Foreign Policy Handbook Issue IV

8/9/2019 Foreign Policy Handbook Issue IV

1/22

Redefining the National Interest

YOUNG AMERICANSforLIBERTY

InTheWor

ds

ofBinL

aden

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

Issue IV | July 20

All Tha

Glitters

Is Not

Gold

Jihan

Huq

Brian Bey

Daniel

Sura


2/22

The Young Americans for Libertys

Foreign Policy

Handbook

July 2010


4/22Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010

Contents

YAL MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committewinning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direcf 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, libend property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individnd directed by we the people.

We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and uct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace rosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen.

We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed ragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, contro

Executive DirectorJeff Frazee

Editor in ChiefRoy Antoun

Contributors

Jihan Huq

Brian Beyer

Jeremy Davis

Daniel Suraci

Brendon DeMeo

Elliot Engstrom

Marissa Yturralde-Gianno

Foreign Aid or Forced Charity?By Brendon DeMeo

In the Words of Bin LadenBy Jihan Huq

Spreading Democracy. Again.By Jeremy Davis

All That Glitters Is Not GoldBy Brian Beyer

Ron Pauls WarningBy Daniel Suraci

On PakistanBy Elliot Engstrom

Prohibition: Part IIBy Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

A Desperate ManeuverBy Roy Antoun

3

4

8

10

12

14

15

16

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 222021


5/22

Letter From the Editor

Dear Reader,

With the Obama Administrations weak han-

dle of foreign policy, one couldn't think that it couldpossibly get worse. After the firing of General

McChrystal, not only was the Executive exposed forbad management, but it showed us something else,something bigger.

Primarily, it shows that the simple task theExecutive is supposed to have, control over thearmed forces, was fragile and feeble. The State De-partments internal disputes and dysfunctions were

exposed to Obamas distaste. And rightfully so; it was

just sad to see the transparency coming from a maga-ine like Rolling Stone. Military command aside, McChrystals firing and ex-

os also showed the uselessness of our ambassadors abroad, like RichardHolbrooke.

Another element McChrystals firing shows us is the mismanagement

f an already broken and defunct foreign policy. Considering that I lost countf how many generals have commanded the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, itoes to show how poorly managed the war truly is, let alone our diplomaticfforts to make friends. There are various similarities between the abstracttrategy of the American Civil War and our current wars abroad. From thelorification of Obama as the second coming of Lincoln to the constant firingf generals, down to the mission creep strategy of changing the objective of the

wars, history does love to repeat itself.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.- George Santayana

Roy M. Antoun

Want to write for theForeign 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

he objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American

oreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected

eaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interven-

onism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying

he price in blood and gold.

While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express

he views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose

ny candidate for office.

http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 222022Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010


6/22

ommentary| Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010

Foreign Aid orForced Charity?Imagine that you live on a lush tropical island

with a couple thousand fellow tribesmen, which is

urrounded by a few other is-

ands. Youre a good person, you

work all day during the week selling fish at your

mall shop in the center of the island village, and

ive some of your profits away to the elders on the

sland who can no longer work for a living, and the

village healer, so that he can continue to help the

ick and wounded islanders who cannot offer him

nything in return. Imagine that

doing so is rather hard, because

he chief of the island confiscates

bout half of your wealth through

axes. If you dont pay them, a

band of spearmen will show up at

your house and demand payment,

or will haul you off to a deep hole

n the ground and feed you noth-

ng but coconut shells for a few years, until you die,or are set free to start working again and paying

more taxes.

Now imagine that this chief is taking your

money, and giving it away to tribes on other islands.

He calls it foreign aid, a form of charity that ex-

presses your tribes national character. You may

hink that such a thing is not charity, for if you do

not pay the taxes the chief uses to pay for foreign aid

you will be thrown in a dark, lonely hole in the m

dle of the jungle, but, if you speak out against it,

chief and his cohorts call you greedy and self

Furthermore, the foreign aid often goes to tr

who do horrible things to their own people

other tribes. They kill their own in weekly ritual

rifices, and are constantly at pointless religious w

with neighboring islands. The evil men and wo

who run some of the other islands often take the

your chief sends to their islands and keep it

themselves, and the chief knows this full well,

he keeps on taking his own tribes wealth and se

ing it to other islands. It boosts his popularity

some of your fellow tribesmen and other isl

chiefs think more highly of him because he is wil

to take his tribes money, by force, and send it e

where.You would surely be outraged with the ch

You would hate paying your taxes because

money would often be going to people you do

support, and causes you disagree with and o

find quite deplorable, all while many of your

tribesmen suffer. But in the United States, this is

reality. You can think of the federal governmen

the chief and the spearmen as the Internal Reve

Service (IRS). The federal government takes Amcans money and sends it o

seas, where it often winds up s

porting causes Americans o

do not believe in. The federal g

ernment believes it knows be

than its own citizens where

give charitably, and how m

should be given, even tho

many Americans are under

undereducated, and underprivileged in general.

This aid often hurts developing nations w

receive it. According to the Global Issues web

large projects or massive grand strategies often

to help the vulnerable; money can often be em

zled away, and aid amounts are dwarfed by

country protectionism that denies market access

poor country products, while rich nations use ai

You would hate paying yourtaxes because your money wouldoften be going to people you donot support, and causes you dis-agree with and often find quitedeplorable, all while many ofyour own tribesmen suffer.

Brendon DeMeo



7/22

lever to open poor country markets to their prod-

ucts. The latter is very troubling when we learn that

he US government even uses tax dollars to adver-

ise certain private businesses abroad.

The US government funds both sides of the

sraeli-Palestinian conflict. Millions of American tax

dollars flow into Gaza and often winds up in the

hands of Hamas, while, simultaneously, millions of

American tax dollars go to the Israeli government.

Note that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the

US government recognizes this fact. Even if you

upport Israel, you have to wonder why one of the

trongest and relatively wealthy countries in the

world needs the aid of the American taxpayer, while

he value of the dollar plummets, the American

conomy is in turmoil, and many Americans strug-

le with day to day expenses.America, and much of the third world, would

be much better off if America simply stopped send-

ng tax dollars overseas and let the citizens practice

ctual charity, which must be voluntary or it is not

harity at all. Looking at the leadership in both par-

ies, this is not likely to happen anytime soon. But

et us not kid ourselves into thinking the US govern-

ment, or any other government, is charitable when

t gives away money taken by force, and let us not letour fellow countrymen think the charlatans who run

his nation are saints for giving away money taken

y force.

In The Words of Bin LadenWho Is Osama bin Laden?

Up until now, the whole world assumes t

have the jihadist/terrorist master-mind Osama

Laden figured out. However, who

is the real Osama bin Laden? Not

the Osama bin Laden we see on television but

man himself, his philosophy, his accomplishme

his ambitions and of course, his mission? A

from the already depicted view we have of the Sa

royalty, there are many aspects of OBL that

common misconceptions.

Today, all we witness in the media is

OBL and his insurgent/terrorist fighters loath

mocracy, freedom, women in the work force

strip clubs. Although, OBL is extremely vocal ab

his opposition to such things, the fact of the ma

is it is not the driving force behind his radical ji

against the United States.

Bin Laden was born in March 10, 1957 in

yadh, Saudi Arabia. He was raised in a strict habbi Muslim family. He was born into the Sa

royalty with the silver spoon in his mouth. Acco

ing to several sources, Bin Laden is also college e

cated. However, what he has a degree on is

puted. He is also currently married to four wom

and is estimated to have 19-25 children.


Jihan Huq

Want to write

for the ForeignPolicyHandbook?Be a Patriot. Join the Liberty Movement.

Email the Editor:[email protected]

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

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



8/22

What Is Osama bin Laden's Philosophy?

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of

he oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims,

he legend about the invincibility of the superpow-

rs vanished. Our boys no

onger viewed America as a

uperpower. So, when they

eft Afghanistan, they went to

Somalia and prepared them-

elves carefully for a long

war. They had thought that

he Americans were like the

Russians, so they trained and

prepared. They were stunned

when they discovered how

ow was the morale of theAmerican soldier. America

had entered with 30,000 sol-

diers in addition to thou-

ands of soldiers from differ-

nt countries in the world. ...

As I said, our boys were

hocked by the low morale of

he American soldier and

hey realized that the Ameri-an soldier was just a paper tiger. ---Osama bin

Laden (1998)

It is speculated that Osama bin Laden's radi-

al Wahabbi philosophy became much more mili-

ant during and after his participation of the Soviet-

Afghan War in the 1980s. In fact, during this time,

bin Laden was not only a religious zealot but a tena-

ious Jihadist. During this time during the 1980s,

bin Laden created the group [Maktab al Khidamat],

ventually leaving it and creating the modern al-

Qaida. However, though his anger was fully enraged

upon the Communist Soviets, it was no later than

he early 1990s that bin Laden became more agi-

ated with the United Statesespecially during the

irst Gulf War. After the Saudis permitted the U.S

military in Saudi Arabia [holy land according to

OBL], he decided to turn his animosity to the W

ern powers. He started to emphasize more on

U.S government's interventionist policies in

Middle East, (esp. in countries like Egypt, I

Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc).This is when bin La

officially turned his Ji

against the West. He vie

many of the modern Mid

East governments as p

pets of the United States

well as oppressors of

Muslims. He stated, If in

ing people to do that is

rorism, and if killing th

who kill our sons is ter

ism, then let history be

ness that we are terroriHe also mentions his v

anger toward U.S policy

Israel, stating: We say

terror against America

blessed terror in order to

an end to suppression

order for the United St

to stop its support to Isra

Thus, not only does hadists despise U.S meddling in the Muslims co

tries, but they are also vehemently opposed to

strong U.S/Israel alliance and policies towards

Palestinians.

What are Osama bin Laden's Accompl

ments?

Just like you kill us, we will kill you. ---Os

bin Laden (2002)

It is no secret that Osama bin Laden's big

accomplishments are the attacks that occurred

September 11, 2001 (which he and his al-Qaida m

ions call Victory Day). However, his accompl

ment list may not be too long, but it is signific

Earlier attacks included the USS Cole bombi




9/22

arly attempt to assassinate Egyptian Dictator

Hosni Mubarrak, the attack of the Golden Mihor

Hotel, possible connections to attacks on U.S troops

n Somalia in around 1994. There are also some

peculation that he was involved in other unnamed

ttacks in Africa and the Middle East.

Bin Laden's accomplishments are a symbol

nd a reminder of his dangerous capability to at-

ack. All his motivations are based upon anti Ameri-anism, anti Western imperialism, his religious te-

nacity of fighting the enemy for the sake of the Um-

mah or the Muslim nation.

What are Osama bin Laden's Ambitions?

...Therefore I am telling you, and God is my wit-

ness, whether America escalates or de-escalates the

onflict, we will reply to it in kind, God willing. God

s my witness, the youth of Islam are preparing

hings that will fill your hearts with fear. They will

arget key sectors of your economy until you stop

your injustice and aggression or until the more

hort lived of us die. ---Osama bin Laden (2002)

The above quote depicts a clear image of bin

Laden's global ambitions to stop U.S meddling in

the Islamic world as well as imperialist activities

mentions how him and his brethren will attack

heart of every country---it's economy. Thus, acc

ing to many experts, including Philip Giraldi,

chael Scheuer, etc, bin Laden is getting exactly w

we wants (more political adventures in the Isla

world as well as more wars). This is not the

time bin Laden mentions his ambitions. Accord

to bin Laden:

America has vocally opposed political/mil

opposition to any of the heretic government

the Islamic world, this includes opposition to de

sive Jihad against these tyrannical regimes.

America has demanded that Muslim gov

ments limit, control charitable activity to o

needy, oppressed Muslim countries (Palest

Lebanon, Egypt, etc).

America has demanded that Muslims aban

God' religion and to become much more secular

progressive (Western culture, secularization).

United States policies support many oppress

anti-Muslim aggression in countries such as Ch

India, the Philippines, in Uzbekistan, in Isr

Egypt and many other countries.

America supports apostate governments as in Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Sa

Arabia, Syria, etc.

America (often using the UN) imposes sev

economically hazardous sanctions in the Musl

countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Sy

Iran, etc.

The U.S government purposely is in the M

dle East to not only be an imperialist power butake tremendous advantage of Middle East oil

energy resources.

These primary examples are all thanks to

chael Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris. Either w

bin Laden's ambitions are quite clear. Over all

wants:

The United States and other Western/n




10/22

Muslim governments to cease meddling in the Mid-

dle East.

To have his view of Sharia-based Islamic govern-

ment.

To weaken or annihilate the state of Israel.

To stop Western governments, primarily the

United States, from imposing harmful sanctions inMuslim countries.

For the United States and other Western powers

o stop exploiting Middle Eastern natural resources

uch as oil.

To stop using the United Nations to create

Christian nations from under Muslim ruled coun-

ries, such as East Timor.

And ultimately, to stop the United States

rom using it's military, CIA, etc, to overthrow, ma-

nipulate Middle Eastern governance as well as to

top oppressive actions in the Islamic countries,

uch as Israel.

What is bin Laden's Mission?

Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a

eligious duty. If I have indeed acquired these

weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to doo. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am

arrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims

not to try to possess the weapons that would pre-

vent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.

--Osama bin Laden (1998)

In today's wars, there are no morals. We believe

he worst thieves in the world today and the worst

errorists are the Americans. We do not have to dif-erentiate between military or civilian. As far as we

are concerned, they are all targets. ---Osama bin

Laden (2001)

We can clearly conclude that bin Laden's

main mission is to free his Muslim brethren under

U.S, Western and Apostate Islamic governance. In

many aspects, bin Laden does not see himself as a

terrorist but rather an insurgent in the ever

panded American empire. To bin Laden and

minions, he sees the oppression in escalating lev

especially in recent years after the U.S invasio

Afghanistan and Iraq. Mass casualties, destr

homes of civilians, infrastructure and economies

also relevant factors. He sees the world as a bat

field. Therefore, he will do whatever it takes to b

back the Muslim world pre World War I (Otto

Caliphate). To bin Laden, this is the only way

cause all the established powers will no longer h

political/ideological influence upon the Isla

world.

Conclusion

These men understood that jihad for the sakGod is the way to establish right and defeat fa

hood. They understand that jihad for the sak

God is the way to deter the tyranny of the i

dels...These men sought to prepare a response

the Day of Reckoning. Faith in God and the Her

ter and emulating the traditions of Mohamm

may God's peace be upon him, is what promp

them to leave their homes... ---Osama bin La

(after 9/11)

If you wish to conduct offensive war you m

know the men employed by the enemy. Are t

wise or stupid, clever or clumsy? Having asse

their qualities, you prepare appropriate m

ures. --- Sun Tzu

Osama bin Laden is an extremely high

filed, controversial figure. Though many deem

as violent and dangerous, some deem him as a f

dom fighter against the notorious American emp

For us to completely understand the War on T

ror, we must examine, analyze and evaluate

enemies, their beliefs, ambitions and most imp

tantly (in this case)---motivations. With the wa

Afghanistan in chaos and Iraq with no signifi

political/economic improvement, it is obvious




11/22

we need to re-analyze the strategies in that region.

The best thing to do at all times of war is to truly pay

deep attention to the heart of the enemy.

Spreading DemocracyAgain.For those who have accepted the role of

United States in the world as a builder of nati

our current involvement in Iraqto help establish a functioning

democracy is a justifiable reason for us being th

The old Wilsonian tradition of making the w

safe for democracy is alive and well in fueling

interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East.

Our government leaders would have us

lieve that it is our noble duty as Americans to spr

the good fortunes of democracy around the worl

order to bring freedom by force to oppressed pples whilst battling the threat of terrorism wo

wide.

The neo-conservatives that drive our for

policy would point to the recent parliamentary e

tions in Iraq as being a significant indicator that

cause is worth pursuing. After all, the election

Iraq, Americas little project in democracy in act

is helping to bring democratic stability to a reg

scarred with a dictatorial past, right?

The 2010 elections in Iraq have been ma

ballot recounts, interventions by the Supreme C

of Iraq, and challenged by a Prime Minister who

lieves his authority is being circumvented and

an Iraq without himself at the helm will fall ap

Iraqs fledgling democracy brought to you by

hands of the United States is represented as a ge

ine investment in the betterment of the lives of


Jeremy Dav

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



12/22

raqi people, providing them with liberty and free-

dom previously unknown.

But if we simply take a glance at the track re-

ord of the United States in supporting democracy

broad, the genuine ambitions of the democratic do-

ooders in government dont seem quite so genuine.

For instance, it was in 1953 that our CIA as-

isted in overthrowing Mohamed Mossedech, the

democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced

him with the Shah and enabled his authoritarian

ule for nearly thirty years. The United States didnt

eem all that concerned with Sad-

dam Husseins rule back in the

980s when we actually supported

him and his efforts against Iran.

U.S. interventions abroad have also

ead to the propping up of and sup-port for many dictators such as In-

donesias General Suharto, Augusto

Pinochet in Chile, Fulgencio Batista

n Cuba, and Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua to

name a few.

The creditability of our foreign policy in car-

ying through the liberation of the Iraqi people from

n un-free society is lacking when considering our

ontinued associations and alliances with other re-imes less than friendly to democracy like Pakistan

or Saudi Arabia. In fact, as in most cases of our for-

ign interventionism, democracy has taken hold in

direct opposition to our meddling on behalf of

preading our ideals through force.

In his book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the

American Republic, Chalmers Johnson explains

hat It should be noted that since 1947, while we

have used our military power for political and mili-

ary gain in a long list of countries, in no instance

has democratic government come about as a direct

esult. In some important cases, on the other hand,

democracy has developed in opposition to our inter-

erence. Chalmers goes on to cite that this occurred

after the collapse of the regime of the CIA installed

Greek colonels in 1974; after the U.S. supported fas-

ist dictatorships in Portugal and Spain in 1975; af-

ter the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the P

ippines in 1986; after the ouster of General C

Doo-Hwan in South Korea in 1987; and after

ending of thirty-eight years of martial law on th

land of Taiwan in the same year.

Being skeptical when politicians claim

we must wage preventive wars against oppre

third world nations in order to promote democ

so that we may root out terrorists becomes relati

easy when events and actions such as those m

tioned here are taken into account. Promoting

mocracy essentially becomes c

for continual war while we claim

to uphold the values of a free

democratic society and make frie

with authoritarian dictators

strive to overthrow other democrcally elected regimes at the s

time.

Congressman Ron Paul also po

out this two-faced hypocrisy in his 2003 Stat

the Republic address delivered before the

House of Representatives. Paul states that

policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all

the various complex problems of the world. Un

tunately, the propaganda machine is able to hidereal reasons for our empire building. Promoting

mocracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for

ing things that the powerful and influential striv

do for their own benefit.

In that same speech, Paul also noted

There is abundant evidence that the pretens

spreading democracy contradicts the very poli

we are pursuing. We preach about democratic e

tions, but we are only too willing to accept some

the-moment friendly dictator who actually o

threw a democratically elected leader or to inter

in some foreign election.

Do the Iraqi people themselves honestly

lieve that the U.S. is bringing them freedom thro

the barrel of a gun? In another address to the

House of Representatives, Congressman Paul

that The Muslim world is not fooled by our



But if we simply take aglance at the track record ofthe United States in support-ing democracy abroad, thegenuine ambitions of the de-mocratic do-gooders in gov-

ernment dont seem quite sogenuine.


13/22

Want to write for our FPH website?Contact us at:

http://www.interestofthestate.com/join

bout spreading democracy and values. The evi-

dence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate

o support dictators and install puppet governments

when it serves our interests. When democratic elec-

ions result in the elevation of a leader or party not

o our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to un-

dermine that government.

Although hes been fervent to deny it, theres

no doubt that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-

Maliki is nothing more than Americas man in an

American backed regime. Since the results of the

raqi parliamentary elections earlier this year possi-

bly hint at a jobless al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minis-

er has been quick to speculate that his power as

eader is being significantly reduced and under-

mined, leaving him with relatively little authority or

unable to fulfill his duty as a strong leader.Is sacrificing untold amounts of our own

blood, treasure, or freedom worth dictating to other

ountries how their governments should be more

ike ours? Is undermining our own system of de-

mocracy worth the price of making sure Iraq be-

omes a democratic beacon of the Middle East? Per-

haps if it was our actual role (which it isnt) and our

ntentions were more genuine then it could appear

more believable.But since our misguided interventionist for-

ign policy makes its living off of gross double stan-

dards of saying we support democracy here while

wanting to topple some other democratic govern-

ment we dont like over there, our government has

no room to talk in terms of supporting freedom or

iberty.

All That GlittersIs Not GoldAfter President Obamas escalation of the

in Afghanistan, remarks that it is the just war,

recent dismissal of General Stanley McChryObama has now come to own

the war in Afghanistan. He has,

in fact, owned the war since he took his inaug

oath, but only now is the mainstream media de

ing to hold him accountable. However, even

have failed at that.

In order to drum up support of the w

weary American public, James Risen of the

York Times broke a 25 year old news story

ghanistan is full of precious metals, many of th

being vital for our high tech world. In reality

Soviets, during their lengthy and disastrous occu

tion of Afghanistan, wrote a report on the coun

mining potential in 1985. The narrative remai

largely the same: plenty of minerals and plent

money to be made. However, before the Sov

could spend the time and money to deplete Afgh

stan of its resources, their socialist empire

lapsed.The importance of this mineral find has b

both largely exaggerated and grossly unde

mated. Sadly, this will not be the magic bullet

reignites Afghanistans failing economy. It also

not shoot Afghanistan to the status of regional p

erhouse overnight. However, this discovery coul

a threat to American hegemony in the Middle E

rather than augmenting it, something that many



Brian Beyer


14/22

aying will happen.

As the American public is well aware, the

United States is waging a bloody war in Afghani-

tan. With a July 2011 deadline for that has now

been disavowed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Presi-

dent Barack Obama, the Graveyard of Empires

will remain a war zone for the foreseeable future.

Even in the highly unlikely case that western troops

will be removed in a timely fashion, the Taliban in-

urgency will continue to grow stronger. Pakistans

nter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been trying to

acilitate talks between the Afghan government andhe Haqqani network, an insurgent group with close

ies to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. In Pakistans Swat

Valley, the Taliban recently took over an emerald

mine and demanded to be paid

third of all earnings. These

re just a few of the hindrances

owards any meaningful eco-

nomic development in Afghani-

tan.The problems with Afghanistans economic

limate do not end there, however. A huge obstacle

owards any promising development in the country

s its new, vague, and downright socialist mining

aws. These laws, passed in 2005, are sure to leave

many investors very skeptical of even mining there

n the first place [emphasis mine]:

Article four: Ownership of Minerals

1) All naturally occurring Mineral Substances and

all Artificial Deposits of Mineral Substances on

or under the territory of Afghanistan or in its wa-

ter courses (rivers and streams) are the exclu-

sive property of the State.

2) Mineral Activities may be conducted in Afghani-

stan [only] by the State, unless a Person [other

than the state] is the Holder of a Mineral Right

validly obtained in accordance with this Law.

(3) A Person may conduct Mineral Activities,

quire control or possession over Minerals

Mineral Substances extracted [in Afghanis

pursuant to a Mineral Right [validly obtaine

accordance with this Law].

(4) The Ministry of Mines and Industries is her

authorized to grant Mineral Rights in ac

dance with the provisions of this Law.

(5) A surface right to land does not con

upon its holder any claim or right what

ever over the Deposits of Mineral Substan

which may be found/detected on or under

land without a Mineral Right validly obtaine

accordance with this Law. The provisions

Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article shall pre

in any case.

So, even if a mining company was to disco

and extract minerals, they would first have to s

permission from the gov

ment as the minerals are

exclusive property. And

tracting minerals on land

is yours is void as it does

confer upon its holder claim or right. Frequently cited as one of the m

corrupt states in the world, mining companies co

easily be deterred from doing business there

cause of its all-encompassing mining laws

crooked politicians. Uncertainty is business w

enemy.

With constant warfare, dangerous relig

fanatics, a corrupt government, and even w

laws, Afghanistan is no enticing place to do b

ness. As such, there is no reason to believe that

ghanistans mineral reserves have the possibilit

fundamentally altering its economy.

Many people think that as a result of

find, Afghanistan will become another colony,

Saudi Arabia of lithium, of the United Sta

While this would have been more accurate du

the Cold War, the same does not hold true for to



A huge obstacle towards any promis-ing development in the country is itsnew, vague, and downright socialistmining laws.


15/22

The US is drowning in red ink (to the tune of $13.1

rillion) and is about to experience an economic

reefall that will make the Great Recession of

2008 look like a joke. The American public is be-

oming increasingly skeptical of the war in Afghani-

tan. Therefore, it is unfeasible both economically

the printing press can only do so much) and politi-

ally to maintain another Saudi Arabia.

Instead, it looks as though if China is slowly

building s strategic foothold in Afghanistan. It was

only a few years ago that state run China Metallurgi-

al Group Corporation (CMGC) outbid all of its

ompetitors by an incredible $1billion for mining

ights near the village of Aynak. The project was

rand on all levels. A railroad, power plant (that fu-

ls both the mining site and Kabul), coalmine, and

melter were all included in the $3.4 billion pack-ge. Middle East expert S. Frederick Starr has suc-

inctly described the Chinese way of doing business:

We do the heavy lifting. And they pick the fruit.

What he meant to say was that Americans do the

ighting and securing, and the Chinese profit over

he stable environment.

However, even if all of the troops in Afghani-

tan were to be quickly pulled out, it is quite possi-

ble that the Chinese would continue to extract. SinceCMGC is a state run corporation, it can take many

isks that a private company would be unwilling or

unable to take. Also, China is notorious for working

n some of the most inhospitable and dangerous

places in the world, all to feed its rapidly growing

conomy. In fact, China is more heavily invested in

raqi oil than other country (including the US), has

igned long term contracts for gasoline from Iran,

nd has many investments in Pakistan and some of

he most turbulent parts of Africa. Where private

ompanies see danger, China sees opportunity.

If China continues their strategy of picking

he fruit, it is quite possible that they could become

powerful influence in the Middle East just as the

United States influence is diminishing. China is

urrently not engaged in any military conflict in the

egion, which gives them none of the baggage that

the US has. They are willing to deal with leader

all stripes, from Karzai to Ahmadinejad. And m

importantly, they are eager to spend in order to f

their monstrous economy. If Afghanistan is eve

become a satellite state, it could very well b

China rather than the United States.

Ron PaulsWarning Years after Dr. Ron Paul warned us of

danger of perpetual war, the wars in Afghani

and Iraq have recently spread like a disease to P

stan, Yemen, and Somalia.

On top of our traditional sol-

diers, President Obama has deployed Secret Op

tions in over 70 countries. While the media is cal

Afghanistan Obamas War, the ongoing confli

Pakistan deserves that moniker more so. To

Americans fight a war against soldiers that ca

be located or named. Even which country the

mies are in remains a mystery, but yet, Amerpoliticians persevere on, throwing soldier after

dier, civilian after civilian, in order to ach

victory.

Since coming into office, President Ob

has used drone attacks in Pakistan frequently:

2008, there were reportedly between 27 and 36

drone attacks as part of the CIAs covert war in P

stan. In 2009, there were 45 to 53 such strikes



Daniel Suraci


16/22

he first 18 days of January 2010, there had already

been 11 of them. These strikes have stayed primar-

ly out of the media, since the media focuses on the

number of American lives lost.

Considering these drones are pi-

oted out of Dayton, Ohio, its hard

o imagine them making the front

page. The use of drones also pre-

vents a war weary nation to keep

pushing on in a hopeless war effort.

Not only do we not see Americans

killed, but the cost of drone fighters is significantly

ower than traditional soldiers. Effectively, Obamas

war could go on forever.

Also avoiding the front page is that Blackwa-

er (now known as Xe Services) is guarding drone

outposts for the CIA in Afghanistan and elsewhereSo while politicians condemn the actions of

Blackwater vehemently, the CIA hires Xe Services

o protect their bases to the tune of $120,123,293 of

axpayer money. Not only is the war spreading, but

he commanders are using strategies known to fail,

nd especially to cause blowback. America is not

only perpetuating war, but perpetuating the same

ailed strategies and the same actions that created a

quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama though is having a hard time finding

upport within the CIA for these drone strikes as the

CIA has relentlessly stated that the blowback effect

of a civilian war in Pakistan will far outweigh the

benefits. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Pakistan recently signed an agreement to run an oil

pipeline with Iran, from Tehran. Despite receiving

billions in aid from America, and offering their alle-

iance to us, the London School of Economics re-

cently released a report stating that the Pakis

government is giving great amounts of aid to

Taliban in Pakistan. This only makes sense as

Pakistanis view the Taliban a

great ally in their war eff

against India. The people of P

stan itself see themselves cau

up in a fight that they have no

sire to be in and entirely for po

cal reasons (thus far about $5

lion USD worth of political

sons to the government of Pakistan). Indeed,

first suicide attack in Pakistan did not occur u

2004 when the Pakistani army joined the Am

cans in fighting terrorism. Moreover, new mili

groups are popping up in Pakistan constantly

protest of Pakistans role in the war and Amerinvolvement in the Middle East. All of these p

lems should have been foreseen by US officials.

Politicians and generals both constantly

lip service to staying in the fight to win it.

none of them seem to be able to answer what

victory would look like. Certainly, a typical mil

victory will not occur; that much should be obvi

There will be no treaty, and it will be anticlima

In this way, a political victory can never achieved. If the objective is to eradicate the

Qaeda, current estimates place only about

members in Afghanistan. And the 94,000 Amer

soldiers cannot kill them. Many have moved

Pakistan, and American forces have followed.

how will generals ever know they killed them

when new militants are being created perpetuall

the violence American soldiers create. It perp

ates a cycle of violence, in which there is no poss

victory, other than withdraw, and all this under

pretense of peace. As Dr. Ron Paul stated, We

following this precept of perpetual war for perpe

peace . . . . All the while, we hemorrhage mo

only to increase our national threats, as Amer

strategies cause more and more blowback.



Obama though is having a hardtime finding support within theCIA for these drone strikes as

the CIA has relentlessly statedthat the blowback effect of acivilian war in Pakistan will faroutweigh the benefits.


17/22

On PakistanOne of the most frequent mistakes made in

he realm of foreign policy is the forgetfulness that

when dealing with other na-

ions, we are at the base

evel dealing with human

beings very similar to ourselves. While different hu-

man beings may manifest their base desires and

motivations in different ways, we all share the gen-

ral characteristic of looking out for the well being

of ourselves and those close to us above all others.

It has been characteristic of the United States

o forget this basic fact throughout our involvement

n the Middle East, as we often reduce the actions of

he people of such regions as the Middle East to

imply describing them as terrorists without anyttempt to understand why they react in such a way

o our presence. However, it seems that this base

mistake on the part of the United States continues

s we spread our war into Pakistan with little regard

or the likely consequences. An analysis of the

lawed idea of nation building in the region will help

hed light on why its people continue to become

more hostile to an American presence.

Nation building is an impossible enough taskn the case of a country like Iraq where the infra-

tructure has been decimated due to war and now is

being rebuilt. In the case of Afghanistan and west-

rn Pakistan, where the United States effort is now

ppearing more and more like a nation building ef-

ort, the task is made even more difficult, and nearer

o impossibility, by the fact that no infrastructure of

he kind the United States is trying to create has

ever existed before in the history of the region.

Consider the analogy of Humpty Dum

When Humpty Dumpty falls off of the wall an

the kings men have to put him back together,

quite a difficult task in and of itself. However, w

the United States is attempting to do in Afghani

and western Pakistan is to put Humpty Dum

back together despite the fact that he has n

existed. In other words, theyre trying to cr

Humpty Dumpty out of thin air.

Even a mild analysis of the demographic

western Pakistan makes it fairly obvious why t

is such hostility to American attempts to radic

alter their culture. The Federal Administered Tr

Area (FATA), located along the Pak

Afghanistan border, is only recognized as suc

outsiders. The inhabitants of this region do consider themselves people who live along the

ghanistan-Pakistan border, rather they think

themselves as people who occupy their own ho

land, just like everyone else in the world. They

not see the area they occupy through western e

but rather through their own.

This fact by itself makes it hard enough

the United States to accomplish any of their goa

the region, such as hunting down enemies hidde

the tumultuous terrain of the region and making

people of the area more sympathetic to an Amer

presence. However, the tactics being used by

United States military in Pakistan not only hin

accomplishment of American objectives, but dire

antagonize them.

One example of this is drone policy along

Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which has in re



Elliot Engstrom


18/22

years been a problematic issue for the United States

military. By using drones to attack what are consid-

red key targets in this region, the United States has

undermined the strength of the Pakistani authori-

ies, and in fact has increased the kind of political

nstability so feared in the region. Even if the drone

ttacks are now being reduced, the damage is al-

eady done. For example, not only have drone at-

acks increased resistance to an American presence,

hey also have increased recruiting levels for anti-

American organizations such as the Pakistani Tali-

ban. Baitullah Mehsud, founder of the Pakistani

Taliban, said in an interview, I spent three months

rying to recruit and only got 10-15 persons. One

U.S. [drone] attack and I got 150 volunteers!

This reverts back to the statement at the off-

et of this effort that human beings are motivated byoncern for themselves and those close to them, and

hus it should be no surprise that this method of at-

ack has bred hostility against the U.S.

A final, and arguably the largest, issue at

hand in the expansion of Americas war into Paki-

tan is the simple fact that historically, the United

States does not quickly withdraw forces from areas

where they have been committed. If the American

war continues to escalate into Pakistan, it will benearly impossible to have any significant drawdown

of forces in the near future. By continuing to con-

duct operations in this turbulent region, the United

States is creating what is becoming less and less an-

other theater of the war in Afghanistan, and more

nd more an entirely new theater of war in itself,

tretching an overworked United States military

over three theaters of the Middle East. It can be

predicted that as this continues, any natives of this

egion that fight back in concern for their own

utonomy will be dubbed terrorists by the United

States, and end up serving as yet another pretext for

continued expansion into the region.

If a massive increase in the war in the Middle

East is to be avoided, then to time to end expansion

nto Pakistan is now.

Prohibition:Part IIIraq and Afghanistan are not the only w

that the United States is currently waging. There

third major war that the United States has resumresponsibility for. In many cases it takes form

green leaves or

white powder.

For several years the United States has invested

lions in a no-win war that seems to be qui

tucked away in the Presidents budget: The Wa

Drugs. The War on Drugs takes on an interes

history that still continues up to this day. As

black-market increases its revenue in the street d

cartels, Americas skepticism is increasing as w

Recent news of drug violence in our neighbo

Mexico is leading many Americans to believe

our War on Drugs is becoming more and more

parent of its extreme inefficiencies and waste. H

ever, more importantly its revealing question

actions that the War implements. The War

Drugs has become another negative US foreign

icy that has affected our diplomatic ties with m

countries; including our neighbors and the couwe are concentrating military intervention, Afgh

stan.

The governments assumed responsibilit

regulating human behavior in regards to the c

sumption of drugs could be notoriously seen in

1920s during Prohibition. During this time, the g

ernment took on the alcohol binge. For predo

nantly moral reasons, government was pushed

Marissa Yturralde-Giannot




19/22

prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol deeming it a

drug whose effects were seen as negative to the

overall society. Prohibition became notoriously un-

popular as violence within mobs increased and costs

o ban the product soared (sound familiar?). As a

esult prohibition did not do what it intended and

was lifted. Today the War on Drugs takes not only

domestic problems but now has shifted it into the

hands of violent non-state actors in other countries.

Mexicos recent violence in neighboring bor-

der towns is in direct correlation to the War on

Drugs. Because drugs are illegal and the black mar-

ket is in such high demand, drug cartels compete for

op spots in supplying drugs. This leads to illegal

ctivity and violence between each group. As seen

n Mexico, drug cartels have been waging a war with

ach other to drive the other out of the competitionn supplying America with its drugs. Therefore, the

War on Drugs in its intention to stop violence actu-

lly increases it. While Mexico is experiencing insta-

bility in their northern region, the violence is threat-

ning to cross the border into the United States. The

hreatening violence is just another example how

he War on Drugs has failed in its implementation

of reducing drug use and drug crime.

On the other side of the world, Afghanistanlso seems to be under the War on Drugs spell. In

Afghanistan, poppy fields are being questioned by

he US military. Eradication is taking root in Af-

hanistan to prevent heroine to be supplied to the

United States. This might seem like the right thing

o do however, poppy fields are essential to the sur-

vival of many poor farmers in Afghanistan. Many

armers do not have other methods of income ex-

ept for the cultivation of poppy. This poses a sig-

nificant problem to the US: should the US eradicate

poppy fields in facing civilian retaliation? The Tali-

ban also seems to use this an excuse to gain more

supporters in the region. Poor farmers whose po

fields are destroyed by the United States look

support from the Taliban who can provide th

economic and physical security that the Un

States could not. This has become a major prob

for our plans in the region and how the Un

States is perceived by other countries. Many pr

lems we also face in South America take this form

well. The War on Drugs is simply another reaso

create anti-Americanism that can one day have

effect on our national security.

And instead of focusing our interests insupply side of the problem, all our efforts go

wards the demand side. The United States c

pletely bypasses our contribution to the problem

becoming the consumers of these cartels that cr

instability in their respective countries (as also s

in Colombia).

The War on Drugs is a needless $40 bil

(per year) waste that produces nothing but wor

ing results. Its affect on diplomacy in Latin Ame

(with certification laws) and other parts of the w

can lead to consequences in the future and alre

have. Not only does it affect our diplomatic ties

also seriously affects urban populations and min

ties. This government sponsored war is only gen

ating more jail time to those who are neither vio

nor a danger to society. Its time for the US to

political morality and the War on Drugs.




20/22

A DesperateManeuver With the United States engaged in a perpet-

ual war across the scope of the entire globe, a for-

merly useful and intrinsically scientific agency is ex-

periencing a severe case of mis-

ion creep. The National Aeronau-ics and Space Administration used to have a steady

mission or goal. It was to pioneer the future in

pace exploration, scientific discovery and aeronau-

ics research. But now NASA is being used as a for-

ign policy mechanism to reach out to the Muslim

world and engage more with dominantly Muslim

nations. One little caveat: to help them feel

good about their historic contribution to science,

math, and engineering.

The Obama administrations utilization of

NASA in this respect is quite degrading. In the

words he used, he does several things. First, he

eparates the Muslim world from the rest of the

world; he is compartmentalizing and creating an

otherwise untrue accusation that the Middle East is

detached from the world. In essence, Mr. Obama is

purposefully creating a rift that otherwise does not

have to exist. Second, he immediately loses to

with non-Muslims living in what he deems as

Muslim world. Christians, Jews, Copts, Hin

and Buddhists live in the Middle East and step

as well. Third, it isnt the job of NASA, of all adm

strations, to help a group of people feel go

about anything. If anything , NASA makes us

really small and tiny in the grander scheme

things.

According to NASA Administrator Ch

Bolden, NASA is not only a space explora

agency but also an Earth improvement agen

Essentially, foreign policy has been lucrati

dubbed as Earth improvement and a Space

ministration is now an Earth management age

that has to differentiate people by their associa

religions and then make them feel good abouThats what your tax dollars do: they make relig

people half way across the world feel good.

However, in saying this, Mr. Bolden

President Obama have applied the mission cr

tactics of the war on terror to a Federal agency

of this publication, NASAs website definiti

states that its mission is to pioneer the futur

space exploration, scientific discovery and aeron

tics research. Nevertheless, the new direction Bolden and Obama are taking NASA is a farfetc

understanding of what NASAs original intent

were. On paper, science and research const

NASAs goals. In practice, theres an unprincip

deviation from its roots; the manipulation of wo

to describe an otherwise well-intentioned agenc

malicious and irresponsible.

Obamas petty NASA plan has former as

nauts up in arms over the future of NASA, let al

the future in space exploration. According to

San Francisco Examiner, the moon program wil

scrapped, replaced by a hazy hope to visit Mars.

space shuttle will die, leaving America with no

to put a man in orbit. That task will be left to

Russians who will supply our astronauts wit

venue into space. It seems that the Obama Adm

stration and State Department have run out of id



Roy Antoun


21/22

o fix what they see as broken and are resorting to

pace exploration to fix a sickly foreign policy.

Similar to the changed roles that the National

Guard, Department of Defense, and Congress play,

NASA will soon fall victim to mission creep and Ex-

cutive extortion. The National Guard used to be a

orce and power delegated to states only and for na-

ional defense. However, that quickly changed into a

peacekeeping force that would see action in Saudi

Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The Depart-

ment of Defense has become a nation-build

mechanism designed to export a neoconserva

foreign policy. Congress used to be an institu

that defended the Constitution.

Its disheartening to see a weak Obama

ministration resorting to NASA for foreign po

advice and even more disheartening to see a Fed

agency change its primary role from scientific

search to Earth improvement, which in and o

self is a debatable term.



Suggested Reading BytheFPH Team


22/22

Anyone who has ever looked intothe glazed eyes of a soldier dying

on the battlefield will think hard

before starting a war.

- Otto von Bismarck

olicyHandbookPForeign

Documents

Foreign Policy Handbook Issue IV