foreign policy handbook 3

Redefining the National Interest

YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

Issue III | June 2010

Why Google

Made the

Right Decision

Daniel Suraci

Craig Dixon & Jeremy Davis

RAND PAUL

Is “Free

Trade”

Really

Free

Trade?

Nelson Chase

Greece and the

Federal Reserve Elliot Engstrom

NSC 68

Jihan Huq

Weapons

Of

Mass

Nonsense Brian Beyer

The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy

Handbook

June 2010

“Paul's refusal to commit one way or another to war with Iran is more pragmatic and realistic than a liber-tarian who would outright refuse to take action against Iran, were they to ever actually attack the United States.” “However, Rand does stress that when the time must come where war seems imminent, then Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty and pro-vide a proper declaration of war.”

Craig Dixon & Jeremy Davis

FEATURED | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue III | June 2010

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy

P. 13

Why Google Made the Right Decision

Daniel Suraci

Is “Free Trade”

Really Free Trade? Nelson Chase

Greece and the

Federal

Reserve

Elliot Engstrom

P. 15

P. 6

P. 15

P. 11

P. 15

InterestOfTheState.com Home of the Foreign Policy Handbook | Redefining the “National Interest” One Issue at a Time

Pho

to co

urtesy

of G

age S

kid

mo

re/ Flick

r

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | June 2010

Contents

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 con-

duct. 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

Executive Director

Jeff Frazee

Editor in Chief

Roy Antoun

Contributors

Wesley Messamore

Nelson Chase

Jihan Huq

Brian Beyer

Jeremy Davis

Daniel Suraci

Brendon DeMeo

Craig Dixon

Elliot Engstrom

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Weapons of Mass Nonsense

By Brian Beyer

Currency Supremacy: Pick Your Poison

By Brendon DeMeo

Is “Free Trade” Really Free Trade?

By Nelson Chase

Need a Solution to North Korea?

By Wesley Messamore

Prevent Preventive War

By Daniel Suraci

NSC 68

By Jihan Huq

Greece and the Federal Reserve

By Elliot Engstrom


By Daniel Suraci

Rand Paul

By Craig Dixon & Jeremy Davis

Wargaming: Afghanistan

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

How Did You Not See This Coming

By Roy Antoun

3

4

6

7

8

10

11

13

15

19

21

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 1

Letter From the Editor Dear Reader,

Americans sometimes operate like squirrels. They have

attention spans that, at best, are three seconds long but enhance

slightly according to issues that concern them and them only. When

the House passed the “historical” healthcare overhaul, the American

media fed us two responses. It was either wonderful or a horrible,

socialist, maniacal move on behalf of the Barack Obama “regime.”

And being the self-centered political operators they are, Americans

immediately hopped on the “this is wonderful for me” bandwagon,

or the “I’m going to have to pay taxes out of my ears” bandwagon.

In either case, Americans were hopping on a bandwagon not even

fully understanding at least half the legislation. Heck, even the legis-

lators couldn’t understand half the legislation.

And then came Rand Paul’s randslide victory in the Ken-

tucky Republican Primary on March 18th. And all of a sudden, just

24 hours later, the hot topic of media headlines became “Rand Paul

opposes Civil Rights legislation.” What this has to do with the grander scheme of things is beyond

me, but all libertarian-minded individuals throughout the United States suddenly became racist

bigots who want to destroy Barack Obama and all Civil Rights-related legislation. So we, as a soci-

ety, have successfully moved from healthcare to… Civil Rights in literally less than three weeks.

Ignoring the actual philosophical legality of individual property rights in the U.S., both

the Left and the Right missed the whole point. Primarily, no one is entitled anything in society;

you own the fruits of your labor. Secondly, who cares? As Robert Gibbs stated soon after the leftist

propaganda hit television screens, this talk “shouldn’t have a place in our political dialogue in

2010.” And he’s right. Why? Because we all seem to forget that the military industrial complex

grows and we’re fighting two overseas wars. Ever notice how Iraq and Afghanistan became dead

news after November 4th, 2008? It isn’t because the wars are ending, quite the contrary actually.

They’ve escalated. It isn’t because the wars have become necessary, prudent, or sound. It’s be-

cause everything we are fed through our television screens gear us where cultural elites want us to

be.

The so-called “Liberal media” seemed to have run out of ammunition and started throw-

ing pebbles at the Tea Party and Liberty Movement. They couldn’t get us on healthcare; they

never read the bill. They couldn’t get us on the PATRIOT Act; Obama signed it back into legisla-

tion. They couldn’t even get us on taxes; even they’re sick of paying them. And now they can’t get

us on the wars; they’ve expanded and are still being waged. So they resorted to red herrings as

their last-ditch effort to keep incumbents in office.

And while they (the Left and Right) play their petty games with our economy, healthcare,

and 50-year-old legislation, a couple hundred thousand troops remain stationed in the Middle East

at tax payer expense to find one, singular man that we all forgot about, Osama Bin Laden.

Roy M. Antoun

Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook?

Contact [email protected]

Find us on the web:

http://yaliberty.org

Find us on Facebook

http://facebook.com/yaliberty

Follow us on Twitter

http://twitter.com/yaliberty

“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 interven-

tionism. 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.

http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | June 2010 [email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 2

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue III | June 2010

Weapons of Mass Nonsense

On May 14th, as a monumental nuclear deal

was being brokered between Iran, Turkey, and Bra-

zil, Russian President Dmitry Med-

vedev gave these odds for success,

"Okay. As my friend the Brazilian president is an

optimist, I shall also be an optimist. I give 30 per-

cent." The deal would require that 1,200 kg of Iran‟s

stock of uranium (enriched at 3.5%) be shipped off

to Turkey in exchange for 120 kg of uranium en-

riched to 20%. With slim odds, the Western world

was hopeful that the deal would fail. Much to their

chagrin, however, the deal was sealed.

As soon as the agreement was announced, it

was met with harsh criticism from many western

powers, and most loudly from the

United States. President Obama

commented, “Iran [needs] to up-

hold its international obligations

or face increased sanctions and

pressure, including UN sanc-

tions." While criticism of Iran is

nothing new, there was another

hypocritical twist: the plan that Iran signed was

nearly identical to the one proposed by the United

States in October. Such action by the US begs a seri-

ous question: is America really interested in diplo-

macy?

Based on past and forthcoming actions, the

answer is a resounding no. Middle Eastern peace

has been one of the most pressing foreign policy is-

sues from the mid twentieth century to present. In

2003, Iran offered a secret proposal to the United

States that would have had Iran “accept peace with

Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestinian

armed groups and pressure them to halt terrorist

attacks within Israel's 1967 borders.” Unfortunately,

the deal was promptly rejected by the Bush admini-

stration significantly hindering any meaningful di-

plomacy or peace efforts in the future. Many of the

current foreign policy woes would have been much

easier to handle had the agreement been accepted.

Such arrogance and dismissal of diplomacy

did not end with the Bush presidency. Rather, it was

furthered under America‟s “Peace President,”

Barack Obama. As mentioned earlier, the recent

agreement between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil imme-

diately created a firestorm in the United States.

Rather than accepting the terms that the US had of-

fered almost verbatim in October, calls for sanctions

became louder and louder.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is

extremely unhappy with this hostility. Fighting back

against the unwarranted criticisms, he warned, “If

they [world powers] reject the agreement and start

playing new games, then they should know that the

doors for negotiations and under-

standings will be closed.” What

this effectively means is that if

this treaty is not taken seriously,

there will be no other peaceful

avenues that the US and its allies

could pursue.

This leaves the Obama admini-

stration with several options: 1.) continue to pursue

economy crippling sanctions; 2.) preemptively

strike Iran if matters become too „grave;‟ or 3.) take

the deal as it is. As recent rhetoric has demon-

strated, option 3 is completely off of the table, and

option 1 is being aggressively pursued. The most

disconcerting of the three, option 2, is becoming

more likely by the day.

“Such arrogance and dismissal of

diplomacy did not end with the

Bush presidency. Rather, it was

furthered under America’s ‘Peace

President,’ Barack Obama. “

Pho

to co

urtesy

of X

Seer.co

m

Brian Beyer



While Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Admiral

Michael Mullen considers a military strike on Iran

the “last option,” actions by the US government ap-

pear to be to the contrary. In January, the United

States signed a contract with a California shipping

company to transport 10 ammunition containers

full of bunker buster type bombs to a naval base on

Diego Garcia, a British Indian Ocean Territory. The

base was used to launch attacks during the Iraq

Wars in 1991 and 2003, a telling sign of what it will

be used for in the future.

In addition, the US and Israel are inextrica-

bly linked. From 1976 to 2004, Israel was the num-

ber one recipient of military aid from America. It

lost its title to Iraq, but only due to the war. Most

alarmingly, the US engaged in a war game with Is-

rael under the scenario that Iran acquired a nuclear

bomb, signaling the possibility that a war with Iran

is on the horizon. Because of the familial like ties

between the two countries, it is almost certain that

the US will defend Israel‟s actions, either through

force or rhetoric, no matter what.

However, options 1 and 2 are based on the

faulty assumption that Iran is developing a nuclear

weapon. This could not be further from the truth. In

a report issued to Congress by the Director of Na-

tional Intelligence, there is no sign that a nuclear

bomb is being developed: “We continue to asses

Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear

weapons though we do not know whether Tehran

eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

Here, it is made crystal clear that Iran is considering

a nuclear bomb as an option, but has not definitively

decided to do so.

The United States and its allies are headed

down a dangerous course. With no proof of a nu-

clear weapons program whatsoever, calls for sanc-

tions and eventual war with Iran are becoming

louder than prudence would dictate. The dubious

causes for the war in Iraq are presciently parallel to

those causes driving a future war with Iran: weap-

ons of mass destruction, autocratic regimes in need

of change, and government links with Al Qaeda.

America, with a treasury in a quagmire of

red, a fragile economy, and an exhausted military,

cannot afford to wage another war or isolate an-

other Middle Eastern country. The results would be

disastrous.

Currency Supremacy:

Pick your Poison

The U.S. dollar. Once considered the sturdi-

est of all the worlds currencies, it has fallen from

grace. The euro. The challenger to the dollar that

has been more valuable, for

years. Which currency will pre-

vail in the end? Which should we put our trust in,

and save in? The answer is neither. Lately the euro

has experienced troubles, as we have seen by the

Greek debt crisis. The euro is steadily declining in

value. What‟s also telling is that the dollar cannot

seem to tie the euro in value, despite the Euro‟s free-

fall.

As any Austrian economist knows, an econ-

omy run by a central bank, and a currency with no

real backing, is ultimately doomed to failure, or at

least a lot of serious problems. The U.S. and the Eu-

rozone are both plagued by a central bank, and both

have currencies that have no real backing. The only

real reason to save in dollars or euro‟s is for the sake


Brendon DeMeo


of liquidity. Unlike assets such as gold, property,

and valuables, money can be easily spent. With

those facts in mind, why would anyone, who has

enough cash on hand and in the bank to satisfy their

personal liquidity requirements, save in cash?

Surely we must reach a threshold, where it is obvi-

ously better to save in assets.

Both the U.S. and the nations of the Euro-

zone are welfare states (some are welfare-warfare

states, such as the U.S.). As Ludwig von Mises made

clear in his book Socialism, and as F.A. Hayek made

clear in his book The Road to Serfdom, socialism, or

a welfare state of any sort, will ultimately crumble

under the weight of insolvency. We can see that

happening in America now with the Medicare and

Social Security crises. So, if we believe men like

Mises or Hayek, it becomes absurd to put faith in

the currency of a welfare state.

Going back to the Greek debt crisis, we know

the cause was their overblown welfare state., which

demanded unsustainable levels of spending. We see

the toll the welfare state mentality has taken on the

minds of the Greek people, many of which rioted

due to the austerity measures Greece was forced to

take. Many Europeans think they are getting good

services for their astronomically high taxes, but as

we see with Greece, their programs are ultimately

unaffordable. Many economists consider a weak-

ened euro a good thing for export nations like

Greece, but that doesn‟t change the fact that the cur-

rency itself is untrustworthy. And if the EU decides

to inflate the euro in order to help export nations, it

makes the currency rather dangerous to save in,

much like the pre-euro Greek drachma was.

All welfare states are merely economic time-

bombs waiting to explode. From the German Wei-

mar Republic, to modern day Greece, we have abun-

dant evidence of this. No one can wisely rely on a

welfare-state currency. Now, in the Bible, Jesus

talked about building ones house upon the rock or

upon the sand. Obviously He was not talking about

economics, but, a similar metaphor can be applied

to the dollar and the euro. If one saves too much

dollars or euro‟s or relies upon either currency, they

are “building their house on the sand.” If one saves

in assets, such as gold, they are more likely

“building on the rock.” If one builds their house on

the sand, the day will come where it comes crashing

down - they will suffer financially. This is not to say

that we should not take any risks or refuse to invest,

but we should be very wary of relying on fiat cur-

rency, printed in nations with spendthrift govern-

ments.

So, as time marches on, rest assured that nei-

ther currency will ultimately “win.” Even if the dol-

lar overtakes the euro, we still have “Helicopter

Ben” Bernanke as our Federal Reserve chairman.

Even if the euro bounces back a bit, the European

Union and the nations that are involved are run by a

good deal of spendthrift politicians. It is apparent,

given the current economic climate and the debt

levels, that we should not trust either currency. In

the words of the great American writer Ernest Hem-

mingway, “The 1st panacea of a mismanaged nation

is inflation of the currency; the 2nd is war. Both

bring a temporary prosperity; a permanent ruin.”

Don‟t put your faith in a mismanaged nation, or its

mismanaged currency.



Is “Free Trade” Really Free Trade?

The short answer is no. The North American

Free Trade Agreement is promoting free trade be-

tween the United States and our local neighbors

only. Is it truly promoting true

free trade without conditions, as

the word free would indicate? No, NAFTA is not.

NAFTA has had many promising aspects to it but it

has also transferred powers given to the Congress by

the Constitution to the Executive

branch. Here is the real problem

with NAFTA. The President of the

United States entered into trade

agreements with Mexico and Can-

ada. This is unconstitutional. Un-

der NAFTA these two nations are

preferred trading partners with

the United States. This effectively

creates two classes of trading

partners: NAFTA and everyone else. Also, the Fed-

eral government is using our trade policy as a for-

eign policy weapon. What is the answer to this prob-

lem? The answer is to leave NAFTA and create true

Free Trade. What is Free Trade? Free Trade is just

that; free trade between nations for the betterment

of the nations without preferred status, exemptions

or clauses.

The Congress‟s role, according to the Consti-

tution, is to regulate trade between our nation and

foreign states. It is clearly set forth in the Constitu-

tion under the Commerce Clause, which says, “The

Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce

with foreign Nations.” Of course big government

supporters don‟t wish to look at the Constitution

anymore. By giving the President and the Executive

branch the power to enter trade agreements, such as

NAFTA, Constitutional checks and balances are be-

ing upset and the overarching expanding Presiden-

tial power continues to grow. This is a dangerous

precedent being set. (The same can be said of the

unconstitutional transfer of power to the executive

branch to declare war).

This begs the question, has trade with the

Mexico and Canada increased because of NAFTA?

Yes it has. Since 1994 trade with Mexico and Canada

has increased dramatically. What has suffered

though is our trade with other nations. Since Mexico

and Canada are now preferred trading partners our

trade with other nations has suffered. What is even

more alarming is that we are now using Trade Policy

as a weapon of our interventionist foreign policy.

The United States tells friendly

nations not to trade with certain

nations (see Cuba, Iran, North

Korea as great examples) and if

they do they are effectively acting

against the United States. An-

other class of preferred trading is

created from this. This new pre-

ferred class is your either with us

or we don‟t trade with you and neither will our al-

lies. This is truly not free trade.

So what should the United States do? I argue

that a truly constitutionally based government

would leave NAFTA thus ending preferred trade

partnerships with Canada and Mexico. It would stop

using trade policy as a foreign policy tool and create

an even playing field for all nations. The Congress

would take back its Constitutional duty of promot-

ing trade with foreign nations. For in true Free

Trade the United States can bolster our economy by


Nelson Chase

“… a truly constitutionally based government would leave NAFTA thus ending preferred trade partnerships with Can-ada and Mexico. It would stop using trade policy as a foreign policy tool and create an even playing field for all nations.”


making our goods more accessible worldwide. At

the same time, we can peacefully exchange our ideas

of liberty worldwide without coercing nations.

Need a Solution to North Korea?

After North Korea‟s recent torpedo attack on

a South Korean naval ship, tensions are rising, and

the Korean Peninsula looks

ripe for war. And as MSNBC

reports: “the White House said Seoul can continue

to count on the full backing of the United States and

said U.S. military commanders had been told to

work with their South Korean counterparts „to en-

sure readiness and to deter future aggression.‟”

The question is why? As often and as stub-

bornly as commentators and analysts like to avoid

that question, the key to solving our world‟s prob-

lems lies in understanding their causes. Why is

North Korea so aggressive and combative? What

can we do to solve the problem at its root, so that

instead of simply responding to North Korean mili-

tary action with firepower of our own, we can take

steps towards a less aggressive North Korea?

The answer is obvious: the problem is North

Korea‟s economic isolation. History has demon-

strated resoundingly that economic barriers are

preludes to military aggression between nations

while the flow of commerce over borders strength-

ens their ties. The Atlas Economic Research Foun-

dation put it well in its petition for free trade to the

G20 Conference (http://atlasnetwork.org/

tradepetition/):

A great deal of rigorous empirical re-

search supports the proposition that

trade promotes peace. Perhaps the most

tragic example of what happens when

that insight is ignored is World War II.

International trade collapsed by 70 per-

cent between 1929 and 1932, in no small

part because of America‟s 1930 Smoot-

Hawley tariff and the retaliatory tariffs

of other nations. Economist Martin

Wolf notes that „this collapse in trade

was a huge spur to the search for au-

tarky and Lebensraum, most of all for

Germany and Japan.‟

The most ghastly and deadly wars in

human history soon followed.

By reducing war, trade saves lives.

Accepting this as true, there can be no won-

der why North Korea threatens and attacks its

neighbors- it‟s quite possibly the most economically

isolated country on earth. The way to solve this

problem is to pursue a deliberate policy of opening

trade as much as possible between North Korea and

the rest of the world.


Want to write

for the Foreign Policy Handbook?

Be a Patriot. Join the Liberty Movement.

Email the Editor:

[email protected]

Find us on the web: http://www.yaliberty.org/

Wesley Messamore

http://atlasnetwork.org/tradepetition/

http://atlasnetwork.org/tradepetition/


Critics will quickly point out that this is no

easy solution, and I grant that it isn‟t easy, but it is

necessary, and it‟s the only way to bring North Ko-

rea in the global community on peaceful and

friendly terms. While Kim Jong Il and North Korea‟s

communist government may not cooperate as fully

as we‟d like, the onus is still on us to try- and we

haven‟t been trying hard enough.

The Obama Administration should be fiercely

determined to open up North Korea to more foreign

trade. It should make an- at worst truly admirable,

but at best highly successful- attempt to accomplish

this seemingly impossible feat by shamelessly pan-

dering to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il‟s (oddly)

voracious appetite for the fruits of Western culture-

with promises of more to come through opened

trade.

There is a solution to North Korean aggres-

sion- a truly long-term solution that will improve

the lives of North Koreans and bring them into

peaceful intercourse with the rest of the world- that

solution is trade.

Prevent Preventive

War

Preventive war (sometimes called the "Bush

Doctrine") is the premise that a country should de-

fend itself when a threat is

'inevitable' but not imminent.

Preventive war should not be confused with pre-

emptive war. Preemptive War (or preemptive

strike), which is generally allowed in international

law, occurs when a threat is imminent, i.e. a

neighboring countries is lining up tanks on the bor-

der and the threat will happen soon. Preventive war

on the other hand is when there is an 'inevitable'

threat (meaning at any point in the future). With-

out U.N. approval, preventive war is illegal under

modern International Law, and there are good poli-

cies reasons for this: preventive war is in fact ag-

gression. More importantly though, preventive war

was illegal entirely under customary international

law. This was simply called aggression, or imperial-

ism, and was not tolerated or justified by a group of

bureaucrats. The primary problem, as shown by the

Second Iraq War, is deciding when there is an actual

threat. Are bad words between leaders evidence of

an inevitable threat? Are some out of context spy

photos? Even with evidence of an eventual threat,

one should never forget the old adage, "The first

casualty when war comes is truth."


Daniel Suraci

Want to write for our FPH website?

Contact us at:

http://www.interestofthestate.com/join


There is rarely a threat that has not been in-

vented for which America has gone to war in the

20th century. Whether communism or fabricated

stories of atrocities, Americans have been led to be-

lieve many lies, exaggerations on our fabled ene-

mies, and have been read only sugar coating on our

allies. While Hitler was demonized, Stalin was vic-

timized. While we concerned ourselves for our Brit-

ish allies and rightfully condemned fascists as racist,

the British hunted aborigines in Australia for sport

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/

worldnews/1578552/Britain-should-apologise-to-

Aborigines.html).

The allies are angels and the enemies are

devils is the first lesson of war propaganda. The

first Iraq war was sold to the American people

through a completely falsified story involving the

murder of babies: "'Of all the accusations made

against [Saddam Hussein],' MacArthur observed,

'none had more impact on American public opinion

than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 ba-

bies from their incubators and leaving them to die

on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City'" (Stauber

& Rampton, Toxic Sludge is Good for You). Unfortu-

nately, this story was entirely composed, in order to

get the American people to go to war. After the war,

no evidence or other witnesses of the event could be

found. When the burden of proof is as low as this to

decide to go to war, there is no stopping a country

from declaring war. And the winner of this war de-

cides who is right and justified. Like aggression,

preventive war leads to the "winner writing the his-

tory", thus showing a brutish outdated belief that

might is right.

Nor should we forget the motivation of indi-

viduals who desire to go to war. Whether Presidents

trying to hide scandals from us, bankers looking to

make massive loans, the military-industrial complex

making profits or the Keynesian economist who

(wrongly) believes war will stimulate the economy.

A perfect example of self-motivation is the "Monica

missiles" which Bill Clinton fired into Serbia, Iraq,

Afghanistan and Sudan. It certainty seemed that

whenever news would come out about Clinton's

scandal, somehow there was a new target to blow

up. This concern is very much the reason that the

President cannot declare war, but can only com-

mand the forces after Congress has. War benefits

few at the expense of many. Preventive war give

those few a lesser hurdle to climb, and for that mat-

ter, more targets.

It is easy to get lost in the ideas of nations at

war and forget the people of which these nations are

composed. The American common law tradition,

and customary International Law recognize a right

to defend one's self only when the threat is immi-

nent (immediate). If there is no recognized right for

people to have preventive self-defense (for all the

policies reasons stated above), then how could

Americans as a collective suddenly have this right?

Last, there are always considerations of the

costs of war: primarily civil liberties, lives, economic

production. Not only does war harm the country

being attacked in these ways, but also the country

who is the aggressor. This has been the case in

America since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

leading to the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition

Act of 1918, and today, the Patriot Act. For exam-

ple, the 1918 Act prohibits "disloyal, profane, scurri-

lous, or abusive language" about the United States

Government. Furthermore, war diverts productive

use of resources to sectors of the economy whose

primary purpose is to destroy resources. For these

reasons, war should always be considered the last

resort, not the first one.

The doctrine of preventive war is not danger-

ous only to the people being attacked, but to the ag-

gressing country's liberty and economic soundness

as well. America would do well to forever end the

practice of preventive war, and for Americans to be

skeptical of enemies that politicians create.



NSC 68

Today, most people have not heard of the

NSC 68. Many (including myself) were oblivious to

the historical documents and how

the NSC 68 was a blueprint for

Military Keynesianism, the National Security State

and how some of the policies of the Cold War has

influence upon our current foreign policy

To start off, the NSC 68 is an actual classified

document and was authorized by President Truman

in September of 1950. The document consists of

several strategies for defeating the former USSR fi-

nancially, militarily and of course strategically. The

main objectives of the NSC 68 were of the following:

1) The United States must become a much more

powerful economic and military power.

2) The United States must be the lead on building a

functional

3) and economic system in the free world. U.S poli-

cies and actions must “foster” systematic change in

the Soviet Union.

These objectives are what merely shaped

much of the United State's Cold War foreign policy

and thus also opened doors for the National Secu-

rity State. During the same Truman years, defense

spending skyrocketed (initially for the Korean War).

Ultimately, the aggressive foreign policy lead

to the expansion of the federal government. With

the National Security Act, the creation of the CIA,

the creation of the National Security Council, NSA,

and also merged the Department of War and the

Department of the Navy under the National Military

Establishment (which eventually became the De-

partment of Defense) followed. Even with all this

military and intelligence expansion, the creators of

the NSC 68 (George Kennan to name one) were

more than aware that the USSR was not a military

match against the United States. A great contempo-

rary example of the National Security State is the

Bush Administration's violation of the Surveillance

Act or FISA, passed by Congress in 1978. The PA-

TRIOT ACT is also another example of how FISA is

being misused if not used at all-excluding the viola-

tion of other civil liberties.

After the eventual collapse of the Soviet Un-

ion, the objectives of the NSC 68 are still similar to

current actions of our foreign policy. Almost after a

decade of the Cold War, there has been a few promi-

nent influential officials who wrote “Rebuilding

America's Defenses” -a document that is a part of

the Project for New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC‟s document required America's role in the

world to be much more militant and opportunistic

on transferring the Middle East and elsewhere. The

main idea behind the PNAC was later adopted by

the Bush Administration. Another similar NSC 68

approach is the containing of terrorism in the War

on Terror. One primary example is the invasion of

Iraq in 2003. According to then President George

Bush, Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, he

was evil dictator and had weapons of mass destruc-

tion-therefore we toppled the Baathist government

and overthrew Saddam. “The free society is limited

in its choice of means to achieve its ends. Compul-

sion is the negation of freedom, except when it is

used to enforce the rights common to all.” This

strategy echoes the prevalent policy of overthrowing

governments by the United States during the Cold

War. Whenever it felt a foreign government was at

the risk or influence of the Soviet Union/

Communism, the United States would quickly sup-


Pho

to co

urtesy

of N

AT

O

Jihan Huq


port and fund an opposition party to overthrow the

government (Cuba, El Salvador, Chile, etc). The

NSC 68 also advocated for nation-building. The ob-

jectives are what follow:

1) assistance to Western Europe and recovery;

2) assistance to other countries because of their spe-

cial needs arising after the war, or the cold war and

our special interests;

3) assistance to the development of the undeveloped

areas (loans and credit to various countries);

4) military assistance to NATO

5) restriction of East-West trade

6) purchase and stockpiling of strategic materials;

7) efforts to reestablish an international economy

based on multilateral trade, declining trade barriers,

and convertible currencies.

Thus, the numbers 2, 3 and 4 can be com-

pletely related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

financial/aid assistance to other countries and of

course our undying support for NATO to stabilize

the destructive chaos in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, the NSC 68 not only gave birth

to the National Security State and our Cold War

policies, it also paved the way for our current, falla-

cious foreign policy. If this document is read care-

fully, we can all find that although the Cold War

maybe over, the strategies are still the same. Thus,

we can merely conclude that our foreign policy does

need major revisions/changes. The only way we can

truly fix this current mess is if we take a look back at

history and learn from our mistakes.

Cold War lead to the inevitable expansion of

our government and our involvement around the

world; it is not only imperative to reexamine the

past but to avoid implementing the flaws of our

past.

Greece and the Federal Reserve

Financial crises can be very difficult events to

understand. Even for those who have spent a great

deal of time studying such areas

as finance and economics, com-

prehension of these disasters can be elusive. How-

ever, analyzing shared elements in the recent

American and Greek financial crises can help give

even the economic layman insight into their com-

mon causes.

One word can be used to sum up the basic concept

behind both of these crises – overextension.

Both the American and Greek governments

attempted to take on a much heavier economic load

than either could handle. While, in both cases, this

has been painted by some as a noble, humanitarian

effort to help those in need, methods such as infla-

tionary monetary policy tantamount to theft and the

disguising of massive budgetary deficits (in both

cases with the help of Goldman Sachs) would not

justify the means employed even had these efforts

been successful, and certainly should be taken to

task considering the disastrous ramifications of

these actions.

In both cases, many are citing unrestrained spend-

ing as the source of the problem. For example, CNN

wrote of the Greek crisis that “years of unrestrained

spending, cheap lending and failure to implement

financial reforms…whisked away a curtain of partly


Elliot Engstrom

Pho

to co

urtesy

of R

EU

TE

RS


fiddled statistics to reveal debt levels and deficits

that exceeded limits set by the Eurozone.”

Without suggesting that CNN was attempting

to be deceptive in this explanation, as the points

made certainly are important, it must be noted that

things like unrestrained spending, cheap lending,

and fiddled statistics are merely symptoms of the

deeper disease. Instead of asking the government to

spend less, tighten lending laws, and implement fi-

nancial reform, one should instead ask the deeper

question – how does the government even have the

power to cause such problems in the first place, and

why are the results of such government power so

often much more hurtful than helpful?

This deeper problem whose symptoms we are

now dealing with is central banking. The Federal

Reserve System and its Greek counterpart, the Bank

of Greece, each had a heavy hand in their respective

nations‟ financial collapses. This is due to these

banks‟ attempts at economic manipulation – the

Federal Reserve directly sets interest rates, while

the Greek system uses more indirect methods to do

nearly the same thing. Note that it is due to their

attempts at economic manipulation, as attempting

to set economic law is about as useful as attempting

to set gravity.

Consider this metaphor of setting gravity. A

man claims to be able to set the force of gravity on

the earth. He tells a stunt biker that he can set grav-

ity to be half as much as normal. So, the biker at-

tempts to jump a distance that is much longer than

he normally would attempt. Upon jumping, the

biker finds that, obviously, the first man never was

able to set the nature of gravity at all, and he falls to

the ground long before reaching his destination.

This is exactly what happened due to the ac-

tions of central banks in the cases of both the United

States and Greece. Interest rates and other natural

economic restrictions were said to be more flexible

than they truly were. Thus, individuals who based

their actions on this information ended up engaging

in activities that were far more risky than usual.

However, once they had “jumped,” so to speak, they

found that, in fact, economic law was as strict as

ever, and they “fell.”

However, if the answer is so obvious, why are

we not hearing more about it? Each of these finan-

cial crises is extremely complicated, and the above

described scene is, it must be admitted, an oversim-

plification. This is not to say that it is not accurate,

but rather that this nature of the crises‟ root cause is

not immediately apparent to all upon examining the

situation. For example, a person who has been edu-

cated their entire life in an economic school that

praises central banking, deficit spending, and gov-

ernment action in general would certainly seek to

find another cause for the crisis, perhaps by blaming

business owners for making risky investments or

stating that government controls were not strict

enough. However, a person who has studied and

understands the damage done by central banking

and government economic controls will be quick to

realize what has occurred.

People with such knowledge are becoming

more and more common in both the United States

and around the world. “Even today, with an eco-

nomic crisis raging, the response by our government

and the Federal Reserve has been characteristic,”

Ron Paul writes in his recent book, End the Fed.

“Interest rates are driven to zero and trillions of dol-

lars are pushed into the economy with no evidence

that any problems will be solved. The authorities

remain oblivious to the fact that they are only mak-

ing our problems worse in the long run.”


http://www.brooklynyr.com


While he may be one of the most popular ad-

versaries of central banking, it is not just Ron Paul,

or even Austrian economists, who are calling out

government for its role in these financial crises. In

an e-mail to supporters, Democratic congressman

Dennis Kucinich cited “the 1913 Federal Reserve

Act, the banks‟ fractional reserve system and our

debt-based economic system” as major factors in

the American crisis.

Such complex and important issues as eco-

nomic crises need all the attention we can give

them, and it is impossible here to provide the in-

depth analysis that these situations merit. It also

must be noted that while both the United States and

Greece have to an extent both engaged in central

banking to their detriments, each country does have

a different system. Still, the general principles hold,

always returning us to that first word – overexten-

sion. As long as nations attempt to manipulate the

laws of economics to engage in far grander pursuits

than they can sustain, we can expect to see such eco-

nomic crises as have been seen in the United States

and Greece in the future.


Google began providing internet search en-

gine services to China only recently, in 2005. When

Google began the service, they

agreed to obey China's censorship

regulations, despite controversy and "Google Guy's"

moral problems with censorship. In January 2010,

Google claimed that the Chinese government

hacked into human rights activists' Google email

(Gmail) accounts. By March of 2010, Google

stopped running the censored Chinese version of

their search engine and the Chinese government

subsequently banned all searches through Google.

Did Google do the right thing by pulling out

of China? The answer is yes. Not only did Google

sacrifice their principles, but the cost of doing busi-

ness in China is expensive and unpredictable. Like

in all big government economics, business in China

is subject to the capricious whims of the legislators,

dictators, or regulators. Many companies that come

into China take years to become profitable, and this

is usually only after heavy lobbying. "P&G took

three years to become profitable . . . . L‟Oreal took

nine. KFC [took] ten years . . . ." (http://

www.economist.com/business-finance/

displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814746). Despite the

massive market available due to China's population,

many companies are in the red for years (if they

ever become profitable) as they mangle their busi-

ness model to meet Chinese regulatory standards.

Needless to say, a company must be well established

before even attempting to break into a heavily regu-

lated market, which will lower innovation and prop

up monopolies and oligopolies. Despite Google be-

ing established for years in the US, they did not

even want to bother with China until 2005, while


Daniel Suraci

“Like in all big government economics, business in China is subject to the ca-pricious whims of the legis-lators, dictators, or regula-tors. Many companies that come into China take years to become profitable, and this is usually only after heavy lobbying.”


the company had taken off in America as early as

1998. The cost of doing business and regulations in

China prevented one of the most successful compa-

nies in the world from providing service to their citi-

zens for years.

And of course, these same regulations as ap-

plied capriciously are what made the Chinese citi-

zens lose this service as well. Constantly having to

update their censored materials, perpetual politick-

ing to stay in favor with the government signifi-

cantly drove up costs for Google. Let alone the

moral cost on the team, who values the availability

of information greatly. Finally in 2010, having to

appease a tyrannical regime, made Google ask "why

bother?"

There are great lessons to be learned from

the Google debacle. First, regulations will prevent

companies from providing services. Second, regula-

tions will drive out services or put companies out of

business. As American lawmakers condemn the

Chinese government for their censorship, they seem

to ignore they are (and have been) creating the same

problem in America. In the past few months, Con-

gress has passed over 2,500 pages of new laws in

only two bills (Financial Reform and Healthcare).

Each word of these bills takes productivity away

from the private market. Every rule that needs to be

followed increases costs for a business, first to learn

about the rule and then to comply. These costs are

in fact simply another tax on American business.

And to top it all off, at any given moment, a massive

overhaul could happen at the whim of the legisla-

ture, despite any reliance from the private sector.

Lawmakers in every country refuse to acknowledge

the principle of unseen effects of creating costs to a

company. Each additional cost can force the com-

pany to fire an employee, to not hire an employee,

to lower capital investment thus creating unemploy-

ment, lowering innovation and investment, and

keeping the prices of goods artificially high (Hazlitt,

Economics in One Lesson).

Furthermore, as the American consumer

base loses the easy credit and dollar reserve status

which had kept our market so desirable for compa-

nies, when will other countries' companies ask "why

bother?" with the American consumer. This cost-

benefit analysis is necessary to maintain a company.

A company will not perform their operation in a

country where following the law makes the business

fall under their desired profit margin.

This is the path of regulation. Politicians

regulate the life out of businesses and the market,

and then create so called "job bills" to try to breathe

life back into them with freshly printed money. The

lesson to be learned from Google leaving China is

not that the Chinese government is totalitarian, but

that big government drives out businesses and

goods that make life better for its citizens.

Shock

And

Paul (Next Page)



Shock and Paul: Rand the Neocon?

"The son is not the father," a phrase echoing

throughout factions of the liberty movement, fol-

lowed by accusations of neocon-

servatism... directed at none

other than Kentucky's Republican senatorial candi-

date, Dr. Rand Paul.

Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.com has ex-

claimed that he "wouldn‟t give Rand Paul the time

of day.”

Why is there such hostility toward the son of

the liberty movement's modern-day leader?

Paul has stated that he would have opposed

the invasion of Iraq, required a declaration of war

for both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would have

voted against the passage of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

Paul has expressed opposition to a long-term pres-

ence in the Middle East and is against the doctrine

of nation-building.

However, many purists express great concern

over Paul's positions on some other foreign policy

issues. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Paul stated

clearly that he was not willing to "take anything off

the table" with regards to military action against

Iran, and has expressed that "Iran having a nuclear

weapon is a threat to the stability of the Middle

East."

Moreover, Paul expressed opinions on mili-

tary tribunals that some might find disturbing, on

his campaign website Paul has stated that the

United States should, "try the terrorists captured on

the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO.” Ob-

viously, it can also be deduced that Paul is not op-

posed to keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

Many constitutionalists take issue with his

positions on GITMO, sighting violations to the Sixth

Amendment.

So is Rand Paul a 'neocon' afterall?

No.


Rand Paul,

The Practical

Solution

to a

Philosophical

Foreign Policy

Pho

to co

urtesy

of G

age S

kid

mo

re/ Flick

r

Craig Dixon


Neoconservatism is a political ideology usu-

ally associated with the idea of 'spreading democ-

racy' by military means. By most definitions, it is the

embrace of Wilsonian doctrine and Nation-

Building, or advocating of strong intervention into

the affairs of other sovereign states. It has been pos-

ited, and arguably so, that Bush and Obama have

both been nonconservative in their foreign policy...

but what in Paul's collection of statements alludes to

a belief in neoconservatism?

Libertarianism doesn‟t necessarily entail an

opposition to all forms of war ever; the Pauls sub-

scribe to non-interventionism. Non-interventionism

is not isolationism, something that both neoconser-

vatives, and some in the liberty movement, fail to

grasp. Non-interventionism holds that America

should not become involved in the internal politics

of other states. Non-interventionism values sover-

eignty and self-determination. Under the doctrine of

Non-interventionism, wars of defense are seen as

permissible.

Is it really so disconcerting that Paul is un-

willing to say one way or the other how he would act

upon a hypothetical? Paul wasn't advocating a need

to glass them tomorrow. Paul's refusal to commit

one way or another to war with Iran is more prag-

matic and realistic than a libertarian who would

outright refuse to take action against Iran, were they

to ever actually attack the United States. It is always

possible that a need to defend the United States by

use of military force might arise. By the time that

Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler was de-

claring war on the United States one week later,

would it really have been wise to refuse to fight

back?

There's also the factor of political posturing.

Is Rand Paul's undeniably ambiguous stance on

Iran also political posturing? You bet your hind-end

it is; he is in a political race, at the end of the day the

person with the most votes wins. He must walk a

fine line between appealing to the anti-war crowd

and the national defense crowd... those are not two

easy crowds to bring into the same camp. By re-

maining a strong supporter of national defense, but

condemning the interventionist actions of Bush and

Obama, he just may be able to succeed in that diffi-

cult task.

Before purists hit the red-button on Paul,

they should consider that Paul is someone that well

understands 'Blowback' and understands the severe

consequences of declaring war. He's stated on policy

videos that he wouldn't do so lightly:

"One of the most important votes, if not

the most important vote, is declaring

war; this is not something I would treat

frivolously... I have three boys. I would

never vote to send any of our kids to

war unless there seemed to be no other

recourse... in the end you have to ask

yourself, do you kill more terrorists

than you create?"

Some purists will still want to condemn Rand Paul

simply for this sort of posturing, but what is the al-

ternative? The liberty movement can continue to

stand on street corners with signs, fighting with

trolls on YouTube, and posting rants on Facebook

statuses... or it can begin to bring real change to

Washington.

The two-party system that libertarians face is

a rigged game, with the establishment media, and

the incumbents all aligned against them. The sir-

Galahad approach isn't going to cut it, being right

on the issues is not enough. You have to have

enough appeal to win more votes than your oppo-

nent.

If Adam Kokesh's crushing defeat in New

Mexico's third district is any indication, today's

right right-wing movement is not wholly ready for

such a potent message to be drummed into their

hands. In the modern political landscape, a land-

scape in which neoconservatism has been a driving

force in the GOP, the liberty movement's message is

a radical one; it's easier to slowly administer liber-

tarian ideas to the populace, than to try and go in



with blunt force.

The reality is that Rand Paul's positions vary

little from those of Kokesh, but in the public eye,

one must be very careful what they say and how

they say it (a lesson Paul has been having a crash

course in already). Kokesh was a vocal anti-war ac-

tivist prior to his congressional run, and that history

did have an effect on his campaign. Paul has been

less vocal about his disagreements with current for-

eign policy, and has not made them the center of his

campaign; this was the politically intelligent thing to

do.

Little can be found on Jack Conway's foreign

policy positions (Rand Paul's Democrat opponent).

One thing is almost certain, Conway, as a member

of the establishment will likely follow the Democrats

lock-in-step... meaning the anti-war crowd isn't go-

ing to find any friend in Jack Conway. Jack Conway

would likely be more of the same, a warfare-welfare

cheerleader.

For ideological purists, Rand Paul admittedly

still leaves a lot to be desired... libertarians and con-

stitutionalists dislike his views on Gitmo and mili-

tary tribunals. The majority of the liberty movement

will disagree with Paul on this position, but nothing

about Paul's position on this issue reflects neocon-

servatism, as it is properly defined.

It could be argued he is more traditionally

conservative, and less libertarian than his father

when it comes to issues of national defense... but for

those seeking to move government closer to liber-

tarian ideals, Rand Paul remains a step forward, not

backward. For pragmatists, it is understood that

Paul is someone who could become a resounding

voice in the Senate against the tragic policies that

have unraveled liberty in the United States; endless

undeclared wars, the drug war, private central bank-

ing, federal mandates, oppressive taxation, and the

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act are all things Paul has taken a

stand against.

The liberty movement can either get a new

voice in the Senate that has some positions they

take issue with, or they can get Jack Conway. Until

libertarians see Rand Paul rubbing elbows with the

New Citizenship Project or singing "Bomb-bomb-

bomb, bomb-bomb Iran," it would be to their bene-

fit to be a little less leery, and a little more suppor-

tive.

A Stricter Foreign Policy

Now that Kentucky republicans have decided

to give upstart politician Rand

Paul a chance to capture a Senate

seat in the bluegrass state, Paul‟s personal views are

being looked at with a greater degree of scrutiny.

While many of Rand‟s views are not all that

out of sync with the majority of those within the lib-

erty movement, his stance on foreign policy is the

one stand out exception to his otherwise mostly

agreeable platform. Certain areas of Rand‟s stance

on foreign policy do appear as somewhat more

hardnosed and aggressive than his fathers‟ softer,

more humble approach. Nevertheless, should he se-

cure himself a senate seat this November, his role as

a U.S. Senator would grant him the means to have

direct involvement in the shaping of how American

foreign policy is carried out.

And so in this article, we will look at a few of

Paul‟s more contentious points of view that have

made some in the liberty movement slightly uneasy

about Paul himself.

Iran is perhaps the greatest neo-con dream

target of the day. The imperialists in our govern-


Jeremy Davis


ment would love nothing more than to get its de-

structive hands wrapped around that country

through further military adventurism. So in turn, we

are treated to a barrage of fear stoked propaganda

about the immediate threat posed by an Iran that

may or may not be near achieving its quest for nu-

clear weapons. Granted Rand may not promote such

hawkish and militaristic views of a full fledged neo-

con, his stance on Iran has raised eyebrows never-

theless.

Rand has previously stated that a nuclear

armed Iran represents a serious threat to the stabil-

ity of the Middle East and believes

that the United States should do

everything possible to prevent

Iran from attaining nukes. In

terms of dealing with a nuclear

armed Iran in a possible military

situation, he believes that taking

nuclear weapons off the table is

reckless as is pronouncing your

military strategies to your enemies. Unfortunately

this is one area in which I part ways with Paul. I do

not believe that nuclear weapons should ever be an

option left on the table as they are far too destruc-

tive in regards to civilian life and in the number of

innocent casualties. I believe it to be truly reckless

to even consider using them under any circum-

stances.

Almost generating equal controversy has

been Rand‟s support for trying terrorists in military

tribunals and keeping the U.S. detention center at

Guantanamo Bay up and running. Rand has pub-

licly criticized the Obama Administration for its an-

nounced intent to shut down the military prison and

thus move suspected terrorist onto U.S. soil to be

tried in U.S. civilian courts. Paul himself has stated

that “foreign terrorists do not deserve the protec-

tions of our Constitution” and that “these thugs

should stand before military tribunals and be kept

off American soil.”

This view seems to be at odds with those of

us who denounce the authoritarian abuses of the

Military Commissions Act and its contributions to

the neglect of human rights and the dangerous

precedents set within its jurisdiction.

Aside from Rand‟s less than idealistic outlook

on Iran, GITMO, and military tribunals, he would

also grant a significant leniency in allowing the

president to act in a more unilateral manner to re-

peal immediate threats. However, Rand does stress

that when the time must come where war seems im-

minent, then Congress must fulfill its constitutional

duty and provide a proper declaration of war. An

official declaration of war

would force Congress and the

president to set out the specif-

ics of war such as who is being

targeted, what defines success,

and a timetable for withdrawal.

In fact, had he been in the Sen-

ate at the time, Paul has stated

that he would have voted for

war with Afghanistan but not Iraq and would have

use his position in Congress to hold up the debate

until a formal declaration of war was issued.

While I do agree with his terms of declaring

war to prevent indefinite military adventures, I be-

lieve there needs to be an extremely well thought

out and carefully laid out plan in considering the

specifics of the nature of a military conflict. It could

be argued that a formal declaration of war against

Afghanistan would not be entirely justified since it

was a rouge, stateless band of terrorists who at-

tacked us in 9/11, not the Afghani state itself. How-

ever, I do not deny that Paul‟s intentions mirror

those of enforcing stricter responsibility on the part

of those who decide to invoke a declaration of war

as his official campaign website explains that “Rand

has clearly stated that once war is underway, how

we wage war is up to our generals and the President.

It is Congress‟ job to decide whether or not the

threat requires war. It is our commander-in-chief‟s

and military‟s job to win it.” Although I remain leery


“Although Rand does stray away ever so slightly from many of those within the liberty movement who favor a stricter non-interventionist foreign policy, he still refrains from subscribing to the total neo-conservative philosophy that plagues our country today. “


in the vesting of too much authority and leniency in

how the president conducts war.

Although Rand does stray away ever so

slightly from many of those within the liberty move-

ment who favor a stricter non-interventionist for-

eign policy, he still refrains from subscribing to the

total neo-conservative philosophy that plagues our

country today. Rand does not share in the neo-

conservative love for the continuation of a world-

wide American empire, with hundreds of unneces-

sary military bases stationed around the globe. He

also denounces nation building, wasteful military

spending and the propping up of the military indus-

trial complex, as well as the neo-con status quo of

using American military forces as an all purpose

worldwide American police force.

If he steps into the role as a Kentucky Sena-

tor, Rand would oppose allowing our military to be

used under the command of certain international

institutions like the United Nations and would tar-

get the massive waste of dollars in our mismanaged

foreign aid programs and reform the military

budget into a more responsible and sustainable one.

At this point, we can only truly speculate as

to how Rand Paul will actually handle the situations

described here once he enters the Senate chambers.

Questions and doubts will continue to be developed

until the moment he casts his first vote; a vote that

will be under careful observation with certain hopes

that he makes the right decisions when the time

calls for it.

Wargaming: Afghanistan

Chinese foreign officials are quick to point

out that their objective in American foreign policy is

to “distract them

with little regions

like the Middle East.” The Chinese know something

Washingtonian officials can‟t seem to understand:

sensible foreign policy. Operation Enduring Free-

dom (more like Operation Enduring Obligation) has

now lasted a long eight years and not going to end

any time soon. As the United States plans to deploy

an additional 20,000 troops into Southern Afghani-

stan, the Taliban‟s stronghold, will there ever be a

plan B for Afghanistan? Maybe those Chinese have a

point.

Since the Obama Administration planned to

“end” the war in Iraq, Afghanistan is now in the

limelight of current American foreign policy. How-

ever, as one war “ends” in Iraq, another one surges

across the border into South-Central Asia. Afghani-

stan has now become a nation-building obligation

from its original priority of finding Bin Laden. It

has now turned into a campaign against all insur-

gency groups and has mistakenly displaced Amer-

ica‟s priorities. In other words, Afghanistan has now

become a huge task and has now taken the “too big

to fail” mentality in the international arena. By the

end of the troop surge, almost 100,000 troops will

be sent to Afghanistan to fight insurgency groups

that never attacked us (the Taliban did not attack us

on 9/11 contrary to popular belief), fail to meet its


Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta


counter-insurgency tactics in a specific region, and

ultimately create more of a security apparatus in

neighboring countries such as nuclear Pakistan.

Sound familiar?

The truth is that Afghanistan is simply not

manageable with the kind of plan the Obama Ad-

ministration is putting forward. For starters, our

economic situation cannot sustain the path we are

moving towards in regards to either Afghanistan or

Iraq. If Iraq drained our economy, then Afghani-

stan will demolish it. To date, the United States

government has spent $190 billion in Afghanistan.

When comparing to Iraq, this might seem like

chump change; however, the 2007 CBO reports that

Afghanistan will cost a total of $1.7 trillion by 2017

if troop levels are 75,000. Today, our troop level

surpasses that. The additional troop surge General

McChrystal has requested will cost the United States

(more like China) an additional $36 billion and $6.7

billion a year with the troop levels at 102,000. At

that rate we can buy the entire country. Afghani-

stan‟s GDP is $65 billion. The United States can lit-

erally own that entire region. Isn‟t that mind blow-

ing?

Secondly, counter-insurgency in the region

doesn‟t work for political and combative reasons.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Prior to our invasion of

Iraq, the country had basic government infrastruc-

ture, unlike Afghanistan. Afghanistan‟s government

has always been weak in the eyes of its people, an

already fractious populace. Different ethnic tribes

in the country are seen more legitimate than the

Karzai government. Iraq never had this problem.

Although, it was seen as oppressive and brutal (for

that we cannot justify) Saddam Hussein left no

room for power vacuums to occur and terrorist or-

ganizations to flourish. Afghanistan has this prob-

lem. From the United States prompting Al-Qaeda in

the 80s to our invasion today, Afghanistan is one

big failed state with a lot of room for fractious or-

ganizations with different objectives to formulate.

These groups such as the Pashtuns see the United

States as occupiers and this, as you may know, can

lead to blowback.

Thirdly, the United States must be careful in

its calculation. The South-Central Asian region pos-

sesses one threat: Pakistan. Terrorist organizations

such as Al-Qaeda are moving into nuclear Pakistan.

Westphalian mentality of borders poses no threat to

terrorists as moving in between countries is highly

accessible. Destabilizing Pakistan will undoubtedly

have repercussions especially because it holds nu-

clear weapons. Our military presence must not

push into Pakistan in trying to deal with terrorism.

It will exacerbate a problem we are trying to liqui-

date and create further damage in our national se-

curity interests.

So what war gaming tactics can the United

States plan?

Well putting this briefly, it‟s easy to say non-

intervention and immediate pull out for many liber-

tarians. And while our end goal for the future

should be non-intervention, our current problem

still looms: the presence of Al-Qaeda. The United

States should return to its original priority in trying

to capture those who were responsible for the acts

committed on 9/11 and nothing else. As stated

above, Afghanistan is too big of a problem to tackle

with ongoing historical, cultural, and political prob-

lems in its roots. Nation building would require an

enormous amount of funds the United States does

not have and would violate cultural sovereignty. In-

stead, the United States should focus its priorities

on offshore units such as drones, intelligence, and

Special Forces units who can effectively pose a

threat to Al-Qaeda while lowering costs and lives.

These units can also get the job done in a timelier

manner, saving America a few bucks we owe to the

Chinese.

Now, if just Obama would be that anti-war

candidate again.



How Did You Not

See This Coming? On Monday, May 31, 2010 Israeli comman-

dos stormed a Palestinian flotilla for inspection but

were instead greeted by a mob of

angry Turks and Palestinians who,

upon arrival, repetitively beat Israeli commandos

trying to perform an inspection of the vessel. The

commandos reacted and the scene ended with 9

dead protestors.

There is one focus to this analysis. The out-

rage that the world showed toward Israel was ut-

terly naïve; states will always choose to defend

themselves however they please and this should

come to no one‟s surprise.

In lieu of the latest news coming from Israel,

Daniel Drezner of Foreign Policy Magazine (clearly

our rival magazine) used colloquial profanity in an

online article to describe Israel's behavior on board

a vessel just outside the Gaza Strip (clearly he was

angry). Mr. Drezner wrote,

How badly has Israel f**ked up in its

response to a flotilla intending to de-

liver aid to Hamas-controlled

Gaza? Pretty f**king badly. Sure, you

can argue that the people on the ships

weren't exactly Christ-like in their em-

brace of nonviolence. That said, it

should be possible to gain control of an

unruly ship without, you know, killing

more than ten people...

Yes, because killing ten people was the first

thing on the Israeli to-do list. I feel that this encap-

sulates what many believe to be the “right” way of

thinking in regards to Israel. However, what

Drezner and many other pundits failed to recognize

was that, as Israeli commandos were being roped

down into the vessel, dangling from a helicopter,

Palestinians and Turks on board were preparing for

the inspection with metal rods, knives, small arms,

stun grenades, and fire bombs. Videos released soon

after clearly show that Israeli commandos reacted

only after they were welcomed aboard the ship with

open arms. Except in this case, open arms included

weapons in hand whereas Israeli commandos were

initially armed with paintball guns.

For Israel (not for me- for the Israeli state),

Palestine poses a legitimate threat to Israeli security

and way of life, considering that these two actors

border one another and have, historically and re-

petitively, attacked one another in a series of pro-

vocative engagements coming from both sides. But

for a nation like Israel to just allow anything to en-

ter Gaza without Israeli supervision would be like

allowing al Qaeda to move in and out of Mexico

freely, without any supervision. And although this

analogy is simplified, this is the way Israelis per-

ceive the scenario. In fact, this is the way any state

would perceive a threatening situation that involves

their threatening neighbor.

For pundits to admit that those on board the

vessel did not act in “Christ-like” ways and then

condemn the Israeli commandos for retaliating

against those attacking them is quite naive. In a

situation where you are dangling off a helicopter

rope while being shot at, it‟s hard to imagine how

anyone would react differently. Two commandos

left with bullet wounds and others were beaten and

thrown off the deck. It's natural human instinct and

under those circumstances, you're not thinking of


Roy Antoun


the "political repercussions" that may ensue; you

just want to get the guy beating your face in away

from you.

Now we come to two other obstacles in this debate.

While I admire the notion of property rights

given by many on this issue, I have to ask, doesn‟t

Israel have a right to defend its property as well?

Israel has, in several occasions, found arms being

smuggled into Gaza via the coast and that is why the

blockade has existed since 2007. Those arms are

eventually used to send rockets onto Israeli terri-

tory. In an ugly world of dog-eat-dog, states norma-

tively react this way when their very neighbor is the

threat. So, if Israel chooses to defend itself close to

its shores, as it did in the May 31st situation, I be-

lieve this to be more prudent than, say, sending

troops half way across the world to “defend free-

dom.”

However, what I find more troubling is the

way many in the West apply their legal rights to

those in distant lands. Our concept of “property

rights” is different from those in Israel, for example,

and the way to defend property is conceived differ-

ent as well. After all, it was President Bush‟s concept

of rights embedded in “liberty and freedom” that led

to spreading that liberty and freedom abroad. The

United States should play no role in defining what

Israel‟s borders or property should look like; that is

their business and no one else‟s. And unlike the

United States, Israel was actually seeking to secure

itself just a few miles from its shores and not in

some faraway land. Not to say that Israel‟s blockade

is prudent, but who are Americans, the United Na-

tions, NATO, or even Turkey to say what type of

blockade Israel should or should not have? Should

the West intervene once again in Israel‟s affairs? I

think not.

The second problem we run into is the issue

of international waters. States have been violating

“international waters” for centuries. However, who

gets to claim what are or aren‟t international wa-

ters? World governments? Superpowers? The whole

idea of having international waters is biased; it is

shaped according to some arbitrary carve of what a

few people deem as “navigable seas.”

It is fantastic that nations believe in some

form of adherence to law in the international arena;

however, what use is international law or waters

when there is no one enforcing this rule? Do we

really want to police the world or let international

organizations police countries? Again, I think not.

The whole concept of collective action – that several

states would cooperate with one another at the ex-

pense of their security or liberty – is flawed, as I

covered in Issue II of FPH.

The United Nations is scrambling, the media

is blowing things out of proportion (for both sides of

the debate), and Turkey feels insulted. Whatever

Turkey is doing interfering in Israel's affairs is be-

yond Realist understanding; however, given the

events, Turkey should have minded its own busi-

ness, aid or not. The naive understanding that inter-

national institutions have on Middle East politics

and polities only creates more trouble and entices

more to reactionary violence. Lest we forget that the

state of Israel was created by the West but so was

the entirety of the Middle East after the fall of the

Ottoman Empire in the antebellums off WWI & II.

The West has essentially crafted all of today's

Mideast problems. The last thing we need is the

West "condemning" one side or even funding the

other. The United Nations needs to understand that


Pho

to co

urtesy

of G

ardia

n/ U

K


feeling sorry for a people or state truly gets everyone

nowhere. Simply condemning does nothing, but in-

tervening does too much. Perhaps the U.N. is just as

useless as everyone thought it is.

And although foreign affairs academics such

as Hans Morganthau admit that states have always

and will always intervene in the affairs of others,

that gives no excuse (either to Turkey, the U.N., or

the U.S.) to intervene in Israeli or Palestinian af-

fairs, especially when intervention within itself al-

most always leads to a high casualty rate or loss of

money for all parties. Why do we feel obliged to

spoon feed this region with munitions and false di-

plomacy?

We can argue over the morality of Israel‟s ac-

tions all we want but is it truly the United States‟

prerogative to do that? Shouldn‟t we all have seen

this coming?

I yearn for an age where the Middle East will

see peace. But that peace will come when America

learns to mind its own business and Palestinians

learn that sailing a flotilla into an Israeli blockade

means you will get inspected (five other vessels in

the flotilla went through inspection with no prob-

lem). While I never like to take sides in an issue like

Israel and Palestine, I have to ask the world, "How

did you not see this coming?"


Suggested Reading By the FPH Team

“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

foreign policy handbook 3

Documents