American Foreign Policy I

American foreign policy, right now, is in shambles. The mess in the Middle East is simply symptomatic of it. It's not all Barack Obama's fault, though he has certainly made things worse. Liberals do not understand a cardinal principle of humanity, and that is, some people are just evil and understand nothing short of the business end of a gun. Paul Johnson, the great British historian, wrote, "The experience of the 20th century indicates that self-imposed restraints by a civilized power are worse than useless. They are interpreted by friend and foe alike, not of humanity, but of guilt and lack of righteous conviction" (Modern Times, 636). If you try to be "nice" to some people, they will take advantage of you. To these thugs in the Middle East, "niceness" and "apologies" are weakness.  And weakness can, and will be exploited.  A foreign policy of apology--the cornerstone of the Obama administration policy--is doomed to failure and only encourages the kinds of actions we've seen in the past few days. If you are sorry for what you did to somebody, you certainly aren't going to try to stop them if they decide to take a piece out of your hide.

But American foreign policy issues are much deeper than Barack Obama's liberal naivete and guilt; you can trace the current malaise back at least to Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, the "Imperial President," as he has sometimes been called.  Roosevelt believed that the wealth America had accrued in the previous generation should be manifested in national power and gave us the right to exercise that power as we saw fit. From that point, America, usually on its own initiative--often for good, often without warrant--begin to intervene wherever American leaders deemed necessary. And that included almost every area of the globe. Such intervention infuriated many people, and understandably so. Nobody likes a bully. Yet, in many instances, the American intervention did proved beneficial; for space' sake, I won't give examples here, I will only mention the obvious: two world wars. Defeating communism was also a worthwhile goal and the countless millions who have been liberated from Marxist tyranny would no doubt agree. The problem is, American leaders often don't know when to stop. And here is the key, here is where it came from and its continued source: the same "progressive" mentality that believes government can solve domestic problems also rules American foreign policy. If these liberal, secular elites can build a utopian country, why not a utopian world?  

There is absolutely no difference, in principle, in the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to buy health insurance and the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to have a democratic government.  Some call it the “welfare/warfare state.”  The source is the same:  “progressive,” secular intellectuals who think they know how to create an earthly utopia.  Those who opposed the war in Iraq, but who condone the welfare state at home, are being inconsistent; it’s the same mentality behind both.  Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped, just like Osama bin Laden did.  But once you kill the target, you come home.  The United States military has no business trying to nation-build.  That must be left to the people of the countries we’ve helped.  But, building a better world is what the liberal, secular elite is all about, and the so-called “neo-cons” have fallen for it, too.  The temptations of power are just too great for most mortals to resist.  Only a few, an elite, only excellence, can do it.  And mediocrity—democracy—elects excellence only by accident.  And as mediocrity slides closer and closer to barbarity, do not be surprised when utter incompetents, like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are handed the reins of power.  The last four years are evidence of the result of such mind-boggling folly.

Americans recently died in Libya when a bunch of people, who didn’t want us there in the first place, killed them.  A question too few people are asking is, what are we doing there?  Why do we need an embassy in Libya?  Or Egypt?   Or Tunisia?  How many Americans can even find Tunisia on a map?  (Protesters are tearing up our embassy there, too).  Why do we have embassies in 95% of the countries where we have them?  What are our troops doing in South Korea?  And Japan?  And Europe?  The United States is not being invaded in South Korea, but we are being invaded on our southern border.  Why aren’t the troops there, where they are really needed?  Well, the answer to that question is obvious:   the Democrats want that southern invasion, so they can give those people amnesty and make voters out of them.  What a way to run a foreign policy.  Waste money around the world, get Americans killed in places in which we have no vital interest, and yet open the floodgates so that certain politicians can stay in power.

It’s over, folks.  America is finished, because neither political party has the will or the guts to do what is necessary to save the country—domestically or internationally.

America, of course, does have interests in the world, and the United States needs to maintain a strong military.  We must remain on the cutting edge of military technology and that will take significant sums of money.  But that is a legitimate government function—protecting its people.  We should, indeed, be concerned if Iran gets nuclear weapons; in the hands of the wrong people, such weapons could be utterly catastrophic.  The Obama way will never work.  Quit apologizing for the country.  Remain the strongest country, economically and militarily in the world, but leave other people alone, except to build friendly trade relations.  If somebody threatens us, if somebody needs their butt kicked, go do it, get it over with, and come home.  Close every embassy except a very few.  Maybe China, Russia, England.  One in South America and one in Africa, although I don’t know any safe countries in the latter continent.  I’m not going to claim wisdom enough to know every place where an embassy might truly serve our interest.  But I do know that, if the people of a country don’t want us there, if they start killing our people and burning our flags, it’s time for us to leave--not because we are running scared, but because we never should have been there in the first place.  Most of those people are going to kill somebody, because that's what they have been doing their entire history.  I wish they would all convert to the Lord, but if they aren't going to do that, then let them kill each other; get Americans out of harm's way.  And in other regions of the world where there is really no vital interest, pack up and leave (can anybody give me a reason for having an embassy in Chile?).  “No entangling alliances,” George Washington said, and while he wasn’t necessarily talking about embassies, he was talking about a wise foreign policy that minded its own business, didn’t waste the taxpayers’ money, and protected America, not the rest of the world.  Once again, the men who founded the country knew what to do.  And the people running the country today—and for most of the 20th century—have made America a hated country, and cost American lives, because they refused to heed the wisdom of our forefathers.

And then…and then….there is Israel….