and there is little chance of her surviving childbirth.** There is no sense in both baby and mother dying. This, however, is far from a common circumstance. Most abortions performed in the United States are done so on young women who, either by their own choice or under coercion of their male partners or other influential figures, are refusing to take responsibility for their actions, that being sexual activity that resulted in the creation of a new human life.

Syria: A Roadblock to an Iran War

aheram — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:59:32 +0000

The U.S. suggests a “coalition of the willing” to intervene in Syria:

The United States proposed an international coalition to support Syria’s opposition Sunday after Russia and China blocked a U.N. attempt to end nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that violence will escalate. Rebel soldiers said force was now the only way to oust President Bashar Assad, while the regime vowed to press its military crackdown.
The threat of both sides turning to greater force after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution raises the potential for Syria’s turmoil to move into even a more dangerous new phase that could degenerate into outright civil war.
[…]
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that chances for “a brutal civil war” would increase as Syrians under attack from their government move to defend themselves, unless international steps provide another way.

Just as it is in Libya, bloodshed is being used to justify even greater bloodshed. I suspect we will see a repeat of “We came, we saw, 30,000 Libyans died.”

What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 2)

zachfoster — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:26:27 +0000

Continued from Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing

Part II: How the Right Justifies Killing

Rightists love to award themselves the moral high ground for opposing abortion while simultaneously supporting wars of aggression with high civilian casualties. Indeed, on the economic front, conservatives who ironically subscribe to Keynesian economic theory are convinced that America’s entry into World War II is what restored economic prosperity -- that war is a good cure for economic depression. What a pro-life sentiment: War is good for the economy! Who cares about the loss of innocent life war always entails -- any time the country falls into economic recession, all Americans need to do is go to war and all will be well! </sarcasm>

Currently many Republicans are incredibly nervous about Iran developing nuclear weapons. Many of these unrepentant warhawks are crying out for the U.S. to “stop Iran from getting the bomb!” Yet they fail to think through what this means in practice.

How does one country stop a hostile country from doing something? Should the United States throw sanctions on Iran? That has already been done! Should the U.S. throw more sanctions at the rogue republic? Such an effort would be useless! Sanctions are a waste of time and also an agent of death when used against third world dictatorships. After all, cutting off food, trade, and other needed commodities will not change the plans of the Ahmadinejad regime; the regime is not representative of the Iranian people and no matter what, both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah will still eat gourmet meals while the poorest of the poor in Iran will die of starvation from the sanctions.

A Call to Collaboration

mvwindsor — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:39:42 +0000

On Saturday, February 4th, members of the Occupy movement across the globe are planning to hold various rallies and marches in their respective cities to protest the growing momentum of U.S. interventions and sanctions against Iran that are building up to a possible declaration of war. Given that U.S. liberty-minded activists are equally passionate about halting the spread of our overseas empire and the unconstitutional declarations of illegal wars, this event presents a historical opportunity for liberty activists and Occupiers to unite for a commonly shared goal.

The organizations lending their official endorsement to this cause are strikingly diverse, ranging from the Workers World Party to the Center for a Stateless Society.

I would like to urge all Young Americans for Liberty members to coordinate with their local YAL chapters for a planned collaboration with the Occupy movement on February 4th to show the Establishment that we stand together in solidarity against the unconstitutional wars that are declared without Congressional approval, wars which threaten to bankrupt our nation both morally and financially. According to the Facebook event page, so far every state has an anti-war Occupy event planned in major cities across the U.S. on Feb. 4th, and I am working with my local YAL chapter to engage with our own city's anti-war Occupy rally to be held this coming Saturday.

Twelve Steps to Admitting Neoconservatism is Progressivism

joel.hills — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:31:22 +0000

First off, my personal ideological testimony.

Having always had a healthy distaste for authority, I hate to admit I started my political journey as a “rebellious” liberal. That is, until I realized the logical concessions one must make in persisting as a statist. For instance, one must, all at once, distrust the government searching the home one harbors no umbrage toward the government having purchased for one in the first place.

So, I moved on down the ideological line.

Being a passionate reactionary, I soon stumbled awkwardly into full-on mainstream, “kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out,” neo-conservativism. My foreign policy position basically mirrored the plot of an episode of G.I. Joe. I entered into every episode knowing who was the good guy and bad guy; I knew the good guy was always right; and knowing was “half the battle.”

Rand Paul Disappoints

Brian Beyer — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:41:10 +0000

Rand Paul is good on some things, and not so good on others.

Earlier this week, Paul was detained in Nashville for refusing a pat down after an “anomaly” was spotted during his full body scan. The T.S.A. denies that he was detained citing some Orwellian semantics. His refusal was noble and deserves applause, especially when considering his standing as an American Senator.

But just because Rand is good on some issues of the warfare-police state should not give him a free pass from scrutiny. Case in point: Rand Paul voted for the Kirk-Menendez amendment on December 1, 2011. Equally disappointing is that his vote flew straight under the radar. Whether unnoticed or ignored, antiwar vigilantes failed on this one.

The Kirk-Menendez amendment (#1414) seeks “To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran.” The amendment’s main focus is on Iran’s oil industry: “Sanctions imposed…shall apply with respect to a foreign financial institution owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country including a central bank of a foreign country, only insofar as it engages in transactions for the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products to or from Iran.”

The Unintended Consequences of Government Policy

maske1ka — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:11:11 +0000

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people -- and especially of government -- always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

Consider the following short list of legislation and packages of bills:

Federal Reserve Act of 1913
The New Deal
The Great Society
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Dodd-Frank Act
Department of Education Organization Act
Reorganization Plan Number 3 (Environmental Protection
Agency)
Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Food and Drug Administration)

It seems that most people take these pieces of legislation at face value and defend them based on what they were taught in school or what they see and hear on television. Popular opinion is quick to point out the sincere intentions of these pieces of legislation and the importance they play in our lives. Popular opinion is also as quick to shy away from talking about the reality of these pieces of legislation in what is commonly referred to as the unintended consequences.

A Foreign Policy of Peace

Jeremy Davis — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:30:10 +0000

The non-interventionist approach to foreign policy is often mischaracterized as nothing more than dangerous isolationism appeasing our enemies. At one point during the most recent Republican presidential debate, the mere suggestion of endorsing peace through the golden rule in regards to American foreign policy was met by a round of boos from the audience.

The golden rule, taught by many of the world’s religions, is most commonly expressed as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The lesson is that if you treat others with respect, you shall be shown respect in return. Simple enough for third graders, this is mind-boggling for the Washington crowd. And when applied to an interventionist foreign policy such as that of the United States, it can essentially be boiled down to this: Don’t cause trouble around the world if you don’t want the world causing trouble at home.

It is beyond foolish and incredibly naïve to believe that the United States can go around the world dropping bombs on whomever it pleases without inciting a negative reaction. The fact of the matter is that the United States is resented in many parts of the world simply because it assumes the role of its policeman. If indeed another country, such as Russia or China decided to invade and even occupy the mainland United States, you can bet our reaction would not be all that dissimilar from those protesting America's actions on their lands.

Who Are the 1 Percent?

aheram — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:01:52 +0000

I gave an antiwar speech at Occupy the Rose Parade, where I sought to define the "1 Percent" for my fellow occupiers.

Soldier in Trouble for Exercising Political Speech

aheram — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:18:25 +0000

A reserve soldier is in trouble after appearing in a campaign event while in uniform:

Cpl. Jesse Thorsen spoke at Paul's post-Iowa caucuses rally to give his support for the Texas congressman and his non-interventionist -- critics say isolationist -- policies calling for strict limits on the use of U.S. military power.
But Thorsen, 28, a reservist who preceded his appearance at the rally with an interview on CNN, was wearing his fatigues, and that is a violation of military code.
According to the Defense Department directive on political activities by military members, active duty forces are encouraged to vote and can sign petitions, serve as polling volunteers, contribute to campaigns and display political bumper stickers on their private vehicles.
However, they may not "participate in partisan political fundraising activities ... rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one's own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement."
They also may not "speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause" or "participate in any radio, television or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate or cause."

Silly soldier thinks he has political rights.

Pentagon to Cut Troop Levels, But Does It Mean a Smaller Military?

aheram — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:11:30 +0000

The Washington Post has this bit of news regarding President Barack Obama's announcement of a new leaner approach towards militarism:

The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a new military strategy that shifts the Pentagon’s focus towards Asia and says the country’s dire budget problems necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals.
The strategy will almost certainly mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps as well as new investments in long-range stealth bombers and anti-missile systems that are designed primarily to counter China’s military buildup. It explicitly states that America can make due with a smaller nuclear force.

Why does this sound familiar? Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush administration's defense secretary, attempted to do the very same thing a few years ago:

[Rumsfeld's] goal in this pivotal year is to keep Iraq and Afghanistan at bay so he can turn to closing bases at home and realigning global forces even as combat continues...
[...]
But across the Pentagon, officials acknowledge that the twin tasks of building Iraqi security forces and defeating the insurgency stand in the way of Mr. Rumsfeld's longstanding ambitions to fundamentally transform the nation's military into something leaner, more agile and thoroughly modern. Success in Iraq would allow troop withdrawals to begin, relieving strains on budgets and personnel.

What happened instead? Rumsfeld oversaw the surge in Iraq and a military budget that has become more bloated year after year. Defense spending in the United States has more than doubled since military conflicts began in 2001.

Important Bill: The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011

Bonnie Kristian — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:23:31 +0000

Thanks to Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for sponsoring an important bill to fight the dangerous provisions of the NDAA:

Senator Mike Lee co-sponsored the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, which clarifies that a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens or legal residents who are apprehended in the United States.
“The government’s most basic responsibility is to protect the civil liberties of its citizens,” said Senator Lee. “Our nation has fought wars on American soil and around the world in defense of individual liberty, and we must not sacrifice this most fundamental right in the pursuit of greater security. Without freedom there is no security."
“Americans who commit treason, or plot treasonous acts, should and will be punished for their crimes. But granting the United States government the power to deprive its own citizens of life, liberty, or property without full due process of law goes against the very nature of our nation's constitutional values.”

Read more here. Only 15 Senators have sponsored this bill to date. Click here to see if yours have -- and tell them to if they haven't.

Non-intervention: Liberal or conservative?

cityoflight — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:01:22 +0000

Is opposition to war and support for a non-interventionist foreign policy a liberal position, or a conservative one?

Look at the historical record and the answer is clear.

The majority of the major conflicts -- both declared and undeclared wars -- of the 20th century have been started by Democratic presidents. Indeed, President Obama has continued that tradition quite effectively, with undeclared military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya during his first term. Granted, he did not originate all of these engagements, but to imply that Obama has been a dovish president is odd, to say the least.

And some remarks from historical conservative figures:

I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people. – Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican”

U.S. Secretly Preparing for Syria Intervention

aheram — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:57:34 +0000

It is confirmed that Syria is indeed next. Antiwar.com's Jason Ditz reports:

Members of the Obama Administration are confirming tonight that the National Security Council has been instructed to begin seeking options for US intervention in Syria, including what they call the “unlikely” option of setting up a no-fly zone.
The process is being led by NSC Director Steve Simon, and is said to involve top members of the State, Defense and Treasury Departments. The focus is on ways to “aid” the Syrian opposition.

If or when intervention happens and succeeds, what then? Four months ago, I wrote about what we could expect in a post-Assad Syria:

When military intervention does occur in Syria, the question is not whether Assad’s regime will fall (it will fall when faced with the combined military might of the U.S. and NATO), but just how much bloodier the aftermath would be.

Terrorism: When knowing all the facts becomes taboo

cityoflight — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:20:04 +0000

As a rule, our society does not cheer on those who willfully ignore the information that will help them solve a problem. From a young age, children are taught to gather as many facts as possible before making a decision. Thoroughness and attention to detail are lauded in the workplace. In politics, however, these lessons are selectively applied. Too often, those who attempt to understand the motivations of anti-American terrorism are cast aside as naïve at best and disloyal at worst.

Understanding motive is an invaluable part of law enforcement. When someone is suspected of a wrongful act, one of the first steps we take is to try to find out why that person might have done it. So why does knowing all the facts suddenly become taboo when dealing with perhaps the most serious threat to our security?

If a man discovers that his wife has been unfaithful and proceeds to murder her, we do not absolve him of his moral and legal responsibility for the act. We condemn his behavior and punish it according to the law. But at the same time, we do not pretend that there was no connection between the victim’s infidelity and her husband’s crime. Recognizing the motivation behind the murder does not imply that it was justified. No one would equate acknowledgment of the circumstances leading to the act with blaming the victim or excusing the perpetrator’s behavior.

But this is exactly what takes place when we ask the very sensible question of what motivates thousands of people around the world to try to kill us. Where did this hatred originate? What exacerbates it, and what can we do to eliminate it? These are legitimate inquiries, yet earnest examination of them is discouraged. If knowing the answers to these questions will make us safer, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to seek them out? The bottom line is that shaping the facts to fit a more comforting narrative does nothing to protect us.