Issue VI | September 2010
Redefining the National Interest
ForeignPolicyHandbook.com
Mosque on Main Street? p. 3 Mission Accomplished?
p. 14
Don’t Nuke Me
p. 19
YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY
The Young Americans for Liberty’s
Foreign Policy Handbook
September 2010
Contents 3
Editor in Chief Roy Antoun
Ground Zero Mosque
By Jihan Huq 7
Advertising Andrew Rawana
The Retribution Gospel
By Gabriel Aquino 10
From a New Yorker
By Fabian Gambino 11
Contributors
Petraeus vs. McChrystal Jihan Huq
By Ryan Bell 14
Gabriel Aquino
Mission Accomplished?
By Nelson Chase 15
Fabian Gambino
The War is‌ not over.
Ryan Bell
By Jeremy Davis 17
Nelson Chase
The Fate of Cuba
Jeremy Davis
By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta 19
Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta
Don’t Nuke Me
By Brian Beyer 21
Brian Beyer
Foreign Aid Horror Files: USSR
Brendon DeMeo
By Brendon DeMeo 22
Daniel John
Are Perpetual Wars Keeping Us Safe?
By Daniel John YAL MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committed to "winning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direction of our government. YAL STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES We are the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, liberty, and property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individual and directed by we the people. We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and conduct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace and prosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen. We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed and dragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controlling grip. And, for this we do not stand. Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
1
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Letter From the Editor Dear Reader, This month, I have a tidbit of satire for you. Mission Accomplished. The war in Iraq is over. The troops are coming home. Obama saved the day. Better yet, Americans are upholding the democratic values of the Constitution and are understanding the legality of building a Mosque two blocks away from “Ground Zero.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is saving the world this month by locking the United States into a $51 million dollar program to give clean cookstoves to the third world. Now let’s review what’s actually happening. President Obama, like President Bush, actually thinks that the war in Iraq is over. 60,000 armed troops will be stationed in Iraq indefinitely. New Yorkers and Americans who are not from New York are protesting a Mosque being built two blocks away from “Ground Zero” in their zealous attempt to be tolerant. Hillary Clinton actually stamped a $51 million deal to buy clean cookstoves for people living in third world countries stating that this will help eliminate “climate change.” Really?
Roy M. Antoun New York State Chairman, Young Americans for Liberty
“Of the Youth, by the Youth, for the Youth” The objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American foreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected leaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interventionism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying the price in blood and gold. While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express the views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose any candidate for office.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
2
Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook? Contact roy.antoun@yaliberty.org http://www.foreignpolicyhandbook.com Find us on the web: http://yaliberty.org Find us on Facebook http://facebook.com/yaliberty Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/yaliberty
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Ground Zero Mosque Jihan Huq The recent controversy revolving around the proposed “ground zero” Islamic community center and mosque has raised a firestorm across the country. The controversy itself has been fueled by many zealots from the neocon-
servative right. Though many 9/11 victims families oppose the project, there are some individuals that are wholeheartedly suspicious over all. However, regardless of the controversy this is causing, some important questions have yet to be answered, like where is the funding come
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
3
from? Who is Imam Rauf? Is he a stealth jihadist? Do these Muslims have “the right” to build this community center/ mosque? How did this controversy originally begin? I will be discussing both sides of the debate: the opposition, the proponents and my personal opinion.
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
They’re ok with the strip clubs and other mosques already there… but this one is just a big no-no.
The Opposition For starters, we can definitely say that the controversy came into light in December of 2009. Since Laura Ingram's interview with Imam Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, Laura Ingraham clearly seemed very supportive and “liked” what Daisy and the individuals behind this community center and mosque were doing. Since then, there was merely silence from opposition groups. So here's the question: Why did it take seven months to manufacture the perfect political storm? Since May of this year, far right and anti Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have created this notion of a “mega mosque” being built on ground zero. Geller, Spencer and their minions claimed that Imam Rauf was initially being insensitive and that it was just a bad PR move [which were legitimate arguments]. it didn't take too long for these anti mosque bloggers to add more fuel to the fire by claiming that this “mosque” has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and went even far as to say that the Imam had indirect conYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
nections to al Qaeda. Their slanderous statements continued from then on, also attempting to destroy the Imam and his wife's reputation by depicting them as rag headed stealth jihadists with alternative motives. All these allegations are absurd and extremely arrogant since they also challenge the government's domestic abilities to protect itself from terrorists and their allies. Also, the term “mega mosque” or “ground zero mosque” is extremely misleading. For one, a “mega mosque” [or a mosque in general] cannot have a culinary school, a movie theater and a restaurant. So why does the anti Muslim blogger Pamela Geller and her overzealous supporters still claim it as such? The answer is very clear since Geller and even her “partner in crime” Robert Spencer are known for misinformation [claiming the president is the illegitimate child of Malcom X, calling Obama the Muslim president, calling democarts national socialists, claiming Elena Kagan is a Nazi, etc.]. Questions were also raised regarding the funding and where the money is coming from, only to find out
4
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 that neither Rauf or anyone involved with this mosque/ community center has started raising any money. Many opponents of the mosque/community center alleged that Rauf was getting funding from the Saudi and Iranian governments (an allegation not only erroneous but absurd). To claim that the money would be coming from Saudi Arabia is misleading and hypocritical (since Fox News has received donations from Bin Talal before) Also, to claim that the money is coming from Iran (majority Shi'ite) is much more ridiculous, since the community center is behind a Sunni based organization.
The Proponents Proponents of the mosque/community center also lack understanding. Many claim that if this project does continue, it will bring peace and harmony in the city. However, during the recent strain of events is contrary to this claim. Not only is this mosque/community center dividing Americans, it is also potentially harming Muslims and can lead a path of a violation of Constitutional rights for American Muslims. Ever since this controversy came into light, there has been a string of antimosque activity/protests around the country, including in places like California, Florida, Tennessee, etc. Recently, there also was an attack on a taxi driver in NY who happened to be Muslim. Before the attacker took action, he asked the driver if he was Muslim or not. All this is mostly happening because of the proposed Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero. If Imam Rauf would take more heed than he already is now, he could at least try to give some thought about changing the location.
The manifestation of the “Other� in American culture has been a detriment to tolerance and republicanism.
The Imam also being depicted as a stealth jihadist is a clear example of the level of nastiness this issue has become. However, he does deserve a large portion of the blame for remaining silent until just recently. Now many of the opponents are more paranoid and believe some of the more bizarre allegations and rumors out there. Imam Rauf and the community center itself has received tremendous support from Rabbis, Pastors and other religious figures, so to still hold on to the misleading argument that he has ties to terrorist or is a secret jihadist is simply a lie.
Also, if one expects to be apart of the community, sometimes one must take heed of their neighbors. Many people (including most 9/11 victims family memYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
5
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
There’s this thing called the “Bill of Rights” that everyone constantly forgets.
bers) dislike the idea of this project; Imam Rauf also needs to take more heed for these individuals as well.
since many of the victims’ families feel insulted. American Muslims must understand that if they want to assimilate and not alienate themselves, sometimes compromises should be made. It is also about being a considerate neighbor and showing the sometimes irrational opposition that Muslims do care and do want to be apart of the society and will do whatever it can to improve relations with the rest of the country and maybe even around the globe.
As far as rights go, the Muslims behind this project do have the right to build it. However, the bigger question is, it it the right (and the safe) thing to do? Proponents tend to get emotional just as the opposition do (including irrational at times). However, proponents must see the more important things and how it is seen through the victims families shoes; being sensitive is also what should be considered as well. The Muslim supporters should also speak up and combat a lot of the slanderous statements coming from the other side.
As for the opposition, originally it was taken part by many of the victims families. However, once Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and their minions of Stop Islamization of American got their hands on the issue, it became uglier and obviously extremely mislead. This mosque debacle teaches us that politics and religion mixing together can often be ugly. It also teaches us that people like Ms. Geller and Mr. Spencer are merely political opportunists that take advantage of issues like these and politicize the important and unforgettable events of September 11, 2001.
My Opinion From my personal point of view, I honestly could care less if this community center/mosque is built or not. For me this is not the biggest issue. There are many places where a community center/mosque can be built without insensitivity. It is not the best idea, Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
6
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
A
servative, or as a patriot, that I must unquestioningly
As a libertarian, where is it suggested that I may inhibit the freedoms of someone else?
tradition. All in all, the advocates of book-burning and
As a Christian, am I told to compensate for the actions of others with retribution that I see fit?
building of nothing more than a community center, are
Plain and simple? Never, nowhere, and REALLY?
to the forefront of American politics. Since I have not
The assumption that, as an American, as a con-
s a human, am I to deny the life of another?
support an imperialist foreign policy is an absurdity born out of selective historical education and inconsiderate those who have found themselves “offended� by the simply victims of history. As of late, this issue has raced
The Retribution Gospel Gabriel Aquino
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
7
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 been pressed into a corner regarding
GONNA
TERRORIST
sinners, entitled to throw stones at
a single issue in the umbrella of top-
CHURCH ON TOP OF 9/11!”, they
anyone? Not only that; this is oc-
ics, I’ll take the opportunity to cover
overlooked a terrible amount of
curring because the proverbial
the topic as far as I see that the scope
holes. The building that is proposed
stone throwers are correlating two
runs. Follow my spiel of reasoning
to be built is a no different than a
different groups of people via a
(I’ll have you know, Glen Beck stole
YMCA or a JCC. The right-wing in-
world religion that is practiced by
this from me), as I tie it back Ameri-
sists that the mosque not be built two
over a billion human beings.
can Foreign Policy.
blocks away from Ground Zero.
Why all of a sudden, eh? This
BUILD
A
Where’s the sense in this?
micro-issue was thrown into the po-
So why again, do we find our mass media purporting that
As a Constitutional American,
this is some kind of epic show-
emotions,
I respect one’s rights to religion, as
down between two blocs of Ameri-
and immediately became, more or
well as property rights. As a Chris-
cans, the right and left wing (no
less, a legitimate debate. Even in the
tian, I will not persecute Muslims,
surprise, there)? Not to mention
first days of media attention, both the
who wish to worship God, by tying
that the media’s portrayal of this
left and the right immediately were
them to the marginal statistic of Is-
rhetorical Ragnarok consists of
able to utilize their put-together talk-
lamic Fundamentalists. Even if I did
angry conservatives and retribu-
ing points. For days, the rhetorical
feel emotionally disheartened by the
tive Christians in one corner,
stalemate dominated television me-
whole issue, or if the Muslim Ameri-
dia. Most Americans did not even
cans
tied
the Democratic Party, and (as
take a second to think about the tim-
to extremists, isn’t it my commission
always, my favorite) the
ing of this issue, its implementation,
to forgive and show love, so that they
loony libertarian fringe.
and its overall effect in the political
may also know God’s love? What part
atmosphere. The construction of a
of the Bible is this nativist horde, of
Cordoba House in New York immedi-
neoconservative, CHRISTIAN Re-
ately garnered plenty of nativist, anti-
publicans, reading? Where are we, as
litical
Islamic
fray,
raised
were
directly
rhetoric. As the
Beck-Palin
herd
spewed
talking points, such as “THE MOOSLIMS ARE
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
8
against an American Intifada,
Really…we’re letting this happen? Never in my generation have I witnessed such a blender full of political vomit and rhetorical diarrhea, but I guess we all have to visit the circus at least once. Of course, “the
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 right” scores in the political facade, with the mosque
many Monarcho-Republicans. The new blood? A few
issue, so how does the left-wing media retort? Likening
substantial Republican candidates voted in by Sarah
someone to a dystopian villain usually does the trick.
Palin idolaters.
Zoom in on Pastor Terry Jones, of Gainesville,
This issue may strike a chord with many and
Florida. The audacity behind book-burning is some-
pine for national attention. Fight the urge to NOT use
thing that we should all be glad to say that we are all,
common sense. Does this have anything to do with
at least, 100 IQ points above. You will never know deep
politics on a national scale? No. Seeking retribution,
-seeded hatred like that in the Deep South. The other
“fairness”, or “compassion” via government interven-
day, I heard someone use “carpetbagger” in conversa-
tion as a solution at a time like this reveals how decep-
tion.
tive the media can be. Manufactured consent? No,
So… Left-Wing America: 1; Right-Wing America: 1
thanks.
Who throws the next punch, you might ask? It
Long story short, nothing changes. Why? Be-
will be the state. as always. Same old story, divide and
cause, once again, we didn’t pay attention to history.
conquer. This issue will get Americans out to the vot-
We wanted an answer, but we turned on the T.V. The
ing booths in November. But who will win? A few
Media strikes back. The Empire remains.
“progressive” incumbents will remain, and as will
America: Land of the Free, Home of the Christian Right only?
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
9
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
From a New Yorker... Fabian Gambino Lately there has been much controversy over a proposed Islamic Community Center planned for lower Manhattan. The proposed project is to be located two blocks away from where the World Trade Center complex once stood. Many right and left wingers are up in arms against the project, while a minority of less than 35% support the rights of the individuals who wish to construct the Islamic Community Center. What are numbers anyway in our “Republic”? This isn’t a democracy where mob rule decides what happens and what doesn’t happen. If 99% of the public was opposed to the construction of a Mosque on private property, that still wouldn’t make it right. Let’s begin with property rights, something people on the right who call themselves conservatives profess to support. Property rights are the foundation of capitalism, individualism, and liberty. Some Republicans are calling for the use of government force, probably by the use of eminent domain, to halt the construction process. The hypocrisy here is so clear that it doesn’t need to be explained. You can’t be for private property rights yet at the same time call for government interference against property rights. But then again many modern day Republicans pay lip service to things that they never believed in anyway. All you have to do is look at their records. This being easily dismantled, other opponents, of partially higher intelligence, declare that the Muslims have every right to
private property as, however, that they are being insensitive, looking for trouble, and disrespecting the 9/11 victims. Once again, this argument is actually easily taken apart as well. Insensitivity never trumps rights. Here’s a short example. If someone is standing on a box screaming homophobic things, and it hurts your feelings, you’re not supposed to go grab an officer of the state to drag him down and violate his rights, rather, you should stand on a box right next to him screaming about how ridiculous and stupid that person is. Of course using government force to achieve your goals is easier, but that doesn’t make it right. Period. And who is to claim Muslims are being insensitive? There has been a mosque built near the World Trade Center since before the towers were even built. The insensitivity seems to be coming from Republicans who claim that having an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan is an atrocity, as if somehow, Islam is responsible for 9/11. At least this issue brings to note a potential discussion as to the reasons behind the 9/11 attacks besides the common nonsense that continues from 9/11 until this day that they hate us for our freedom. If we were at war with Islam, America would know it. There are billions of Muslims in the world. You wouldn’t be able to go to work if we were at war with Islam. This issue however seems to entertain such an idea. Again, the motives of the attack on 9/11 were foreign troops in their holy land, U.S. intervention and support for their dictators, and U.S.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
10
support of the subjugation of the Palestinian people by Israel. I think it’s time to stop pretending that U.S. actions around the world don’t have consequences, something our current foreign policy seems to see as irrelevant. All of the recent Islamophobia is targeted at drumming up support for a continually failing foreign policy of intervention to support the Post 9/11 Interminable Global War on Suspected International Terrorists while ignoring the consequences of our policies. Others claim we already forgot 9/11. I contest they forgot Auschwitz. When are they going to be forced to wear Crescent Moons as identification? Back to the critics of the Community Center, others like Newt Gingrich say that we shouldn’t allow Muslims to build mosques in America until other Middle Eastern Nations such as Saudi Arabia allow the construction of churches. Newt always has something stupid to say. This is America and we have a Constitution. We have higher standards of religious liberty here than in other parts of the world. Not to mention that we support oppressive regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia. If the rest of the world is upside down, we don’t have to be upside down too. Some Republicans suggested the building of this Community Center was sort of like building Japanese restaurants next to the U.S.S. Arizona by Pearl Harbor. That’s probably one of the most comical weak arguments I’ve heard in relation to the Mosque. In no way are Japanese restaurants disrespectful. I actually like sushi. And the service is great.
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Patraeus vs. McChrystal Ryan Bell I do not think we can properly critique the man in question without doing the same for the man replacing him. We know who is going to replace General McChrystal, it is David Petraeus, commander of CENTCOM, who has a sordid enough history particularly during the Bush Administration, that he requires no further introduction. While Petraeus has served honorably he is a very different soldier than Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal served on the ground in special ops during Operation Desert Storm. He went on many night missions with his own men. On the other hand Petraeus saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne division during the invasion of Baghdad in 2003. We do not know if he actually took part in this battle himself. McChrystal successfully tracked down and killed AlZarqawi, one of the main leaders of the terrorist base of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. While Petraeus successfully received a Phd. In International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson school of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University
McChrystal had been running 7-8 miles a day, eating one meal a day, and sleeping 4 hours a night, devoting the rest of his time to the American military effort. Petraeus, if you remember correctly, fainted a while back while being questioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee. I do not mean to disrespect General Petraeus with this mention, as his fainting was due to dehydration, but this further underscores that one of these men is a hardened soldier, while the other earned his prestige and position from behind a desk. This does not necessarily say anything of their expertise in commanding military forces, but it certainly means they will have different approaches to accomplishing the same objective. So you can see the man Obama fired and the man Obama hired are two very different soldiers. The Policy Decisions in Afghanistan: Rational or Worthy of Reprimand? My sense is that Gen. McChrystal, who not long ago was the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
11
Afghanistan, was the right man for his previous job as head of U.S. Special Forces operations, but was not diplomatic enough for the Afghanistan command role. He is bright, but he too much likes kicking butt and proving he is top dog to manage the necessary cooperation of actors in Afghanistan, NATO, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The number of interests he had to address was something like the number that Eisenhower had to address as Supreme Commander in Europe, except that Eisenhower had Gen. George Marshall to provide the interface with the Pentagon, the State Dept., the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Sure, Eisenhower did have more troops to manage, but a top general should be good at that. The political management of the war in Afghanistan is a very confused and illmanaged mess. Gen. McChrystal is more an analog to Gen. George Patton than to Gen. Eisenhower. Gen. Patton was a great general and played a critical role in Europe in WWII, but he would have
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 Under Obama, the mickey mouse regulations and requirements that keep people who want to do their jobs well from doing so has skyrocketed. The choices for management positions are particularly poor. The computer systems and the incredible cost of the contracts paid for the outside management of these inadequate and inefficient systems that government employees must use boggle the mind. Such an otherworldly mentality as that of the D.C. leftists is not well-understood by most military men. They must have some contact with reality and have a real ability to manage men and warfare, or the results are soon apparent in American deaths and a bogged down war. Many of America's military men come from the same stock of AmeriSecretary of State Hillary Clinton and General David Patraeus at a Congressional Hearing cans that Tea Party Americans Photo courtesy of WashingtonPost.com come from. They commonly been the wrong man for Eisenhower's job. Eisenhower had to do believe that the U.S. is exceptional and they believe that find ways to get the most he could from Patton and from they are fighting to preserve our freedoms and our Constitumany another prickly general, many of whom were British or tion. French. The Rolling Stone article suggests that McChrystal Military officers may in many cases not have very sosimply could not get the most out of the many actors in Afphisticated viewpoints on American history and of political ghanistan, such as the U.S. Ambassador Carl Eikenberry, the theory, but their knowledge of both is usually greater than Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, that of most Americans. At least they have studied something National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones, and VP Joe Biabout America's wars in many cases. They are usually indiden. Apparently, he did enjoy the support of Sec. of State viduals who have lived in several different states and have Hilary Clinton. Now, I have no doubt that he was bombarded often been abroad and learned that most of the world suffers with many a mickey mouse request, which must have been without the kinds of freedom we have in America. As menirksome for a fighting general. tioned above, they are forced more than politicians and buThe Obama administration is particularly illreaucrats generally are to deal honestly and rationally with managed. Pie-in-the-sky socialists (Note: when I use the term reality. socialists I mean those who prefer socialization of A theater commander for a major war effort is a man the national community and advocate for egalitarian-based who must have very special insight and wisdom, as well as programs over free market individualism based systems) simintelligence. Apparently, Gen. McChrystal has the intelliply wish things to be as they want them. They wish that evegence, but he was lacking in wisdom at the level required for ryone had health insurance, so it must be made to be so, the job he had. somehow, they do not care how or know how. They wish the Afghanistan is a country primitive beyond the compoor had more money and better homes, so it must be made prehension of most Americans. The social organization of so, somehow, they do not know how or care how. Socialism is Afghanistan is essentially pre-Medieval. It is of the Dark divorced from reality. Ages. It is a land of clans, tribes, and warlords. It is saddled with a primitive religion and particularly primitive versions of Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
12
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 that primitive religion. It would take decades to trans-
more than to go in
form the country to anything resembling a modern coun-
locally and disrupt
try, and that supposes that the people there were inter-
any Al-Qaeda or other terrorist bases of operation. The
ested in such a transformation to begin with. They gen-
McChrystal - Obama policy is not in our national interest
erally are not.
and it will not work, so a change of commanders may fa-
The War Continues
They are simply suspicious of anyone who is not
cilitate a change of policy. The question of whether Pet-
of their own clan, and often even those within their own
raeus was the right kind of change has yet to be seen, and
tribe. Then each tribe is very suspicious of every other
only time will tell.
tribe. Force and treachery has always ruled their lives.
While I have read and thought about war and its
They have no concept of free market cooperation. They
history since I became fascinated with history in the
have no concept of the rights of the individual, or even
fourth grade, I have not carefully studied the Afghan war
that of slightly modern concepts in property rights.
as much as I would like. My father was originally a mili-
Families know their territory down to feet and often have
tary man and I enjoyed many discussions with him when
bloody clashes with others over those exact same
growing up. I know of many people that were drafted
feet.
into the earlier wars, and many that have fought in the
These are Enlightenment ideas which it took
Europe at least 800 years to develop from the time when
current ones.
Europe was something like Afghanistan. Of course, with
I have read about the wars of the Greeks, the Per-
more readily available technology, communications, and
sians, the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Romans, the
travel, Afghans could make that transformation much
Franks and Visigoths, the Scythians, the Israelis, the Car-
more quickly, but it still would take a couple of genera-
thaginians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Bohemi-
tions or more. This again, assumes that they are inter-
ans, the Dutch wars, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Mon-
ested in doing so to begin with.
gols, the Vikings, the Celts, the Angles and the Jutes, the
It is not in America's interest for us to maintain a
Swedes, the Russ and the Russians, the wars of inde-
counterinsurgency or any other operation in Afghanistan
pendence from Spain in Latin America, the Hundred
for two or more generations. Our purpose in going there
Year's War, the Thirty Year's War, the Burgundian wars,
was to oust Al-Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban. A
the Polish wars, the Cossacks, the Napoleonic wars, the
plausible response to that need may well have been the
Prussian wars, Native American wars, World War 1 & 2,
lower level effort in Afghanistan of the Bush administra-
and all of the American wars. I have plenty of context to
tion. Though I suspect that effort had too much nation-
understand war, but still I have not the detailed knowl-
building in it, curtailing its overall effectiveness.
edge of present-day Afghanistan to be formulating the
Strangely, the Obama administration has adopted
best strategy for the U.S. to follow there.
the policy advocated by Gen. McChrystal for an even
However, I am quite sure the McChrystal -
greater effort in nation-building. Afghanistan is so much
Obama strategy is not in America's best interest and that
more primitive than Iraq that I do not believe this effort
we should be formulating a strategy with a much more
is in our national interest and I do not believe there will
modest goal. You don't need to know much to realize
be any chance of getting out of it in reasonable time with
that.
positive results. Most likely our policy should be little Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
13
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Mission Accomplished? Nelson Chase I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I flew into to Kuwait International Airport the day the U.S. Invasion of Iraq began. I remember wearing chemical suits for what seemed like an eternity waiting for supposed chemical attacks from Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. I can remember May 1, 2003 watching then President Bush announcing to the world that our mission was accomplished. (I was in our recreation tent watching it on either Fox or CNN). I can remember the scuttlebutt being that we reservist would all be home within three months. Well I didn’t go home in three months; I wouldn’t leave for another ten. And here we are, seven years later and we are still in Iraq! Yet, I thought our mission was accomplished? So you can image my skepticism when President Obama announced that our combat operations had come to an end. The last of 50,000 “combat” soldiers had finally left Iraq. Yet, there are still 50,000 U.S. Soldiers in Iraq. I thought we had left? Oh but they are not “combat” troops so we who oppose the war should be happy that finally President Obama has ended George Bush’s mistake. There is only one problem. All soldiers regardless of what job they do or where they serve are combat soldiers. How can you separate combat for being a soldier? Sure infantry soldiers are more specialized in the art of combat but all soldiers are trained for combat. They all carry weapons, they all are qualified with the M-16, and they are still in Iraq. The Cato institute
brings up that there is much confusion over terms like “combat” and “combat units.” But all units are combat units. All units train to go to war. So really labeling this group “combat” and the other “non-combat” is a fallacy. So are combat units in Iraq really gone? Is the war finally over? The War in Iraq is far from over. Congressman Ron Paul states that the “withdrawal” of combat troops: “…was merely another one of the administration’s operations in political maneuvering and semantics in order to convince an increasingly war-weary public that the Iraq War is at last ending. However, military officials confirm that we are committed to intervention in that country for years to come, and our operations have in fact, changed minimally, if really at all.” So forgive me (and Dr. Paul) if I don’t believe President Obama. As long as we support an ever increasingly unpopular government in Iraq and continue to meddle in an increasing violent sectarian civil war that we helped create the war will continue to go on and on, with no end in sight. We need to leave Iraq and we need to leave it now. That means all soldiers, contractors, and let the people of Iraq decide their own destiny. We need to embrace “a return
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
14
to the traditional American foreign policy of active private engagement and non-interventionism.” In closing I want to challenge the anti-war left. Where are you? I remember under President Bush a large anti-war movement from the left. Is it because now a liberal president is in power that you are not out protesting the war? And to the Tea Party, when will you throw away the neo-conservative perpetual war foreign policy? Isn’t 4,000 plus American causalities enough? Or will it take another Vietnam to wake the right up to the insanity of the war in Iraq. Sadly, I think we are already in another Vietnam when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. I am a veteran of Iraq, I am against this war. I still hear echoing in my ear, “Mission Accomplished.” It’s been seven years now, how long is two long?
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
The War is.……… not over. ever present war is expressly misleading. As Congressman Ron Paul pointed out in a recent article, “Their mission will be anything but desk duty. Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi military on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved in the hunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the Iraqi military. They should be receiving combat pay, because they will be serving a combat role!” What we are given is nothing more than traditional government doublespeak meant to please war weary Americans while maintaining a prolonged military prescience abroad at the same time. This whole charade of simultaneously withdrawing some troops while keeping thousands of others in the line of fire is a feeble attempt at trying to have it both ways. Conjunctly it is also a sad means to salvage or garner any means of public support and boost public opinion of Mr. Obama and the Democrats before a November midterm election. Of course politicians are simply playing a dangerous game of bait and switch. Even if large scale numbers of American forces actually do withdrawal from Iraq, they will simply be replaced by private contractors, less accountable than actual military servicemen. In fact, the State Department is expected to more than double the number of private security contractors, or mercenaries in Iraq amidst all the chants of a U.S. drawdown and a seemingly imminent end to combat operations. However, as Congressman Paul also notes on the misleading exchange of U.S. troops for private mercenaries: “of course the number of private contractors -- who
Jeremy Davis Despite heralding a simple change in semantics as the beginning to the end of the war in Iraq, a full-scale American withdrawal from that nation may never truly come. The Obama Administrations’ championing of the removal of the so-called last combat brigade from Iraq has been touted as a kind of unsaid “mission accomplished” moment for Obama. But even this misleading maneuver of claiming that U.S. combat operations in Iraq have ended gives little reassurance that all U.S. forces will ultimately leave Iraq by the end of 2011 as claimed by the administration. The fact still stands that at least 50,000 American troops will remain within Iraqi borders, operating under varying capacities. In a speech he delivered last month, President Obama explained that “going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s security forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions; and protecting our civilians.” Regardless of all the half-truths and sugar coating about an end to combat operations, the war for those Americans still in harms will be just as real as it was before the recent withdrawal. Convincing the public into believing that since combat troops have been removed from Iraq, this somehow means that the remaining “transitional force” isn’t participating in an active and Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
15
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 perform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lot more money -- is expected to double. So this is a funny way of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are still meddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men and women in danger, and we are still spending money we don’t have. This looks more like an escalation than a draw-down to me!”
thousand U.S. troops stationed in South Korea since the end of the Korean War. Long after any “combat operations” ended in either of those wars, the United States has never made a total withdrawal. Realizing this, it’s not too difficult to be skeptical about the supposed withdrawal deadline from Iraq by the end of 2011. Of course whether or not the United States actually leaves Iraq behind once that mark arrives depends on whether certain vague conditions have been met. And it’s those intentionally vague terms and conditions that will keep the hopes of a total American withdrawal from Iraq from finally coming.
Although, if that is simply not enough to doubt the reality of a true U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, then just look at the government’s dismal record in making its military exit after previous conflicts. Any astute observer on the history of American foreign policy can see that there are severe reasons in doubting claims that we are leaving the Iraq behind anytime soon. Nearly sixty-five years after the conclusion of World War II, America still finds itself with over 50,000 troops stationed in Germany and about 35,000 in Japan; not to mention the mere thirty-
America’s involvement in Iraq, whether it is strictly in a military capacity, increased security assistance, or through massive nation building efforts; a “withdrawal” from Iraq is not in Uncle Sam’s vocabulary.
President Obama thinks he’s General Patton. Photo courtesy of Getty Images.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
16
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
The Fate of Cuba United States, however, should not use its hegemonic military might to achieve this goal. In 2009, the Obama Administration teased the American public on its serious indications of lifting the Cuban Embargo. This, unfortunately, was not the case. However, the Obama Administration did take crucial steps in lowering some of the restrictions it has on the island. The Black Congressional Caucus visited the country and concluded that the embargo should be lifted. Mr. Obama responded to this by lowering travel restrictions (for Cuban-Americans) placed by the Bush Administration as well as some trade restrictions (you can now send up to 40lbs instead of 4lbs!). Despite what seems as small steps, the Obama Administration has continued to engage in its Cuban Relations as compared to other prior administrations. The United States should continue to engage in our relations to Cuba into a more open policy for the obvious benefits it can have to the Cuban people and its potential changing government. The trade possibilities the Unites Stated can give to the island can dramatically change the way in how Cubans live both politically and socially. As Albert Hirschman famously tries to prove in his book “Exit, Voice, and
Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta For 52 years, the once “Pearl of the Caribbean,” Cuba, has been in jail in both political and economic terms. When Fidel Castro, a then- young revolutionary, captured the country’s adoration he proclaimed he was not a Marxist. However, it became very clear to the Cuban people and the United States that Castro was more leftist than what he was declaring. After Castro passed the Agrarian Land Reforms (nationalization of estates including American property) and the Urban Reform Laws (outraged American utility companies in Cuba protested the 50% cut for all Cuban utility bills), the United States turned its cheek on its former banana republic. In 1962 the final straw was drawn once Castro nationalized the Esso/Texaco Oil Company. The United States placed a complete embargo on the island that has lasted up to this day. But, with the election of Barack Obama the charismatic leader of “change.” the current status of US-Cuba relations might just do thatchange (only if Obama really wants it). With an open trade policy towards the island, only our true objectives of liberating the island of Communism can manifest. The Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
17
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 Loyalty,” authoritarian governments such as Cuba cannot retain its legitimacy within its citizenry because its only choice is “voice” which pushes how a government responds to its population. This can be seen in Cuba today. The younger generations are voicing their opinion with their frustrations of the Cuban government in their economic and social lives. To combat this public sentiment, the Cuban government under Raul Castro has now passed two important pieces of legislation last week that opens up the Cuban economy. Raul Castro has now made it legal to own small agricultural businesses (although they pay heavy taxes to the state, it’s a huge step), combating the food crisis in the country. The second is an even more important step towards liberating the economy. The country now allows foreign inventors a 99-year lease to come on the island. This means more golf clubs, more resorts, and more of everything can now be allowed in Cuba. There is no doubt that American investors will not give up on this opportunity if the embargo should be lifted. With foreign investors coming into the country, the government has now taken a step backwards in their communist agenda. Foreign investors, such as the United States and other marginally pro-capitalist countries can impact the way Cubans see their government as well as how the government can be influenced by outside forces in using trade, a non coercive tool. As we all know, money talks. So what should the United States do? The embargo must be lifted as soon as possible. Each year legislation never reaches the floor for serious consideration because the Cuban government never gave Congress and the American public a reason to do so. But now as Castro is taking steps to liberalize Cuba’s economy due to a growing demand from its citizens, the United States should seriously consider doing so to continue Cuba’s path to democratization. There is no other force but open trade that can do this. War and coercion have not worked in Cuba’s case (can anyone say Bay of Pigs?) in pushing for democracy. However, it is now possible to actually conceptualize a free Cuba in a way that leads to peace and prosperity for both countries.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
18
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Don’t Nuke Me Brian Beyer What do Syria and Iraq have in common? The answer is a lot. Both are heavily Muslim, in the Middle East, and have had a war filled recent past. Another linking characteristic is that their nuclear ambitions were cut short by an Israeli bombing. In June of 1981, Israel bombed Iraq’s French-built nuclear reactor until it was unusable. Israel struck again in September of 2007 when it destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor. Surprisingly, neither country responded with force. Iran may soon be the third member of the “Group-That-Got-Cut-Short.” As the Islamic Republic continues to enrich uranium, albeit peacefully, Israel is becoming extremely worried. But Israel’s fears are completely unfounded. Since most Israelis, both civilian and governmental officials, cannot even stomach the prospect of a nuclear Iran, an attack by Israel on Iran is becoming more likely by the day. However, Israel may ask the United States to help lead the strike because of America’s overwhelming military capabilities. Rhetoric about the nuclear program of Iran has largely paralleled that of Saddam’s “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in frequency, bellicosity, and the baseless nature of
the claims. Despite no evidence that Iran is actually developing a nuclear weapon, the American and Israeli media are making their best effort to convince people otherwise. Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, made this hyperbolic statement about Iran and the prospects of a nuclear Iran: “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.” Netanyahu conveniently ignored history. Iran has not waged an aggressive war in modern history whereas Israel has launched plenty. In addition, if Iran would ever attack Israel, the Persian nation would be bombed to oblivion by Israeli and American forces. Thus, Iran has absolutely no interest in attacking Israel unless its wish is utter ruin. Jeffrey Goldberg, in an influential piece called “The Point of No Return” in the Atlantic, chronicled that Israelis view a nuclear-armed Iran as an “existential threat.” Such views, however, are not limited to the far-right Likud party. Even the left-wing Meretz Party feels the same way. Some Israeli policymakers have begun to rationalize a war
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
19
with Iran on other terms. Ehud Barak, the defense minister of Israel, said, “The real threat to Zionism is the dilution of quality… Our young people can consciously decide to go other places if they dislike living under the threat of nuclear attack.” The Israeli view of Iran as an existential threat is two pronged: 1.) if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it can destroy much of Israel; and 2.) the mere existence of a nuclear Iran will completely undermine the state of Israel and the Zionist Project. With its existence “on the line,” Israel has all but decided that the threat of a nuclear Iran must be eliminated. But will Israel attack Iran on its own? The answer is probably not. While Israel has a military capability that is surely to be feared, it would be much easier if the United States took charge. Prime Minister Netanyahu, or Bibi, quipped in 2001 that, “America is a thing you can move very easily…” Sadly, he is right, especially when dealing with Israel. What is more is that this time around, America’s responsiveness to Israel’s desires could spell disaster. American military leaders, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, have expressed serious reservations about attacking Iran. However, in the same breath, Mullen admitted that
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 there is a military plan to attack Iran should things
Will a nuclear Iran cause the Israeli state to knee jerk? Israel has previously attacked, via surgical strikes, neighboring rogue states that possessed nuclear capabilities. Iran may be next on their list.
become “unacceptable” to President Obama. America is undoubtedly preparing for a conflict with Iran. The U.S. has shipped bunker-busting munitions to Diego Garcia, a military base in the Indian Ocean, which was used to launch attacks on Iraq during the First Gulf War and America’s most recent and ongoing war with Iraq. These would be perfect for destroying any underground Iranian nuclear facilities. In addition, the U.S. has increased troop presence on the Iran-Azerbaijan border and has stationed 12 warships, along with Israel, around the Persian Gulf. Israel has also taken its own measures such as using a Saudi airbase in the town of Tabuk, near Jordan, to prepare for engagement with Iran. Such preparations are not just casual military movements. They are precise, strategic, and indicative of a future attack. Binzion Netanyahu, father of Benjamin and revisionist historian, accurately said that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other. However, bombing Iran would most likely stall any of the recent progress of their democratic Green Movement. The progress would be stunted because if Iran were bombed by Israel or the US, the Iranian people would unite against a foreign threat rather than over dissatisfaction with their domestic political climate. The elder Netanyahu, his son, and Israeli policymakers cannot have it both ways. Would they rather wait for a proper democracy in Iran to emerge while living with the possibility of a nuclear Iran? Or would they rather squash all attempts at democratic reform via an attack on Iran, and fuel even more hatred towards the Jewish state? The choice is theirs, but the consequences will be global.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
20
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Foreign Aid Horror Files
Brendon DeMeo
This is the first entry in what I would like to call the “foreign aid horror files.” Each issue I will pick two or three countries which receive aid from the U.S. government, aka: the American taxpayer, and detail some of the fiascos involved. We will hear grim tales of theft, extortion, shocking immorality, murder, corruption, greed and much more, all fueled by the hard-earned cash of the American worker. Subject: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) circa World War Two Style of Government: Stalinist Communism President: Joseph Stalin
tined to run out of time, cash, and young men. Secondly, we could have spent $11 billion arming other allies who were not so evil, such as our friends in the Philippines, or the many resistance armies in Western Europe who did not receive anywhere near as much. Or maybe we could have just spent another $11 billion on our own military, or even Great Britain’s. Perhaps the main reason it was truly a blunder is because the U.S. government greatly aided a nation that would go back to being hostile towards us as soon as the war was over. Basically, the U.S. trusted Stalin way too much. Stalin did not go along with the rest of the Allied nations and he kept all the land he conquered, putting East Germany-westward under the dreaded Iron Curtain that was not pulled back until two decades ago. Not long after WWII, the Cold War started, which means we basically outfitted our own enemy, which might have been destroyed along with the Nazi’s if we were more patient and less generous to paranoid killers with tons of power. Without Lend-Lease, there probably would have been no Cold War. Sadly, the weapons we gave to the Soviet’s may have been the tools of many an American soldier’s death, as the Soviet’s formulated their own “lend-lease plans” with some of America’s enemies during the 20th century, such as the Vietcong. The U.S. did not learn its lesson from the Lend Lease Act. It is common knowledge that much the weapons we gave to Islamic militants to aid them in their struggles against invading Soviet armies during the 1980’s wound up being turned against us after 9-11, and that is only one example of the U.S. once again supplying future enemies with weapons. Lend-Lease was not the first American effort to supply an ally during a war. According to an article on the NPR website entitled “New Clues in Lusitania’s Sinking,” by Anne Goodwin Sides, the U.S. tried to smuggle ammunitions into Great Britain aboard a civilian vessel, the Lusitania. After the German navy sunk the ship, we were dragged into World War One, being outraged that Germany would attack our own unwitting human shields, I mean, innocent American civilians. The human cost of feeding war supplies to foreign powers has truly been high throughout American history. Perhaps it is time we did away with such deadly foreign aid.
Joseph Stalin, who mercilessly slaughtered more of his own countrymen than Adolph Hitler did, was a member of the Allied Forces during World War Two, as we all know. Well, it turns out that communism, Stalin’s favored style of dictatorial government, does not make for a good economy. After nearly running out of war materials and causing millions of Russians to starve to death due to failed central planning, Stalin turned to his good buddy American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in order to obtain supplies to continue fighting the Nazi’s on WWII’s bloodiest front. The United States spent about $50 billion on the entire program, $11 billion of which went to the USSR, according to the uboat.net website. Unfortunately, there was no lending or leasing involved, it was just giving. Stalin really appreciated the aid, saying "Lend-Lease is one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance” during the Yalta Conference, also according to uboat.net. He probably would have approved of much of what Roosevelt did domestically as well – Social Security, seizing the gold of American citizens, etcetera. You can look up the exact statistics online, but basically it gave the Soviets thousands upon thousands of tanks, aircraft, guns, jeeps, and more, not to mention hoards of raw materials, and even trains. Now you may be wondering what is wrong with that, given the fact that Stalin was our ally and he was fighting Hitler, our enemy. First of all, many people believe we should not have aided Russia at all. Its government surpassed the Nazi government in terms of innocent civilian body count and it was also one of the most insidious, tyrannical regimes the world has even known. Even the USSR denounced Stalin not too long after WWII. Sure, the USSR was the enemy of our enemy, but why not let the Russians and the Germans pound each other mercilessly while watching from afar? Assuming the Germans did take Russia, and they did take a lot of it anyway, their destruction was still inevitable, as they were des-
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
21
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Are Perpetual
Wars Keeping
US Safe? Daniel John It is quite evident just by listening to the language of so-called “conservative” pundits on a certain cable news network that claims to be “fair and balanced”, that the neoconservative establishment in the Republican Party seems to be aiming to do one thing and one thing only, and that is start more wars while continuing the perpetual occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan long-term. The argument that neoconservatives and other pro-war advocates make, is that perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan is somehow “keeping America safe” from terrorists, despite all the potential threats and probable blowback that could arise as a direct result of these wars. Simply put, initiating more wars in the middle-east to overthrow dictators will only provoke more terrorism. The CIA defines this as blowback which is “the violent, unintended consequences of a covert op-
eration that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government”. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers behind the September 11th attacks were from Saudi Arabia, our supposed “ally” in the international war on terrorism. Not one of those terrorist was from Iraq, Iran, or even Afghanistan. By using the word “they” when describing the sect of radical Islam that attacked us on 9/11, the neo-cons can portray any country in the middle-east as being in the same group, or inside circle as “they” , “the terrorists” or “radical Islam”.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
22
Our “enemies” in neoconservative language are vaguely defined and vaguely named. According to the mission statement on the popular neo-conservative website, KeepAmericaSafe.com, “the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies”. With this being written, one must ask the obvious question, who exactly are “our enemies” and what must be done for them to “fear and respect” us? Our enemies are usually defined by neoconservatives as something along the lines of “radical Islamic extremists” or just simply “terrorists”. In
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010 even worse scenarios, our enemies get referred to as “they”, as in “they” attacked us on 9/11. The neo-conservative rhetoric is also purposely aimed at manipulating our service men and women into thinking that fighting and winning perpetual wars (although winning is vaguely defined) is the right thing to do in order to keep our country safe. Do you really think that Dick Cheney or Karl Rove really care if our soldiers are safe, or even care about our soldiers period? They purposely blur the distinction between “supporting the troops” and supporting the war in order to gain sympathy (and votes) from flag-waving Americans everywhere who have the upmost respect for our soldiers. The neo-conservative movement claims to “support the troops”, but with the emotional and psychological drain that tours of duty tend to put on soldiers, along with thousands of American casualties dying and getting injured in these wars, which obviously weakens the U.S military, then it is quite obvious that supporting perpetual wars is in direct opposition to “supporting our troops”. For the past four or five years hawkish pundits have strongly been emphasizing the importance of “not letting Iran get a nuclear weapon” because Iran is (and apparently has been for at least 5 years) “making enriched uranium”. For those of you who don’t speak neocon, that is code for the apparent need to bomb Iran. They are basically advocating that the United States needs to point its nukes at
Iran and tell Iran what to do. The neo-cons claim to have intelligence reports to back up their story that Iran has a nuclear program. Is this the same bad intelligence that claimed that there were “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq? The very same intelligence that neo-con pundits everywhere were forced to admit was “false” after questions were asked about “weapons of mass destruction” following the invasion of Iraq. If so, then this intelligence and these alleged reports should be seriously questioned at the very least.
Dr. Rand Paul appeared on a May 19th episode of The O’Reilly Factor, where Bill O’Reilly himself refers to Iran as a “major threat to the United States”. Rand Paul responded by claiming that he did think Iran having a nuclear weapon is “a threat to stability in the middleeast”. O’Reilly of course quickly brought up the option of military intervention by asking him if he “would go the military route to pre-
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
23
vent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon”. This is a primary example of how hawkish pundits like Mr. O’Reilly have been using the distinct possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon as a pathetic excuse to start another war. The threat of Iran having one nuclear weapon has been extremely exaggerated by neo-con pundits in order to justify yet another war with Iran. The same exact way the Bush administration, (which was basically overrun by neo -cons) justified military action against Iraq because Saddam Hussein apparently had “weapons of mass destruction”. If the Bush administration was any vaguer about their reasons to go to war, they would have said that Saddam Hussein had “weapons”. The biggest fear for peace any loving American to have about a republican controlled house, senate, and even another republican in the white house, is the obvious probability of a war with Iran. Especially with the strong linge r in g p r es e n c e o f n e o conservative influence over the GOP, it is quite apparent that when the political cycle shifts to republican control, that there will be a war with Iran. The pundits have been preparing their pro-war rhetoric for years now, but this time instead of “weapons of mass destruction” and Iraq, it is “A nuclear weapon” with Iran. Just because Iran has enriched uranium doesn’t mean it is going to make a nuclear weapon, and just because Iran even has a nuke, doesn’t mean that Iran is dumb enough to use it.
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 2010
24
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Foreign Policy Handbook “Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.� - Otto von Bismarck