America
stands at a critical foreign policy juncture. America must decide
between two opposing courses. She can continue along the road of
foreign intervention and expansionism, or she can turn onto the
road she once traveled - neutrality.
Expansionism
vs. Neutrality. This is the big issue that embraces many related
issues whose scope is so broad as to affect every one of us. Their
scope is so large and all-embracing that most Americans cannot see
the big issue. Inside a huge valley of death, one hardly knows that
there is a promised land beyond the surrounding peaks. Our vision
is woefully obscure.
The number
of important concerns grouped around these two poles, Expansionism
and Neutrality, is astonishing. To mention a few:
- War
vs. Peace
- Empire
vs. Republic
- Inherent
Executive Power vs. Constitutional Limits
- Police
State vs. Free Country
- Surveillance
State vs. Right to Privacy
- Foreign
Invasions vs. Respect for International Law
- Interference
in Foreign Domestic Affairs vs. Non-Interference
- Superpower
vs. Multipolar World
- Utopian
Spreading of Democracy vs. Minding One's Own Business
- Fiat
Money vs. Sound Money
- High
Taxes vs. Low Taxes
- Unpayable
Public Debt vs. Sound Finances
- Stagnant
Income vs. Growing Income
- Military-Industrial
Complex vs. The Public Good
- Crony
Capitalism vs. Free Market Capitalism
- Standing
Military Forces vs. Small Military Establishment
- Militarism
vs. Business
- Jingoistic
Patriotism vs. Healthy Scepticism of Government
- Government
Secrecy vs. Open Government
- Government-Controlled
Media vs. Free Press
- Government
Propaganda vs. Truth
- Unlimited
Government Power vs. Limited Government Power
- A Scrap
of Paper vs. The Constitution
Expansionism
vs. Neutrality is not a Democratic or Republican or Independent
issue. It will warp one's values to think of it in partisan political
terms. Between the major parties, there is no Expansionism party
and no Neutrality party. There is no War party and no Peace party.
There is no Empire vs. Republic party. There is no Executive Power
vs. Checks and Balances party. Between the major parties, there
is no Anti-Constitution vs. Constitution party.
Between the
doctrines of the major parties, there is no difference that counts
on Expansionism vs. Neutrality. Only one doctrine is prevalent and
has been officially prevalent for over 100 years: Expansionism.
This is a policy of expansion of control, the aim being domination,
be it by means of gaining territory, economic control or political
control. The current aspect of it is a worldwide war on terror,
slated to last forever. This is the doctrine by which America attacked
Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and by which it engages in drone
warfare in Pakistan and Yemen. Manifest Destiny was Expansionism,
and now it is the official policy of the U.S. to go beyond the continent
of North America to the entire world.
Expansionism
is the policy by which Obama is now arming rebel factions in Syria
and by which the CIA overthrew Iran's leader in 1953. It is the
reason for U.S. sanctions on Iran and for concocting frictions with
China and Russia. It is the reason why American warmongers want
war with Iran. It is the underlying reason why whistleblowers like
Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are demonized. U.S. leaders do
not want any challenges to their Expansionism doctrine.
Expansionism
is entrenched U.S. doctrine, defended by those who believe in it
as good, just and progressive when it is none of those things. It
has come to be what rules American thought, and its ramifications
more and more are ruling American life. How good is it to have abandoned
neutrality? Look at the fruits of expansionism listed above such
as large scale war, empire, enormous executive power, a growing
police state, a growing surveillance state, and stagnant income.
Foreign Expansionism has encouraged Domestic Expansionism and the
idea that there is no ill uncurable by government. Crony capitalism
produces the 1% vs. the 99%.
Expansionism
was not always the prevailing doctrine. In 1914, President Wilson,
following a tradition that began in 1787, could issue a Declaration
of Neutrality. He could write
"Every
man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit
of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness
and friendliness to all concerned."
He could publicly
proclaim
"...our
duty as the one great nation at peace, the one people holding
itself ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the
counsels of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as
a friend."
He could conclude
with an appeal not to take sides for Great Britain or France or
Germany or any of the powers in Europe:
"I venture,
therefore, my fellow countrymen, to speak a solemn word of warning
to you against that deepest, most subtle, most essential breach
of neutrality which may spring out of partisanship, out of passionately
taking sides. The United States must be neutral in fact, as well
as in name, during these days that are to try men's souls. We
must be impartial in thought, as well as action, must put a curb
upon our sentiments, as well as upon every transaction that might
be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before
another."
Wilson did
not live up to his own words. He took America into World War I in
1917. Many presidents have not lived up to the ideal of Neutrality
and have instead embraced Expansionism. A timeline
of American military operationsshows
continual injection of U.S. forces into foreign regions. Most were
minor and did not undermine the neutrality principle. The major
exceptions in the nineteenth century that heralded the eventual
abandonment of neutrality were the Mexican-American War and the
American Civil War.
Despite these
two wars, the period of America's greatest peace, most extended
liberty and fastest progress under the Constitution ran from 1787
to 1917. This was the period when the official policy of the U.S.
government was neutrality to foreign powers.
The Spanish-American
War in 1898 followed by the Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
toppled the neutrality policy. It was buried when America entered
World War I in 1917. Foreign intervention and expansionism, frequently
involving military power, replaced neutrality. In the almost 100
years since America abandoned neutrality (1917-2013), she has been
engaged in very large wars. American leadership shifted from being
impartial, peaceful and mediatory to choosing favorites, intruding
into the affairs of other nations and using large doses of force.
One of the consequences is terror attacks against America and Americans.
These can be expected to continue as long as Americans continue
to butt into foreign nations, often killing and maiming civilians
in large numbers.
The Vietnam
War turned Americans against war for awhile, but America soon renewed
its interventions, what with episodes in Lebanon, Grenada, Libya,
Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Serbia. From 2010 to now,
the U.S. has also deployed forces in Uganda, Jordan, Turkey, Chad,
and Mali.
Expansionism
is the order of the day, but it is not producing either a better
world or a better America. It has reached a point where retaliation
against American expansionism has taken the form of terror attacks.
Former Vice-President Cheney, one of the foremost advocates of expansionism,
has recently warned of very serious possible attacks:
"'Sooner
or later, there's going to be another attack,' Cheney said, one
that could include biological agents or even a nuclear devices."
Neutrality
is the only other option.
Americans
are backed up into a corner. Obama is an expansionist who has surrounded
himself with hawkish expansionists. McCain is an expansionist. Both
parties have expansionists at their helms. Only if one of the parties
sees political advantage in advocating a move toward neutrality
and peaceful foreign relations with all nations will Americans have
a voting choice. This cannot happen unless polls show that Americans
want a new direction in foreign policy, namely, neutrality. This
requires that Americans recognize neutrality as an option, realize
that expansionism is bad for them and see that neutrality will be
better.
The business
of America has always been essentially business, invention and progress,
operating in a free environment. We have not achieved that goal,
and there has been no golden age in American history when it has
been achieved. Yet it is a sound social goal. America's business
has not traditionally been to remake the world politically or by
warfare or by domination. One hundred years of the latter is enough.
These are crowding out business, freedom and peace. Neutrality reinforces
the traditional goals of peace, liberty and free markets. Expansionism
thwarts them, replacing them with war, force, militarism and controls.
It's time to call it quits with Expansionism and get back to business.
|