Five Myths About Intervention

by Karl Kammler

Two of the most prosperous nations in the world are Sweden and Switzerland. They mind their own business and amazingly no one wants to blow up their commercial jets. They also don't have a huge national debt resulting from attempts to be global policemen. Despite these clear examples of successful isolationism, there are countless kosher conservatives telling us that we must support "interventionism" and get even further involved in the Third World, even though our needless support of Israel is responsible for ALL our problems with the Muslim world.

Consider the five "myths of interventionism" listed below. There are surely more than just five, but these are the ones parroted most often by Americans, who have bought the usual pro-Israel propaganda.


Myth One: "America has interests overseas."

Liberals and conservatives both claim that America has certain key overseas interests, which they rarely define except for the two obvious sacred cows of American politics: oil and Israel. They write themselves blank checks on America's finite treasure and precious blood, and the only beneficiaries are the multinational corporations, international bankers, powerful ethnic lobbies (such as the Israeli lobby), and liberal "do-gooders" who pour our money into Third World countries like a madman trying to change the ocean by pouring buckets of fresh water into it.

America's true, paramount interest is maintaining our national sovereignty and independence as a recognizable, distinct nation. This can only be accomplished by strict control of our borders. Unfortunately this is the one thing that our sell-out politicians have deliberately failed to do.

The typical empire, before its final collapse, neglects the home country and focuses obsessively on foreign lands. Our politicians are following in the same footsteps as the last Roman emperors.


Myth Two: "We spread freedom to the people of the world"

At home, the imperial character of our foreign policy grows the government, magnifying the power of the executive branch in particular. The resentment toward American interference ultimately results in armed resistance against us. Americans had to fight rebels in the Philippines when we occupied that country, and our attempt to force democracy on Vietnam with our military locked us into a war of attrition that lasted thirteen years over there. Our conflict with the Muslim world is demanding more troops on the ground in more countries, and another war of attrition has begun. A vicious circle is born in which the nation must dedicate ever more power and resources to try to suppress foreign nationals, who want us out of their countries. While we supposedly deliver freedom to others, we become less free at home.

Few stop to think that the foreign policy elites like Condoleeza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz say and do things to perpetuate their own jobs. Too many people actually trust the government. The "enemy of the month" is currently Iraq; previously it was the Noriega and the Panamese, Qadafi and the Libyans, Russians, and the Germans before them. The script never really changes. There is always a 'boogeyman' out there, from Kaiser Wilhelm, to Adolf Hitler, to Osama bin Laden, to Saddam Hussein.


Myth Three: "The world is dangerous, and our enemies will attack this country!"

Americans who advocate an interventionist foreign policy tend to put America at the center of the world. They seem to think that every country on this planet can't wait to cross the ocean and attack us. Why do the interventionists consider America something so coveted by the rest of the world? Why wouldn't the "enemy of the month" invade Australia or Brazil instead? Why would any country attack or invade a massive nation situated between two oceans that has a large, heavily armed population?

Foreign countries desperately try to stay away from the United States, not come toward us. Serbia, for example, did not attack the United States or even display any kind of interest in Americans. The United States attacked Serbia because Bill Clinton needed a distraction from one of his many scandals. Iraq also never attacked the United States. The Iraqis would have been happy to sell us Kuwaiti oil at market prices. The availability of oil was never threatened by Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, but all our politicians told us different. We were fed nothing but lies about Iraq when the real issue was that Israel did not want Kuwait's oil profits going into the Iraqi military. Israel has 200 H-bombs and they basically ordered our politicians to wage war on Iraq so that they could maintain their nuclear monopoly. Americans constantly poke around in other nations' backyards. Foreign countries rightfully resent this --they don't want the U.S. acting as judge, jury and executioner over them.

Interventionism is more dangerous to the continuance of this nation than any potential series of terrorist attacks. Kosher conservatives dismiss any opponent of the new American Imperialism as a "crackpot," an "America hater" or a "terrorist sympathizer." Say anything different from the official globalist cheer-leading chants and you are accused of trying to damage the country.

Interventionists cannot see that the more America meddles overseas, the greater the chance that something tragic will happen. They propose ever more bold and dangerous military adventures, as if they think the United States is invincible. Then, in the next breath they tell you how dangerous the world is and how precarious America's position is, which contradicts the whole invincibility aura. Suddenly a superpower has to worry about countries like North Korea, whose average citizen barely subsists on a bowl of rice a day.


Myth Four: "America is a superpower."

One would think that America's "superpower status" would help alleviate the interventionists' fears of encirclement. Are we a superpower? Are there any other indicators of superpower status besides a huge military? Quality of life, maybe? How about our infrastructure, or the level of education of our population?

Why do these advocates of military adventurism think that it's okay for Americans to be taxed to fund foreign countries or to send American boys to fight other people's wars?

Taxpayer dollars, rather than benefiting Americans, are instead shipped overseas for the enrichment of foreigners. Conservatives claim to oppose wealth redistribution schemes characteristic of the welfare state here at home, yet they all too often support these schemes at the international level. They think it's normal for the U.S. to dictate to other countries what kind of government they should have. All of this is done in the name of freedom, supposedly. America calls out to the nations of the world, "you will become a democracy" while our Bill of Rights is shredded by the Office of Homeland Security.


Myth Five: "If you don't like the policy of this country, you're free to leave!"

Kosher conservatives tell us if we disagree with American foreign policy, then we should leave the country. "Love it or leave it" is the good old retort of the defender of the status quo. However, if anyone leaves America, would that free him of politically correct imperialism? What if someone unhappy with Clinton moved to Serbia, only to have bombs rain down on his head as Clinton demands that Serbia must allow in as many Albanian illegal aliens as America allows in illegal Mexicans.

Basically we have no choice, we can make a stand and fight political correctness here in America or we can flee to another country only to have open borders, gun control and "gay rights" forced on us under threat of war by presidents like Clinton and Bush.


Source:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forum...ead.php?t=1838



.

__________________
For a racial reality check, visit:

www.stormfront.org

"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." - John Sheehan

Or were the many scandals a diversion from Serbia?


Anyway, besides some minor points like that one, I totally agree with this post.
Amazing isn't it?

Nobody says that America has to be isolated.
Non-intervention is not isolationism.

Now, anytime genocide, ethnic cleansing, whatever you want to call it, mass murder, whenever that is happening, I believe that it is the duty of other nations to intervene. If a country's government cannot stop it, is sponsoring it, or conducting it, the only choice is to intervene.

There should have been international intervention in Cambodia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and now Darfur.

At any other time, intervention (however noble or innocent at the time) will inevitably come back to haunt you (or bite you on the arse.)

.

__________________
You don't go changing horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse.

Switzerland prospers with ill-gotten gains from around the world. Sweden prospers because it has a highly educated population with it's publically funded higher education. Why you would think their neutrality(isolationism)= prosperity I don't quite understand. Most poor countries aren't players in the international arena either.

__________________
"I am to eliminate all free radicals."
- James Bond

That those nations are prosperous is not the point. When was the last time Switzerland or Sweden was attacked by terrorists? That's the point. As Karl Kammler writes:

Perhaps Kammler chose to mention that Sweden and Switzerland are prosperous to show that countries can be materially well-off without pursuing crazy imperialist ambitions abroad in the name of "foreign interests".

__________________
For a racial reality check, visit:

www.stormfront.org

"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." - John Sheehan

I see. While I would not characterize our actions as "imperial" I agree that our policies and practices have made us a target. We certainly have an overly self-righteous streak. I also feel though that the stance of some countries towards the injustice of the world is like watching an little old lady get beaten and robbed without lifting a finger to stop it for fear of breaking a nail.

__________________
"I am to eliminate all free radicals."
- James Bond

Thanks for the thread ..... good reading.
Dono

Most poor countries dont have the resources to be a player in the international arena, in generally are being exploited by more powerful countries.

__________________
Admittedly, the concept of the Straussian text is one susceptible to intellectual mischief in the form of wild claims about the esoteric meaning of texts, not to mention rather off-putting for anyone who doesn’t like know-it-all elites.
Orthodox Judaism, not to mention other religions: there is a small number of men who know the detailed truth; the masses are told what they need to know and no more

Would you excuse Switzerland and Sweden from the role call of "exploiters"?

__________________
"I am to eliminate all free radicals."
- James Bond

America's foreign policy since the late 19th century has been nothing but imperial, Sinjin! You could even argue that the North's invasion of a secessionary South was the beginning of it all.

Ancient Rome pursued imperial amibitions, and it died. The same could be said regarding Alexander the Great's Macedonia, Charlemagne's Carolingian Empire, Napoleon's France, and the British Empire.

The USA today is following the well-trodden path of empire that has spelled defeat for so many before it, Sinjin. Our "leaders" have ignored Washington's advice for generations now.

__________________
For a racial reality check, visit:

www.stormfront.org

"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." - John Sheehan

I would call them passive exploiters. As in they take advantage of the situation, but do not cause the situation.

__________________
Admittedly, the concept of the Straussian text is one susceptible to intellectual mischief in the form of wild claims about the esoteric meaning of texts, not to mention rather off-putting for anyone who doesn’t like know-it-all elites.
Orthodox Judaism, not to mention other religions: there is a small number of men who know the detailed truth; the masses are told what they need to know and no more

Maybe my definition of empire is different than yours. This country has not gained territory in a long time even when it might have and is not the supreme authority over any other nation's government unless one includes economic coercion which is not strictly "imperial".

__________________
"I am to eliminate all free radicals."
- James Bond

I agree with your textbook definition of empire building as it relates to historical instances with geographical occupation. I believe our empire building is based on financial and military control. With the exception of Afghanistan and Iraq (true nation building), the loyalty of our 'coalition' is primarily based on direct financial and military aid and trade loan guarantees. In many cases, Spain, Australia, UK and others, the leaders of those countries are acting against public sentiment in supporting our unilateral aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. As none of those countries are directly threatened by the countries we've invaded/occupied, I'd call that imperialism without the necessity of occupation as versus ally, where countries come to the aid of a fellow ally because the 'enemy' also threatens their well-being.

Regardless of how one defines our actions, we're over-extending our resources in a dangerous financial manner against a perceived or defined threat (WMDs and Islamic desire for removing our power trip presence from the ME), which has always been the downfall of past empires. The only difference between physical occupation using mercenaries or one's own troops and just financing control over a government is, IMO, a moot point.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

I'm not sure about Switzerland, but Sweden also has one of the highest foreign aid budgets (as a percentage of GDP) in the world. It does take an "interventionist" approach, but in its own way. I know you don't approve of that manner, since you oppose US financial support for Israel. But the goodwill Sweden's earned amongst the community of nation can be at least as ascribed to its proactive actions (foreign aid) as its inactive actions (non-intervention). That Swedish paratroopers tend to not rain down on other nations is a function of the fact that they have a small population and military. Not that I think Sweden would become a militaristic giant if it suddenly had a population boom (Viking Raiders, redux!). But the point is its an apples/oranges analogy: Sweden and the US are very different nations, in more ways than how you described. I'm doubtful, for example, that you would be as willing to ascribe Sweden's success to its relatively liberal immigration and asylum policies...

I'll agree that US intervention in foreign nations makes us a target. That's about as relevant as saying police busts make cops targets for the mafia. It's true, but it doesn't mean that the police should acquiesce to crime. At some point, being the biggest boy on the block places some responsibilities on our shoulder. If the US doesn't do it, then the body responsible for maintaining global security will be the UN, and I KNOW y'all don't want that to happen.

What's absolutely stunning here is that there has been almost zero discussion about US moral obligations. Everything is being framed in a realist prism (with the exception of PNACs genocide caveat, and Siegfriedson doesn't even concede that, with his opposition to the Kosovo intervention). Yet, US moral obligations can be linked to our realist needs. Its undeniable that if the entire world was to morph into a bunch of liberal democracies tommorow, we'd be better off (democracies tend to have higher economic productivity, are more inclined to trade, are less inclined to fight with each other, and in general produce less negative externalities that harm the rest of the world). Isolationsim has realist oppurtunity costs. If I walk past a pond where a child is drowning, and I do nothing and keep walking, not only am I morally at fault for that child's death, but his family probably is quite angry with me for failing to save his life when it was within my power. Similarily, when the US allows gross human rights violations to occur, and the victimized KNOW we could stop it, that too engenders hate and resentment towards the US that translates to terrorism. Sweden gets a pass because of its massive foreign aid budget and the fact that people know it can't, realistically, intervene. The US doesn't have that excuse. Siegfriedson presents isolationism as if it had no oppurtunity costs, but that just isn't the case. Global isolationism allowed the rise of fascist regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan, yet it didn't stop us from being sucked into their wars of aggression. The US can confront the forces of hate now or later, and I prefer now.

The secondary question is: Can US interventionism work? Are the longterm benefits that interventionism is supposed to bring (democratization and liberalization) feasible? The answer is, absolutely, and this has been empirically proven. Hoover Institute fellow Larry Diamond notes At a minimum, this suggests that the difficulty with which liberal values can be exported to the developing world has been vastly overstated (Drezner 2003).
Daniel Drezner, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago continues When the US actually commits itself to the nittygritty of democratizing ONCE THE FIGHTING CEASES, we've seen some astounding success stories. Siegfriedson may knock our Balkan's interventions, but the fact remains that both Bosnia and Serbia are shaping up to be resounding successes. And the US (and the world) has yet to face any more German or Japanese hostility since we rebuilt those nations after WWII. The claim that US intervention is ontologically imperial is in the vogue right now amongst radical-liberal (and paleo-conservative) academics, but its empirically denied by the historical record.

Of course, intervention has problems associated with it to, among them hegemonic backlash and overextension. I would make two responses to these claims. First of all, the pecuilar nature of US intervention, which is designed not for territorial gain but in order to build institutions so that nations are self-sustaining and not geopolitical liabilities, throws classic models of what happens to expansionist empires for a loop. If the US can show that it is making good faith efforts to better the world (Bosnia, Afghanistan), rather than acting under a barely concealed guise to further its own interests to the detriment of the world (Vietnam, the Phillipenes), we can forestall backlash. And since the purpose of US intervention is not to stay but the reverse: that we never have to go back again, overextension is solved for as well. Second, I would argue that even if the above doesn't fix the problem entirely, since BOTH sides have realist concerns and flaws, we might as well default to the side in the moral right. As I said above, if one doesn't save the drowning child that one could have saved, one is morally liable for his death. Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer explains So long as the US is capable of aiding those who are faced with death or oppression around the world, and we can do it without causing a net loss in terms of other entities of moral significance (which, since realism flows in both directions, is true), we are as obligated to aid the ones abroad as we are the ones at home. Singer summarizes his moral formulation as "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it."

The position being taken is both morally bankrupt and, at best, realistly neutral if not harmful. And that's a shame, because the ability of the US to do good can be a powerful tool for those who believe in a better world for all.

__________________
[URL=http://dsadevil.blogspot.com]The Debate Link[/URL]

Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

Respicio Per Virtutus Solus

That philosophy certainly eliminates the old adage of charity beginning at home. Given our current fiscal position, I'd be most curious as to how satisfying moral obligations as seemingly defined by instilling democracy at any cost has any relation to our realist needs? And bestowing the mark of success on our efforts in Afghanistan relates to a moral victory when the past 25-years have been devoted to two major world powers attempting to conquer that nation solely for purposes of a natural gas pipeline? And it does seem that the listing of moral victories excludes past and present efforts in S. America, death squads and service of special interests aside.

__________________
These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

If you're looking for an apologist for past US FP injustices, you're not going to find one here. I wholeheartedly condemn prior US actions in South America and Southeast Asia (among others) that have been antithetical to US democratic and liberal ideals. It is interesting that you simultanously take a realist position in terms of US Foreign Policy, yet condemn its most prominent actions. US anti-democratic actions in Chile and Vietnam were realist measures taken to hedge against Soviet power. My philosophy isn't realist, its liberal. It just happens to argue that the realist concerns are addressable within the liberal framework, and that excessive realism that doesn't take into account democratization is doomed to failure (as well as morally bankrupt). In such a framework, US oppressive actions in nations such as Chile, Iran, Vietnam, etc would be condemned, not ratified.

Our fiscal situation is a problem. It also is a problem that should be solved by repealing certain irresponsible tax cuts, not by abdicating our moral responsibilities around the world. It's a question of priorities, and tax cuts for the relatively affluent and privileged, at the expense of the most oppressed and marginalized peoples of the world, strikes me as a rather illiberal (and indeed ethically shocking) position to take.

And as for my theory violating "charity begins at home," well aside from the fact that there is no corralary to the axiom that says "charity ENDS there too," I don't think that one can discount a whole theory on the basis that it conflicts with a proverb.

__________________
[URL=http://dsadevil.blogspot.com]The Debate Link[/URL]

Lincoln-Douglas debate: Where minimization of negative externalities isn't just pedantic, its a rebuttal.

Respicio Per Virtutus Solus