-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V2.44/pageone.html
http://www.zolatimes.com/V2.44/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times
- Volume 2 Issue 44
The Laissez Faire City Times
December 28, 1998 - Volume 2, Issue 44
Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
-
A Noninterventionist Revival
by Michael R. Allen
Though the United States-Britain alliance has halted its air strikes in
Iraq, and the issue of war may seem deferred at present, as Christians
celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace on Christmas, irony sets in:
over 60 Iraqis are being buried and the count continues to rise.
American politicians have attempted to brush aside the issue or downplay
their real opinion of the Clinton foreign policy to celebrate "support
for the troops" (a rather cowardly phrase that is used to discredit
opponents of war). A meek resolution supporting the troops and the
continued condemnation of Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, passed the
House 417-5.
Both Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
opposed the air strikes, but both muted their stands to play politics.
Lott came out to support military action under certain conditions, and
Conyers defended President Bill Clinton from impeachment even though he
supported impeaching Presidents Nixon and Reagan for their acts of war.
The only politicians to articulate firm anti-war stands lately have also
been a trio representing two different political ideologies. One is
unreconstructed liberal Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who issued a press
release on her vote against the resolution, stated boldly: "I oppose any
resolution that suggests that another sovereign government should be
overthrown."
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) properly criticized recent American
presidents who "have run roughshod over weak-kneed congressional
leaders." And, as usual, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) -- who is described by
the America First Committee as "the Congressional leader of the new
antiwar movement" -- blasted what he described as "jingoism and
militarism" and called for the President's resignation.
Some other politicians became less eager to support continuing the
Clinton administration's military policy after the failure of the air
strikes was evident. In response to a question from me, Rep. Tom
Campbell (R-Calif.) said that while he supported a UN resolution urging
the removal of Hussein from power, he "questioned from the start what we
hoped to accomplish with this bombing." Former Republican Congressman
Jack Kemp, surprisingly, questioned our whole foreign policy in a letter
to Sen. Lott, and urged Congressional hearings on the bombings. More
formidable opposition came with condemnations from the Vatican, Iran,
Cambodia, Russia, and China.
Yet the whole bombing campaign ended as suddenly as it started. However,
a positive side effect is that again there seemed to be a revival of the
military isolationist movement. The old coalition of peacenik liberals,
nationalist conservatives, humanitarians, and libertarians was reunited,
as it was earlier this year when Iraq was also an issue. As it did in
1991 at the onset of the original Gulf War, the motley group included
voices as divergent as Howard Zinn and Pat Buchanan.
If the issue of war is to remain deferred and peace and freedom are
brought to earth, then the old policy of isolationism deserves to be
re-examined. So far, the United States has for decades not followed the
military isolationism coupled with free trade that would best serve US
interests. Most conservatives see aggression as a needed deterrent in
foreign policy, while those on the Left have gone from promoting nearly
no military to protecting the enshrined military establishment. There
are few who think that the US should protect itself and abandon its
foreign assistance programs.
The US ought to maintain its economic standing among the nations of the
world while withdrawing its resources so as to protect its own lands.
With all of the conflict in the world, US involvement only complicates
what are generally local situations. Theoretically, conflicts are solved
by the parties involved either through warfare or political doctrine.
Thus, third parties like the United States (generally partial in most
situations) are only intervening so that they can manipulate the
outcomes in the world's wars.
The Clinton administration's treatment of Haiti and Bosnia clearly shows
how the State Department can ensure their control in these nations.
Though not quite as serious, this system of "satellite" nations takes
power away from a small nation's people and puts it in the greedy paws
of large countries. It is vital to a peaceful world that each nation be
allowed to set its own goals and determine the best route to attaining
them without being forced to comply with another nation's idea.
Yet it is so typical of American interventionists to believe that they
know the best for everyone else; this is apparent when even other
nations begin to take US armed forces for granted
