Summary

A Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic
The Shortcomings of Foreign Interventionism

A policy of foreign intervention has numerous shortcomings. Acasual look at the results of interventionist policies, both throughout history and in our American experience over the past hundred years, should convince a thoughtful person that the Founders’ policy of nonintervention makes a great deal of sense. There are several reasons, of course, that nations cling to a policy of foreign entanglements. Political power is an aphrodisiac for most politicians, and too many of those with power develop grandiose dreams of world conquest. In the United States, private financial interests frequently benefit from foreign meddling, and foreign nationalistic interests also influence our policies and relationships in world affairs.

Another reason people succumb to dangerous policies of war and conquest relates to the false sense of patriotism promoted by our politicians. Most Americans do not want to appear weak; they enjoy expressions of strength and bravado. They fail to understand that self-confidence and true strength of conviction place restraints on the use of force, that peaceful solutions to problems require greater wisdom than unprovoked force.

Thus the missionary zeal to spread American goodness, always promoted as altruism by neoconservatives, gains public support. Military adventurism seems justified to many, especially before the costs, the failures, and the deaths are widely recognized.

The unintended consequences of foreign intervention often are delayed for years, obscuring the direct cause/effect relationship between certain events. For instance, our unnecessary entrance into World War I was a principal cause of World War II and the subsequent Cold War. The CIA’s removal of democratically elected President Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 significantly contributed to the rise of the Iranian Islamic state.

Fear, usually orchestrated by government, is a powerful catalyst. Fear makes the people demand protection from every sinister evil lurking around the corner that’s about to attack us. The embodiment of evil may well be a single demented individual, halfway around the world. Though incapable of attacking anyone, such an individual stirs up irrational fears and encourages policies that over time are not in our best interest.

When the people of a nation are fearful and insecure, it allows bullies in government to throw their weight around with promises of safety. Confidence and true strength, by contrast, encourage humility. Americans should never lack confidence and feel insecure, since we can resort, if needed, to a large stockpile of weapons to protect us from any outside conventional military threat. What we need is more confidence in ourselves, and a stronger belief in our traditions, so that we never are tempted to initiate force to make others live as we do. If we truly have an economic and political message worth emulating, our only responsibility is to set a standard that others will want to follow.

The notion that terrorists attack us because of our freedom and prosperity, and not for our actions abroad, is grossly wrong. If the American people continue to accept the argument that we are threatened because of our freedoms, rather than because American troops are stationed in many places where they are deeply resented, our problems can only get worse. This point is of profound importance, because the philosophy of foreign intervention must be challenged at its core if we truly are interested in peace and prosperity.

The success of government propagandists promoting war is nothing new. The public is too easily led to support war based on concocted fear. Getting into a war is a lot easier than getting out. It is not in the nature of government to admit mistakes and confess that any war, no matter how disastrous, should be ended.

The most succinct statement about how governments get their people to support war came from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials after World War II:

Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in onepiece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

It is rather frightening that a convicted Nazi war criminal latched on to an eternal truth!

The famous Christmas truce story from World War I is both heartbreaking and illustrative. On Christmas Eve, and for a few days following, soldiers on both sides spontaneously suspended fighting at the front, exchanged gifts, and sang Christmas carols in a true display of Christmas spirit. The thuggish governments on both sides soon demanded a resumption of the insanity later called the “war to end all wars.” Instead, WWI war ushered in the bloodiest of all centuries—a century that saw the deaths of over one hundred million people, mostly non-combatants.

How much longer must the world tolerate the insanity of senseless wars, forced on the people by their various governments appealing to false patriotism, before the true nature of state war propaganda is exposed once and for all?

It should be harder to promote war, especially when there are so many regrets in the end. In the last 60 years, the American people have had little say over decisions to wage war. We have allowed a succession of presidents and the United Nations to decide when and if we go to war, without an express congressional declaration as the Constitution mandates.

Since 1945, our country has been involved in over 70 active or covert foreign engagements. On numerous occasions we have provided weapons and funds to both sides in a conflict. It is not unusual for our so-called allies to turn on us and use these weapons against American troops. In recent decades we have been both allies and enemies of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and the Islamists in Iran. And where has it gotten us?

The endless costs resulting from our foolish policies, in human lives, injuries, tax dollars, inflation, and deficits, will burden generations to come.

For civilization to advance, we must reduce the number of wars fought. Two conditions must be met if we hope to achieve this.

First, all military (and covert paramilitary) personnel worldwide must refuse to initiate offensive wars beyond their borders. This must become a matter of personal honor for every individual. Switzerland is an example of a nation that stands strongly prepared to defend herself, yet refuses to send troops abroad looking for trouble.

Second, the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.

The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight. Their hero, Machiavelli, must be buried once and for all.

Some believe economic sanctions and blockades are acceptable alternatives to invasion and occupation. But these too are acts of war, and those on the receiving end rarely capitulate to the pressure. More likely they remain bitter enemies, and resort to terrorism when unable to confront us in a conventional military fashion. We already have been forewarned by the Iranians, and we should not ignore it.

Inflation, sanctions, and military threats all distort international trade and hurt average people in all countries involved, while usually not really hurting the targeted dictators themselves. Our bellicose approach encourages protectionism, authoritarianism, militant nationalism, and go-it-alone isolationism. Our government preaches free trade and commerce, yet condemns those who want any restraints on the use of our military worldwide. We refuse to see how isolated we have become. Our loyal allies are few, and while the UN does our bidding only when we buy the votes we need, our enemies multiply. A billion Muslims around the world now see the U.S. as a pariah.

Our policies breed profiteering and corruption. The military-industrial complex expands; tens of billions of dollars disappear into the black hole of our failed policies in the Persian Gulf. And essentially nothing is done about it.

Our military is more often used to protect private capital overseas, such as oil and natural resources, than it is to protect our own borders. Protecting ourselves from real outside threats is no longer the focus of defense policy, as globalists become more influential inside and outside our government.

The weapons industry never actually advocates killing to enhance its profits, but a policy of endless war and eternal enemies benefits it greatly. Some advocate Cold War strategies, like those used against the Soviets, against the unnamed “terrorists.” It’s good for business!

Many neoconservatives are not bashful about this:

Thus, paradoxically, peace increases our peril, by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, and depriving us of some of our best leaders. The great Prussian general Helmuth von Moltke knew whereof he spoke when he wrote a friend, ‘Everlasting peace is a dream, not even a pleasant one; war is a necessary part of God’s arrangement of the world… Without war the world would deteriorate into materialism.’ As usual, Machiavelli dots his i’s and crosses the t’s: it’s not just that peace undermines discipline and thereby gives the destructive vices greater sway. If we actually achieved peace, ‘Indolence would either make (the state) effeminate or shatter her unity; and two things together, or each by itself, would be the cause of her ruin…’ This is Machiavelli’s variation on a theme by Mitterrand: the absence of movement is the beginning of defeat. (Michael Ledeen; “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership”)

Those like Ledeen who approvingly believe in “perpetual struggle” generally are globalists, uninterested in national sovereignty and borders. True national defense is of little concern to them. That’s why military bases are closed in the United States regardless of their strategic value, while several new bases are built in the Persian Gulf, even though they provoke our enemies to declare jihad against us. The new Cold War justifies everything.

War, and the threat of war, are big government’s best friend. Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board—always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare/warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements and endless war.

In the post 9/11 atmosphere, there is no resistance to any military expenditure. The climate of fear stirred by false patriotism grants more and more unchecked power to the executive branch. The Supreme Court has little power to resist. Both political parties in Congress have participated in creating this new America, with warrantless searches, perpetual surveillance, national ID cards, secret prisons, the possible denial of habeas corpus, and even torture.

Institutionalizing the principle of preemptive war surely will be one of the gravest mistakes made in this new century. A secret war or CIA coup, although bad, is nothing compared to an openly declared policy (established for very questionable reasons) that we now have a moral right and duty to start wars of our bidding. We have crossed the Rubicon. Unless we reverse the policy of preemptive war and fully reinstate habeas corpus, the American republic will remain a dead letter.

This attitude of moral superiority, which to many justifies the initiation of force, makes it virtually impossible for us to understand how our efforts will be received. We have no desire to understand or empathize with the people we propose to democratize. The hundreds of thousands who die become mere collateral damage. Our hatred is driven by artificially generated fear. The propaganda of the neoconservatives and the Christian Zionists makes every citizen of Iraq, no matter how innocent, a potentially hated enemy combatant. No sympathy is expressed even for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians forced to flee to Syria to escape the chaos. Christian leaders who promote this war seem callous and cruel as they anticipate and welcome the coming of Armageddon.

Intervention creates endless commitments and ongoing unintended consequences. Treaties, and membership in international bodies like the UN, obligate our military and even future generations to fight wars without the slightest involvement by Congress.

Secretary of State Rice, on a recent trip to the Far East, reassured the nation of Japan that the U.S. will defend her if ever attacked. Nobody asked where she got the authority to make this commitment requiring the blood of future generations. Likewise, all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel, no matter what, without the slightest hint that Congress is responsible for making such a serious decision. How can one generation of Americans commit another generation to such an overwhelming commitment with absolutely no debate? We obligate ourselves to future wars without reservation, as we have done in South Korea. Our troops are exposed to a possible nuclear attack by North Korea, even against the will of the majority of South Koreans.

Our commitments seem endless. It’s estimated we have over 700 bases around the world, in 130 different countries. This expansive military network developed over many decades, accelerating recently due to the vacuum left by the demise of the Soviet empire.

In October 2006, President Bush let it be known there will be no letting up. We will assert our jurisdiction not only worldwide, but in space as well. The president declared, by Executive Order, that the U.S. will determine which countries have access to space. He, by himself, has announced that outer space will be militarized and controlled by the United States.

A hegemonic world power is one thing; the sole power to control outer space is quite another. Funding an empire both worldwide and in outer space is not a simple matter. We mock Kim Jong il for impoverishing millions of his own people to glorify his elite military forces. But in a subtle way that is exactly what is happening here, only at a different level and pace.

Wealth is transferred from the poor to the politically connected rich (including defense contractors) through the inflationary process. The pseudo-strength of the dollar allows endless money creation to pay the bills to police the world. In a country like North Korea, there is direct confiscation from the poor to support the military. In the U.S. it’s indirect but insidious. The slow process manifests in the steady decline of living standards through inflation for the poor, the middle class, and the elderly on fixed incomes.

The grandiose and unrealistic plans for policing the world and outer space eventually will collide with limits imposed by reality. These limits will not be established by the arrival of wise and frugal congressmen to Washington. No, the limits of our policies will be exposed by military failures; the loss of political support from the people; and a worldwide rejection of the over-inflated U.S. dollars used to pay our bills. The cost of runaway military spending essentially brought down the Soviet Union, and soon likely will bring down North Korea. We are blindly doing the same thing to ourselves.

It is time for us to reassess our endless commitments, made within the framework of an interventionist foreign policy fraught with foreign entanglements. The results of this policy over the last one hundred years should motivate all Americans to demand a change, but it looks like only a financial crisis will compel us to change our ways.

That the Constitution grants no authority for our government to police the world and engage in grandiose nation-building schemes should have prevented us from embarking on such a dangerous course long ago. In the years following WWII, Congress wrongly ceded responsibility over if and when we go to war to the executive branch. And there’s no evidence in Washington that this will be reversed.

The Founders made a serious attempt to limit presidential authority over war powers, but tragically the restraints placed on the executive have failed. This has contributed greatly to the expansion of the state, the diminution of our liberties, and the destruction of our republican form of government.

The lack of congressional restraint on the executive branch has allowed insecure and weak leaders to compensate with bellicosity and aggression to exert influence around the world. They have succumbed to the temptation of the corrupting influence of power. For too many politicians, being a bully with weapons equals strong and positive political leadership. They deliberately pursue an aggressive military policy, not to defend our national security, but to assuage their sense of inadequacy. The tragic irony is that bombast and warmongering are precisely the cause of our current vulnerability to foreign terrorist attacks.

We should consider what a foreign policy of nonintervention looks like, one compatible with a constitutional republic.

First - It would be based on an international “golden rule.” The basic principle would be: never initiate an attack on another country! There are a few extreme exceptions to this when a very clear and present danger is obvious, just as the president has the authority to respond to an actual attack without explicit congressional approval. We must remember, however, that this has never happened in all our history. A president under extreme conditions can always act to defend the country, and then as soon as possible go to Congress for a declaration of war.

The important point is that our presidents should have no authority to initiate preemptive war by Executive Order or with a UN resolution.

Second - Under a republican form of government, our officials should recognize the inherent right of self-determination in other nations. This encourages smaller government, ethnic choices, and cultural preferences. This principle was successful in the countries that gained independence from the Soviets in eastern Europe and in central Asia after the Cold War ended.

This principle rejects the notion that outsiders should set boundaries while ignoring the choices of local populations. The artificial nature of national boundaries in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, established following World War I and World War II, has been the source of much fighting and dying over the decades. An artificial boundary in Korea has maintained a state of perpetual war between North and South for 50 years, with us standing between them. The absence of such an arbitrary division since 1975 has unified Vietnam, which now is more Westernized than ever. What could not be achieved with war has been achieved by diplomacy, time, and a willingness to trade and talk with the people of Vietnam.

We often fail to put ourselves in the place of those nations in which we intervene. Suppose we had a border dispute between Mexico and the United States. How many Americans would be happy for the Chinese or the Russians to dictate a resolution of the conflict? Obviously none! Yet this is exactly what we keep doing worldwide, with miserable results.

Third - A policy of strategic independence is far better than international entanglements. UN mandates, backed by American troops and money, ironically lead to neo-isolationism. Those who advocate the traditional American (and constitutional) policy of nonintervention are ridiculed as “isolationists” by the authoritarians who want the U.S. to decide all disputes. Yet it’s their interventionist policies, especially in the last six years, which have isolated us, reduced our allies, and increased our enemies. We are more ostracized and isolated in the world than ever before.

A republic that remains neutral and noninterventionist in foreign affairs would not dispense foreign aid. It would energetically seek diplomatic solutions to international disputes. No direct subsidies would be given to other governments, politicians, or factions involved in internal disputes abroad, and there would be no subsidized loans. There would be no sanctions or blockades placed on other countries, unless war was declared. There would be no threats or intimidation in order to have our way in foreign affairs. There would be no treaties promising to commit later generations to war. There would be no covert or open CIA coups to overthrow particular governments.

In contrast, a policy of strategic independence would encourage true free trade and friendship with all nations. Our military would be used for true national defense. Not only would this policy generate fewer enemies, it would cost far less. Foreign meddling actually undermines true national defense. Today our borders are neglected, our military is demoralized, our military equipment is in terrible condition, and we’re threatened with a draft to maintain troop levels. We do not provide adequate care for our injured and sick military veterans. Already over 150,000 veterans from the current Iraq war receive disability benefits. Soon the expense of this policy will overwhelm us. Columbia University Professor Joseph Stiglitz recently revised his estimate upward regarding the total cost of this war: two trillion dollars! And yet the neoconservatives agitate for taking on Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

The more the world accepts the right of people to own property, and understands that all voluntary economic and social contracts should be respected, the better the chance for world peace and prosperity. But these principles cannot be forced on others. Using force only builds resistance to the true principles of liberty that made American great. Using force contradicts the moral foundation of a free society. The harder we try to force others to accept our principles, the more it undermines liberty here at home. We should work to make sure the steady erosion of our liberties here at home, both economic and personal, does not continue. We should not pretend or expect that we can force others to accept our way of life, when we so desperately need to clean our own house.

The reform of monetary policy is absolutely necessary for freedom and prosperity. Many economic distortions and political imbalances result from a world filled with paper money, where governments maintain the monopoly right to counterfeit at will. Just as our interventionist foreign policy will end out of necessity, so too will the fiat dollar system.

In Washington, most politicians line up with their party leaders on the issue of war. It’s strictly a partisan issue for many. Republican congressional leaders strongly opposed Clinton’s illegal involvement in the Balkans war. Most Democrats adamantly supported Clinton.

Tom DeLay, who later championed Bush’s war in the Persian Gulf, said this when Clinton attacked Serbia: “Many who argue we can’t pull out say we should stay to save face. If for no other reason I would like to ask these people, was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation.” He never asked the same questions of Mr. Bush.

Unfortunately, Congress is too willing to support the executive branch once we get involved in illegal wars. The Democrats have offered only feeble resistance to the Iraq War, while Republicans in the House and Senate have been enthusiastic cheerleaders—even though they eloquently argued against Clinton’s war in Yugoslavia.

Overall, both parties are very supportive of the neoconservative policy of preemption that has proven so unsuccessful in Iraq. Soon this may escalate with an attack on Iran.

More than fifty years ago we had a great Republican leader from the old school of conservatism. Senator Robert Taft spoke out forcefully for a sensible, noninterventionist foreign policy, and warned us against initiating war against a perceived enemy:

There are a good many Americans who talk about an American century in which America will dominate the world. They rightly point out that the United States is so powerful today that we should assume a moral leadership in the world… The trouble with those who advocate this policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership…In their hearts they want to force on these foreign peoples through the use of American money and even, perhaps, American arms, the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles and the force of its persuasion. I do not think this moral leadership ideal justifies our engaging in any preventive war…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. (Senator Robert A. Taft, A Foreign Policy for Americans, 1951.)

It’s rather sad that these sentiments expressed by a conservative Republican have been forgotten. For most of the 20th century Democratic politicians involved us in foreign wars, leaving Republicans to pick up the pieces and benefit politically. Yet now the Republican Party clearly is perceived as the more militantly aggressive party. This statement from Senator Taft should refresh our memories regarding the traditional and proper conservative view that is cautious toward war, counsels nonintervention, and champions liberty. No politician should be rejected for advocating diplomacy and trade over preemptive war. Trade and open diplomatic relations surely are the best way to achieve peace and prosperity for the maximum number of people around the world. All nations, including republics like ours, should be prepared to fight when they must. Proper and sensible policies among nations could make wars very rare, however. A policy of nonintervention would make America stronger, wealthier, more influential, and a respected beacon of liberty.

Other books by Ron Paul

The Case for Gold
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity
Ten Myths About Paper Money
Challenge to Liberty
Freedom Under Siege
Mises and Austrian Economics—a Personal View

To order additional copies of this book or other materials from Congressman Ron Paul and the FREE foundation, including his monthly newsletter the Freedom Report, please contact us at:

FREE
P.O. Box 1776
Lake Jackson, Texas 77566
979-265-3034
www.FREE-NEFL.com