Published 04/02/10
Courtesy Of Campaign For Liberty
In his farewell address George Washington recommended that the United States chart a course that would be unique among the nations of the world. He and the other Founding Fathers had just triumphed in a revolution that challenged in part the right of Kings to wage wars based on their own personal interests or due to rivalries with other nations. Washington understood that the complex alliances that both stitched together and divided the great powers of Europe had resulted in a nearly continuous series of wars starting in the sixteenth century, bringing death to millions and economic ruin. Washington advised the American people to avoid the quarrels of foreigners in his Farewell Address of 1796, "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government ... Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." Washington also counseled the American people to "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all."
And Washington was not alone. James Madison coined the phrase "entangling alliances" and Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, used the expression to tell congress and the people about the broad outlines of his foreign policy: "Peace, Commerce, and honest Friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." And the desire to avoid war based on someone else’s quarrel obtained broader currency worldwide after the success of the American Revolution. The nineteenth century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston put it in perhaps shrewder, more pragmatic terms regarding his own country, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Twenty-first century America has chosen to ignore both its founding principles and its national interest. It has also forgotten relatively recent history. Looking back from the window of 2010, it is hard to imagine that some Americans still living can recall a time in the 1930s when the American people demonstrated in their tens of thousands against any involvement in foreign wars. Prior to US entry into the Second World War, most Americans did not support involvement in the conflicts rocking Europe and Asia, forcing pro-war President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to engage in subterfuge to bring about the American entry. Entangling alliances have become the mode ever since that time. The United States helped found the United Nations, bound the nations of Western Europe to it with the creation of NATO, and entered into a series of bilateral arrangements and pacts in a number of parts of the world. Some would argue reasonably that NATO and the UN helped stabilize a shattered post war world and American involvement could not be avoided, but the chaos of 1945 is long since gone. Many of the international arrangements have long since outlived their usefulness while others never benefited the US national interest in any way.
NATO was founded to counter an expansionistic Russia in the postwar period. Even though the illusion of Soviet power exceeded its reality, most would agree that the threat posed by a nuclear armed and assertive Russia was real. But that threat disappeared in 1991 and now NATO has no obvious role. NATO’s presence fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan reveals the irrelevancy of the alliance. And then there is the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe which, if anything, has created instability. The war between Georgia and Russia is a recent memory that underlines the danger in including new members of the alliance that bring with them local quarrels. If Georgia had been a member of NATO, it is not inconceivable that a small war would have developed into something much larger as NATO rushed to defend an alliance member. The US could have gone to war with Russia over Georgia, precisely the type of situation that George Washington advised against. Many in NATO, including the United States government, continue to insist that countries like Georgia should become part of the alliance. To do so would mean that the US would be obligated to defend their territorial integrity, a recipe for disaster. The solution? Disband NATO.
And then there are the special relationship countries. Two stand out at the present time, Great Britain and Israel. Britain and the US are together in NATO, but the special relationship goes back to the Second World War, a coming together that was artfully crafted by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. It has persisted ever since, with the British generally supporting US policies, no matter how absurd, and Washington reciprocating by quietly advancing British interests. The most recent manifestations of the special relationship were on display in the invasion of Iraq, in which Britain supported a US led attack which it knew perfectly well was not grounded in reality. The US is currently reciprocating by accepting British claims of an economic exploitation zone around the Falkland Islands, in an area that is also claimed by Argentina. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for talks to resolve the issue, knowing that the British have already rejected that option. That the US should even find itself in the middle of a quarrel in which it has no stake is an unfortunate product of the special relationship. The real issue for both Britain and Argentina is economic as London believes there are 60 billion barrels of oil reserves offshore of the Falklands.
And then there is Israel. American politicians and media pundits constantly refer to Israel as an ally but, in fact, there is no alliance. Washington has several times proposed some kind of security arrangement, but Israel has rejected the proposals because it would require reciprocity and also Israel would have to have defined borders. That would mean Israel’s expansion into the West Bank would have to stop and the reciprocity requirement would also put a brake on Israel’s ability to make war on its neighbors without prior consultation and agreement. General David Petraeus has recently gone public with something that many have understood for a long time: Israel’s policies enflame Muslim opinion in the Middle East and Asia to such an extent that they are endangering American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen has privately gone one step farther with the Israelis, telling them that Washington does not want war with Iran. Mullen knows that the relationship with Israel is potentially toxic in that Israeli actions, uncontrolled by the US, can lead to much bigger confrontations with more formidable adversaries. Most in Washington now accept that Israel was a key player in the run up to the war against Iraq, a role that it and its major ally in Washington AIPAC are again playing to bring about a war with Iran. Reports that Israel might be considering using its own nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy that country’s nuclear development program are disquieting to say the least. The United States forces spread out through the region would quickly find themselves in the middle of a nuclear holocaust.
So much for alliances and special relationships. As is so often the case, the Founding Fathers were right. Foreign entanglements bring little in the way of benefit and ultimately can only do harm yet they are hardly ever challenged either by congress or the media. And they come at great expense. James Madison’s "entangling alliances" have largely been responsible for the current round of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have cost nearly $1 trillion total and are continuing to run an unfunded tab at $11 billion per month. To sustain its NATO commitment the US maintains scores of otherwise unnecessary bases in Europe. In Asia, there is a major troop presence to defend South Korea and Japan, both of which have advanced economies and significant armed forces of their own. Israel gets more than $3 billion in aid a year and Egypt nearly $2 billion more on top of that just for being nice to Tel Aviv. Amidst all the spending and engagement, it is difficult to see what the American national interest might be. Perhaps someone in Washington should read up on George Washington and the other Founders and get back to basics.
Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty
And Washington was not alone. James Madison coined the phrase "entangling alliances" and Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, used the expression to tell congress and the people about the broad outlines of his foreign policy: "Peace, Commerce, and honest Friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." And the desire to avoid war based on someone else’s quarrel obtained broader currency worldwide after the success of the American Revolution. The nineteenth century British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston put it in perhaps shrewder, more pragmatic terms regarding his own country, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Twenty-first century America has chosen to ignore both its founding principles and its national interest. It has also forgotten relatively recent history. Looking back from the window of 2010, it is hard to imagine that some Americans still living can recall a time in the 1930s when the American people demonstrated in their tens of thousands against any involvement in foreign wars. Prior to US entry into the Second World War, most Americans did not support involvement in the conflicts rocking Europe and Asia, forcing pro-war President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to engage in subterfuge to bring about the American entry. Entangling alliances have become the mode ever since that time. The United States helped found the United Nations, bound the nations of Western Europe to it with the creation of NATO, and entered into a series of bilateral arrangements and pacts in a number of parts of the world. Some would argue reasonably that NATO and the UN helped stabilize a shattered post war world and American involvement could not be avoided, but the chaos of 1945 is long since gone. Many of the international arrangements have long since outlived their usefulness while others never benefited the US national interest in any way.
NATO was founded to counter an expansionistic Russia in the postwar period. Even though the illusion of Soviet power exceeded its reality, most would agree that the threat posed by a nuclear armed and assertive Russia was real. But that threat disappeared in 1991 and now NATO has no obvious role. NATO’s presence fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan reveals the irrelevancy of the alliance. And then there is the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe which, if anything, has created instability. The war between Georgia and Russia is a recent memory that underlines the danger in including new members of the alliance that bring with them local quarrels. If Georgia had been a member of NATO, it is not inconceivable that a small war would have developed into something much larger as NATO rushed to defend an alliance member. The US could have gone to war with Russia over Georgia, precisely the type of situation that George Washington advised against. Many in NATO, including the United States government, continue to insist that countries like Georgia should become part of the alliance. To do so would mean that the US would be obligated to defend their territorial integrity, a recipe for disaster. The solution? Disband NATO.
And then there are the special relationship countries. Two stand out at the present time, Great Britain and Israel. Britain and the US are together in NATO, but the special relationship goes back to the Second World War, a coming together that was artfully crafted by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. It has persisted ever since, with the British generally supporting US policies, no matter how absurd, and Washington reciprocating by quietly advancing British interests. The most recent manifestations of the special relationship were on display in the invasion of Iraq, in which Britain supported a US led attack which it knew perfectly well was not grounded in reality. The US is currently reciprocating by accepting British claims of an economic exploitation zone around the Falkland Islands, in an area that is also claimed by Argentina. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for talks to resolve the issue, knowing that the British have already rejected that option. That the US should even find itself in the middle of a quarrel in which it has no stake is an unfortunate product of the special relationship. The real issue for both Britain and Argentina is economic as London believes there are 60 billion barrels of oil reserves offshore of the Falklands.
And then there is Israel. American politicians and media pundits constantly refer to Israel as an ally but, in fact, there is no alliance. Washington has several times proposed some kind of security arrangement, but Israel has rejected the proposals because it would require reciprocity and also Israel would have to have defined borders. That would mean Israel’s expansion into the West Bank would have to stop and the reciprocity requirement would also put a brake on Israel’s ability to make war on its neighbors without prior consultation and agreement. General David Petraeus has recently gone public with something that many have understood for a long time: Israel’s policies enflame Muslim opinion in the Middle East and Asia to such an extent that they are endangering American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen has privately gone one step farther with the Israelis, telling them that Washington does not want war with Iran. Mullen knows that the relationship with Israel is potentially toxic in that Israeli actions, uncontrolled by the US, can lead to much bigger confrontations with more formidable adversaries. Most in Washington now accept that Israel was a key player in the run up to the war against Iraq, a role that it and its major ally in Washington AIPAC are again playing to bring about a war with Iran. Reports that Israel might be considering using its own nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy that country’s nuclear development program are disquieting to say the least. The United States forces spread out through the region would quickly find themselves in the middle of a nuclear holocaust.
So much for alliances and special relationships. As is so often the case, the Founding Fathers were right. Foreign entanglements bring little in the way of benefit and ultimately can only do harm yet they are hardly ever challenged either by congress or the media. And they come at great expense. James Madison’s "entangling alliances" have largely been responsible for the current round of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have cost nearly $1 trillion total and are continuing to run an unfunded tab at $11 billion per month. To sustain its NATO commitment the US maintains scores of otherwise unnecessary bases in Europe. In Asia, there is a major troop presence to defend South Korea and Japan, both of which have advanced economies and significant armed forces of their own. Israel gets more than $3 billion in aid a year and Egypt nearly $2 billion more on top of that just for being nice to Tel Aviv. Amidst all the spending and engagement, it is difficult to see what the American national interest might be. Perhaps someone in Washington should read up on George Washington and the other Founders and get back to basics.
Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty
Also by Philip Giraldi:
David Ignatius/Neo-Con Media: Oh What a Lovely War 03/06/10
The War on Terror Is Anti-Conservative 02/26/10
National Insecurity 01/29/10
Yemen and the War of the Worlds 01/07/10
Obama's New Years Resolutions 01/01/10
View all 21 articles by Philip Giraldi
David Ignatius/Neo-Con Media: Oh What a Lovely War 03/06/10
The War on Terror Is Anti-Conservative 02/26/10
National Insecurity 01/29/10
Yemen and the War of the Worlds 01/07/10
Obama's New Years Resolutions 01/01/10
View all 21 articles by Philip Giraldi
No comments:
Post a Comment