FPHandbook_issue3

8/9/2019 FPHandbook_issue3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fphandbookissue3 1/27

Redefining the National Interest

YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

Issue III | June 20

Why Google

ade the

ight Decision

Daniel Suraci

Craig Dixon & Jeremy DavisRAND PAUL

Is “FrTrade

Reall

Free

Trade

Nelson

Greece and the

Federal ReserveElliot Engstrom

NSC 68

Jihan Huq

WeaponOf

Mass

NonsensBrian Beyer



The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy

Handbook

June 2010



“Paul's refusal to commit one waanother to war with Iran is m

pragmatic and realistic than a ltarian who would outright refustake action against Iran, were thever actually attack the Un

States.” “However, Rand does stress when the time must come whereseems imminent, then Congress m

fulfill its constitutional duty and vide a proper declaration of war.

Craig Dixon & Jeremy Dav

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

Rand PaulForeign Polic

P. 13

Why Google Made the Right Decision

Daniel Suraci

Is “Free Trade”

Really Free TradeNelson Chase

Federal

Reserve

Elliot Engstrom

P. 1

P. 6

P. 1

P. 11

P. 1

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


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fphandbookissue3 4/27Young 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 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 cuct. 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, control

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-Gianno

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

Why Google Made the Right Decision

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 222021



Letter From the Editor

Dear Reader, Americans sometimes operate like squirrels. They have

attention spans that, at best, are three seconds long but enhanceslightly according to issues that concern them and them only. Whenthe 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, Americansimmediately 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 evenfully 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 18 th. And all of a sudden, just 24 hours later, the hot topic of media headlines became “Rand Paul

pposes 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 igots who want to destroy Barack Obama and all Civil Rights-related legislation. So we, as a soci-ty, 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., bothhe Left and the Right missed the whole point. Primarily, no one is entitled anything in society;ou own the fruits of your labor. Secondly, who cares? As Robert Gibbs stated soon after the leftist ropaganda hit television screens, this talk “shouldn’t have a place in our political dialogue in

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

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

ews 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-

ause everything we are fed through our television screens gear us where cultural elites want us toe.

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

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

ever read the bill. They couldn’t get us on the PATRIOT Act; Obama signed it back into legisla-

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

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

heir last-ditch effort to keep incumbents in office. And while they (the Left and Right) play their petty games with our economy, healthcare,

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

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

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



ommentary | 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-

il, Russian President Dmitry Med-

edev 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-

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

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

o Turkey in exchange for 120 kg of uranium en-

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

was hopeful that the deal would fail. Much to their

hagrin, however, the deal was sealed.

As soon as the agreement was announced, itwas met with harsh criticism from many western

powers, and most loudly from the

United States. President Obama

ommented, “Iran [needs] to up-

hold its international obligations

or face increased sanctions and

pressure, including UN sanc-

ions." While criticism of Iran is

nothing new, there was anotherhypocritical 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

nswer is a resounding no. Middle Eastern peace

has been one of the most pressing foreign policy

sues from the mid twentieth century to present

2003, Iran offered a secret proposal to the Un

States that would have had Iran “accept peace w

Israel and cut off material assistance to Palestin

armed groups and pressure them to halt terro

attacks within Israel's 1967 borders.” Unfortunatthe deal was promptly rejected by the Bush adm

stration significantly hindering any meaningful

plomacy or peace efforts in the future. Many of

current foreign policy woes would have been m

easier to handle had the agreement been accepte

Such arrogance and dismissal of diplom

did not end with the Bush presidency. Rather, it

furthered under America‟s “Peace Preside

Barack Obama. As mentioned earlier, the reagreement between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil im

diately created a firestorm in the United Sta

Rather than accepting the terms that the US had

fered almost verbatim in October, calls for sanct

became louder and louder.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadineja

extremely unhappy with this hostility. Fighting b

against the unwarranted criticisms, he warned

they [world powers] reject the agreement and splaying new games, then they should know that

doors for negotiations and un

standings will be closed.” W

this effectively means is tha

this treaty is not taken seriou

there will be no other peac

avenues that the US and its a

could pursue.

This leaves the Obama admstration with several options: 1.) continue to pur

economy crippling sanctions; 2.) preempti

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

the deal as it is. As recent rhetoric has dem

strated, option 3 is completely off of the table,

option 1 is being aggressively pursued. The m

disconcerting of the three, option 2, is becom

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. “

PhotocourtesyofXSeer.com

Brian Beyer





While Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Admiral

Michael Mullen considers a military strike on Iran

he “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

ompany to transport 10 ammunition containers

ull of bunker buster type bombs to a naval base onDiego 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

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

larmingly, the US engaged in a war game with Is-ael under the scenario that Iran acquired a nuclear

bomb, signaling the possibility that a war with Iran

s on the horizon. Because of the familial like ties

between the two countries, it is almost certain that

he US will defend Israel‟s actions, either through

orce or rhetoric, no matter what.

However, options 1 and 2 are based on the

aulty assumption that Iran is developing a nuclear

weapon. This could not be further from the truth. Inreport issued to Congress by the Director of Na-

ional Intelligence, there is no sign that a nuclear

bomb is being developed: “We continue to asses

ran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear

weapons though we do not know whether Tehran

ventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons.”

Here, it is made crystal clear that Iran is considering

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-

lear weapons program whatsoever, calls for sanc-

ions and eventual war with Iran are becoming

ouder than prudence would dictate. The dubious

auses for the war in Iraq are presciently parallel to

hose 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 quagmir

red, a fragile economy, and an exhausted milit

cannot afford to wage another war or isolate

other Middle Eastern country. The results would

disastrous.

Currency Supremacy

Pick your Poison

The U.S. dollar. Once considered the stu

est of all the worlds currencies, it has fallen f

grace. The euro. The challenger to the dollar has been more valuable, for

years. Which currency will pre-

vail in the end? Which should we put our trus

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

has experienced troubles, as we have seen by

Greek debt crisis. The euro is steadily declinin

value. What‟s also telling is that the dollar ca

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

fall. As any Austrian economist knows, an e

omy run by a central bank, and a currency with

real backing, is ultimately doomed to failure, o

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

rozone are both plagued by a central bank, and b

have currencies that have no real backing. The

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


Brendon DeM




of liquidity. Unlike assets such as gold, property,

nd valuables, money can be easily spent. With

hose facts in mind, why would anyone, who has

nough 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-

one are welfare states (some are welfare-warfare

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

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

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

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 likeMises or Hayek, it becomes absurd to put faith in

he currency of a welfare state.

Going back to the Greek debt crisis, we know

he cause was their overblown welfare state., which

demanded unsustainable levels of spending. We see

he 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

ake. Many Europeans think they are getting goodervices for their astronomically high taxes, but as

we see with Greece, their programs are ultimately

unaffordable. Many economists consider a weak-

ned euro a good thing for export nations like

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

ency itself is untrustworthy. And if the EU decides

o 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

alked about building ones house upon the rock or

upon the sand. Obviously He was not talking about

conomics, but, a similar metaphor can be applied

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

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

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

in assets, such as gold, they are more li

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

the sand, the day will come where it comes crash

down - they will suffer financially. This is not tothat we should not take any risks or refuse to inv

but we should be very wary of relying on fiat

rency, printed in nations with spendthrift gov

ments.

So, as time marches on, rest assured that

ther currency will ultimately “win.” Even if the

lar overtakes the euro, we still have “Helico

Ben” Bernanke as our Federal Reserve chairm

Even if the euro bounces back a bit, the EuropUnion and the nations that are involved are run

good deal of spendthrift politicians. It is appar

given the current economic climate and the d

levels, that we should not trust either currency

the words of the great American writer Ernest H

mingway, “The 1st panacea of a mismanaged na

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

bring a temporary prosperity; a permanent r

Don‟t put your faith in a mismanaged nation, omismanaged currency.





Is “Free Trade”

The short answer is no. The North American

Free Trade Agreement is promoting free trade be-

ween the United States and our local neighbors

only. Is it truly promoting true

ree trade without conditions, as

he 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

he Constitution to the Executive

branch. Here is the real problem

with NAFTA. The President of the

United States entered into trade

greements with Mexico and Can-

da. This is unconstitutional. Un-

der NAFTA these two nations are

preferred trading partners with

he United States. This effectively

reates two classes of trading

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

ral government is using our trade policy as a for-

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

em? The answer is to leave NAFTA and create true

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

hat; free trade between nations for the betterment

of the nations without preferred status, exemptions

or clauses.

The Congress‟s role, according to the Consti-

ution, is to regulate trade between our nation and

foreign states. It is clearly set forth in the Const

tion under the Commerce Clause, which says, “

Congress shall have Power... To regulate Comm

with foreign Nations.” Of course big governm

supporters don‟t wish to look at the Constitu

anymore. By giving the President and the Execu

branch the power to enter trade agreements, sucNAFTA, Constitutional checks and balances are

ing upset and the overarching expanding Presid

tial power continues to grow. This is a danger

precedent being set. (The same can be said of

unconstitutional transfer of power to the execu

branch to declare war).

This begs the question, has trade with

Mexico and Canada increased because of NAF

Yes it has. Since 1994 trade with Mexico and Canhas increased dramatically. What has suffe

though is our trade with other nations. Since Me

and Canada are now preferred trading partners

trade with other nations has suffered. What is e

more alarming is that we are now using Trade Po

as a weapon of our interventionist foreign po

The United States tells frien

nations not to trade with cer

nations (see Cuba, Iran, NKorea as great examples) an

they do they are effectively ac

against the United States.

other class of preferred tradin

created from this. This new

ferred class is your either with

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

lies. This is truly not free trade.

So what should the United States do? I arthat a truly constitutionally based governm

would leave NAFTA thus ending preferred t

partnerships with Canada and Mexico. It would

using trade policy as a foreign policy tool and cr

an even playing field for all nations. The Cong

would take back its Constitutional duty of prom

ing trade with foreign nations. For in true F

Trade the United States can bolster our econom


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

he same time, we can peacefully exchange our ideas

of liberty worldwide without coercing nations.

Need a Solution toNorth Korea?

After North Korea‟s recent torpedo attack on

South Korean naval ship, tensions are rising, and

he Korean Peninsula looksipe for war. And as MSNBC

eports: “the White House said Seoul can continue

o count on the full backing of the United States and

aid U.S. military commanders had been told to

work with their South Korean counterparts „to en-

ure readiness and to deter future aggression.‟”

The question is why? As often and as stub-

bornly as commentators and analysts like to a

that question, the key to solving our world‟s pr

lems lies in understanding their causes. Wh

North Korea so aggressive and combative? W

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

instead of simply responding to North Korean m

tary action with firepower of our own, we can tsteps towards a less aggressive North Korea?

The answer is obvious: the problem is N

Korea‟s economic isolation. History has dem

strated resoundingly that economic barriers

preludes to military aggression between nat

while the flow of commerce over borders stren

ens their ties. The Atlas Economic Research Fo

dation put it well in its petition for free trade to

G20 Conference (http://atlasnetwork.otradepetition/):

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 w

der why North Korea threatens and attacks

neighbors- it‟s quite possibly the most economic

isolated country on earth. The way to solve

problem is to pursue a deliberate policy of open

trade as much as possible between North Korea

the rest of the world.


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/








Critics will quickly point out that this is no

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

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

ea in the global community on peaceful and

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

ommunist government may not cooperate as fully

s we‟d like, the onus is still on us to try - and wehaven‟t been trying hard enough.

The Obama Administration should be fiercely

determined to open up North Korea to more foreign

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

but at best highly successful- attempt to accomplish

his 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 openedrade.

There is a solution to North Korean aggres-

ion- a truly long-term solution that will improve

he lives of North Koreans and bring them into

peaceful intercourse with the rest of the world- that

olution is trade.

PreventPreventive

War

Preventive war (sometimes called the "B

Doctrine") is the premise that a country should

fend itself when a threat is

'inevitable' but not imminent.

Preventive war should not be confused with

emptive war. Preemptive War (or preemp

strike), which is generally allowed in internatio

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

neighboring countries is lining up tanks on the b

der and the threat will happen soon. Preventive

on the other hand is when there is an 'inevita

threat (meaning at any point in the future). W

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

modern International Law, and there are good p

cies reasons for this: preventive war is in fact

gression. More importantly though, preventive

was illegal entirely under customary internati

law. This was simply called aggression, or impe

ism, and was not tolerated or justified by a grou

bureaucrats. The primary problem, as shown by

Second Iraq War, is deciding when there is an ac

threat. Are bad words between leaders evidenc

an inevitable threat? Are some out of context

photos? Even with evidence of an eventual thr

one should never forget the old adage, "The

casualty when war comes is truth."


Daniel Sura

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

tories of atrocities, Americans have been led to be-

ieve many lies, exaggerations on our fabled ene-

mies, and have been read only sugar coating on our

llies. While Hitler was demonized, Stalin was vic-imized. While we concerned ourselves for our Brit-

sh allies and rightfully condemned fascists as racist,

he 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

irst Iraq war was sold to the American peoplehrough a completely falsified story involving the

murder of babies: "'Of all the accusations made

gainst [Saddam Hussein],' MacArthur observed,

none had more impact on American public opinion

han 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 toet the American people to go to war. After the war,

no evidence or other witnesses of the event could be

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

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

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

ides who is right and justified. Like aggression,

preventive war leads to the "winner writing the his-

ory", 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

rying 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

whenever news would come out about Clin

scandal, somehow there was a new target to b

up. This concern is very much the reason that

President cannot declare war, but can only c

mand the forces after Congress has. War ben

few at the expense of many. Preventive war those few a lesser hurdle to climb, and for that m

ter, more targets.

It is easy to get lost in the ideas of nation

war and forget the people of which these nations

composed. The American common law tradit

and customary International Law recognize a rto defend one's self only when the threat is im

nent (immediate). If there is no recognized righ

people to have preventive self-defense (for all

policies reasons stated above), then how co

Americans as a collective suddenly have this righ

Last, there are always considerations of

costs of war: primarily civil liberties, lives, econo

production. Not only does war harm the cou

being attacked in these ways, but also the cou who is the aggressor. This has been the ca

America since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1

leading to the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedi

Act of 1918, and today, the Patriot Act. For ex

ple, the 1918 Act prohibits "disloyal, profane, scu

lous, or abusive language" about the United St

Government. Furthermore, war diverts produc

use of resources to sectors of the economy wh

primary purpose is to destroy resources. For threasons, war should always be considered the

resort, not the first one.

The doctrine of preventive war is not dan

ous only to the people being attacked, but to the

gressing country's liberty and economic soundn

as well. America would do well to forever end

practice of preventive war, and for Americans to

skeptical of enemies that politicians create.





NSC 68Today, most people have not heard of the

NSC 68. Many (including myself) were oblivious to

he historical documents and how

he NSC 68 was a blueprint for

Military Keynesianism, the National Security State

nd how some of the policies of the Cold War has

nfluence upon our current foreign policy

To start off, the NSC 68 is an actual classified

document and was authorized by President Truman

n September of 1950. The document consists of

everal strategies for defeating the former USSR fi-

nancially, militarily and of course strategically. The

main objectives of the NSC 68 were of the following:

) The United States must become a much more

powerful economic and military power.

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

unctional

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

ies and actions must “foster” systematic change in

he Soviet Union.

These objectives are what merely shaped

much of the United State's Cold War foreign policy

nd thus also opened doors for the National Secu-

ity State. During the same Truman years, defense

pending skyrocketed (initially for the Korean War).

Ultimately, the aggressive foreign policy lead

o the expansion of the federal government. With

he National Security Act, the creation of the CIA,

the creation of the National Security Council, N

and also merged the Department of War and

Department of the Navy under the National Mili

Establishment (which eventually became the

partment of Defense) followed. Even with all

military and intelligence expansion, the creator

the NSC 68 (George Kennan to name one) wmore than aware that the USSR was not a mili

match against the United States. A great contem

rary example of the National Security State is

Bush Administration's violation of the Surveilla

Act or FISA, passed by Congress in 1978. The

TRIOT ACT is also another example of how FIS

being misused if not used at all-excluding the vi

tion of other civil liberties.

After the eventual collapse of the Soviet ion, the objectives of the NSC 68 are still simila

current actions of our foreign policy. Almost aft

decade of the Cold War, there has been a few pro

nent influential officials who wrote “Rebuild

America's Defenses” -a document that is a par

the Project for New American Century (PNA

PNAC‟s document required America's role in

world to be much more militant and opportun

on transferring the Middle East and elsewhere. main idea behind the PNAC was later adopted

the Bush Administration. Another similar NSC

approach is the containing of terrorism in the W

on Terror. One primary example is the invasio

Iraq in 2003. According to then President Geo

Bush, Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11

was evil dictator and had weapons of mass dest

tion-therefore we toppled the Baathist governm

and overthrew Saddam. “The free society is limin its choice of means to achieve its ends. Com

sion is the negation of freedom, except when

used to enforce the rights common to all.” T

strategy echoes the prevalent policy of overthrow

governments by the United States during the C

War. Whenever it felt a foreign government wa

the risk or influence of the Soviet Uni

Communism, the United States would quickly s


PhotocourtesyofNATO

Jihan Huq




port and fund an opposition party to overthrow the

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

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

ectives are what follow:

) assistance to Western Europe and recovery;

2) assistance to other countries because of their spe-

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

our special interests;

3) assistance to the development of the undeveloped

reas (loans and credit to various countries);

4) military assistance to NATO

) restriction of East-West trade

6) purchase and stockpiling of strategic materials;

7) efforts to reestablish an international economy

ased on multilateral trade, declining trade barriers,

nd convertible currencies.

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

pletely related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,

inancial/aid assistance to other countries and of

ourse our undying support for NATO to stabilize

he destructive chaos in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, the NSC 68 not only gave birth

o the National Security State and our Cold War

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

ious foreign policy. If this document is read care-

ully, 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 doesneed major revisions/changes. The only way we can

ruly 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 theFederal Reserve

Financial crises can be very difficult event

understand. Even for those who have spent a g

deal of time studying such areas

as finance and economics, com-

prehension of these disasters can be elusive. H

ever, analyzing shared elements in the re

American and Greek financial crises can help

even the economic layman insight into their c

mon causes.

One word can be used to sum up the basic con

behind both of these crises – overextension.Both the American and Greek governm

attempted to take on a much heavier economic l

than either could handle. While, in both cases,

has been painted by some as a noble, humanita

effort to help those in need, methods such as in

tionary monetary policy tantamount to theft and

disguising of massive budgetary deficits (in b

cases with the help of Goldman Sachs) would

justify the means employed even had these eff been successful, and certainly should be take

task considering the disastrous ramifications

these actions.

In both cases, many are citing unrestrained spe

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

wrote of the Greek crisis that “years of unrestra

spending, cheap lending and failure to implem

financial reforms…whisked away a curtain of pa


Elliot Engstro




iddled statistics to reveal debt levels and deficits

hat exceeded limits set by the Eurozone.”

Without suggesting that CNN was attempting

o be deceptive in this explanation, as the points

made certainly are important, it must be noted that

hings like unrestrained spending, cheap lending,

nd fiddled statistics are merely symptoms of thedeeper disease. Instead of asking the government to

pend 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 FederalReserve 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

he 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

o set economic law is about as useful as attemptingo set gravity.

Consider this metaphor of setting gravity. A

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

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

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

empts 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

ble to set the nature of gravity at all, and he falls tohe ground long before reaching his destination.

This is exactly what happened due to the ac-

ions of central banks in the cases of both the United

States and Greece. Interest rates and other nat

economic restrictions were said to be more flex

than they truly were. Thus, individuals who ba

their actions on this information ended up engag

in activities that were far more risky than us

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

found that, in fact, economic law was as stricever, and they “fell.”

However, if the answer is so obvious, why

we not hearing more about it? Each of these fin

cial crises is extremely complicated, and the abdescribed scene is, it must be admitted, an overs

plification. This is not to say that it is not accur

but rather that this nature of the crises‟ root cau

not immediately apparent to all upon examining

situation. For example, a person who has been e

cated their entire life in an economic school

praises central banking, deficit spending, and g

ernment action in general would certainly seek

find another cause for the crisis, perhaps by blam business owners for making risky investment

stating that government controls were not s

enough. However, a person who has studied

understands the damage done by central bank

and government economic controls will be quic

realize what has occurred.

People with such knowledge are becom

more and more common in both the United St

and around the world. “Even today, with an nomic crisis raging, the response by our governm

and the Federal Reserve has been characteris

Ron Paul writes in his recent book, End the

“Interest rates are driven to zero and trillions of

lars are pushed into the economy with no evide

that any problems will be solved. The author

remain oblivious to the fact that they are only m

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

overnment for its role in these financial crises. In

n e-mail to supporters, Democratic congressman

Dennis Kucinich cited “the 1913 Federal Reserve

Act, the banks‟ fractional reserve system and ourdebt- based economic system” as major factors in

he American crisis.

Such complex and important issues as eco-

nomic crises need all the attention we can give

hem, 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 different system. Still, the general principles hold,

lways returning us to that first word – overexten-

ion. As long as nations attempt to manipulate the

aws of economics to engage in far grander pursuits

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

nomic crises as have been seen in the United States

nd Greece in the future.

the Right DecisionGoogle began providing internet search en-

ine services to China only recently, in 2005. When

Google began the service, they

greed to obey China's censorship

egulations, despite controversy and "Google Guy's"

moral problems with censorship. In January 2

Google claimed that the Chinese governm

hacked into human rights activists' Google em

(Gmail) accounts. By March of 2010, Go

stopped running the censored Chinese version

their search engine and the Chinese governm

subsequently banned all searches through Googl

Did Google do the right thing by pulling

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

sacrifice their principles, but the cost of doing b

ness in China is expensive and unpredictable.

in all big government economics, business in Ch

is subject to the capricious whims of the legislatdictators, or regulators. Many companies that c

into China take years to become profitable, and

is usually only after heavy lobbying. "P&G

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

nine. KFC [took] ten years . . . ." (htt

www.economist.com/business-finance/

displaystory.cfm?story_id=15814746). Despite

massive market available due to China's populat

many companies are in the red for years (if tever become profitable) as they mangle their b

ness model to meet Chinese regulatory standa

Needless to say, a company must be well establis

before even attempting to break into a heavily re

lated market, which will lower innovation and p

up monopolies and oligopolies. Despite Google

ing established for years in the US, they did

even want to bother with China until 2005, w


Daniel Suraci

“Like in all big governmeneconomics, business inChina is subject to the capricious whims of the legislators, dictators, or regulators. Many companies thacome into China take year

to become profitable, and this is usually only after heavy lobbying.”




he company had taken off in America as early as

998. 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-

ens for years.

And of course, these same regulations as ap-

plied capriciously are what made the Chinese citi-ens lose this service as well. Constantly having to

update their censored materials, perpetual politick-

ng to stay in favor with the government signifi-

antly 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

ppease a tyrannical regime, made Google ask "why

bother?"

There are great lessons to be learned fromhe Google debacle. First, regulations will prevent

ompanies from providing services. Second, regula-

ions will drive out services or put companies out of

business. As American lawmakers condemn the

Chinese government for their censorship, they seem

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

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

ress 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

rom the private market. Every rule that needs to be

ollowed increases costs for a business, first to learn

bout the rule and then to comply. These costs are

n 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-

ure, despite any reliance from the private sector.

Lawmakers in every country refuse to acknowledgehe principle of unseen effects of creating costs to a

ompany. Each additional cost can force the com-

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

o 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 st

which had kept our market so desirable for com

nies, when will other countries' companies ask "

bother?" with the American consumer. This

benefit analysis is necessary to maintain a comp

A company will not perform their operation

country where following the law makes the businfall under their desired profit margin.

This is the path of regulation. Politic

regulate the life out of businesses and the mar

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

life back into them with freshly printed money.

lesson to be learned from Google leaving Chin

not that the Chinese government is totalitarian,

that big government drives out businesses

goods that make life better for its citizens.

Shock

And

Paul(Next P





Shock and Paul:Rand the Neocon?

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

hroughout factions of the liberty movement, fol-

owed by accusations of neocon-

ervatism... directed at none

other than Kentucky's Republican senatorial candi-

date, Dr. Rand Paul.

Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.com has ex-

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

of day.”

Why is there such hostility toward the son of

he liberty movement's modern-day leader?

Paul has stated that he would have opposed

he invasion of Iraq, required a declaration of war

or 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-

nce in the Middle East and is against the doctrine

of nation-building.

However, many purists express great conc

over Paul's positions on some other foreign po

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

clearly that he was not willing to "take anything

the table" with regards to military action aga

Iran, and has expressed that "Iran having a nuc

weapon is a threat to the stability of the Mi

East."

Moreover, Paul expressed opinions on m

tary tribunals that some might find disturbing

his campaign website Paul has stated that

United States should, "try the terrorists captured

the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO.”

viously, it can also be deduced that Paul is not

posed to keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

Many constitutionalists take issue with

positions on GITMO, sighting violations to the S

Amendment.

So is Rand Paul a 'neocon' afterall?

No.


Craig Dixon




Neoconservatism is a political ideology usu-

lly associated with the idea of 'spreading democ-

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

mbrace of Wilsonian doctrine and Nation-

Building, or advocating of strong intervention into

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

ted, and arguably so, that Bush and Obama haveboth been nonconservative in their foreign policy...

but what in Paul's collection of statements alludes to

belief in neoconservatism?

Libertarianism doesn‟t necessarily entail an

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

cribe to non-interventionism. Non-interventionism

s not isolationism, something that both neoconser-

vatives, and some in the liberty movement, fail to

rasp. Non-interventionism holds that Americahould not become involved in the internal politics

of other states. Non-interventionism values sover-

ignty 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

o glass them tomorrow. Paul's refusal to commitone 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

o 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

apan had attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler was de-

laring war on the United States one week later,

would it really have been wise to refuse to fightback?

There's also the factor of political posturing.

s Rand Paul's undeniably ambiguous stance on

ran also political posturing? You bet your hind-end

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

person with the most votes wins. He must walk a

ine line between appealing to the anti-war crowd

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

easy crowds to bring into the same camp. By

maining a strong supporter of national defense,

condemning the interventionist actions of Bush

Obama, he just may be able to succeed in that d

cult task.

Before purists hit the red-button on P

they should consider that Paul is someone that understands 'Blowback' and understands the sev

consequences of declaring war. He's stated on po

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 P

simply for this sort of posturing, but what is the

ternative? The liberty movement can continue

stand on street corners with signs, fighting w

trolls on YouTube, and posting rants on Faceb

statuses... or it can begin to bring real chang Washington.

The two-party system that libertarians fac

a rigged game, with the establishment media,

the incumbents all aligned against them. The

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

on the issues is not enough. You have to h

enough appeal to win more votes than your op

nent.

If Adam Kokesh's crushing defeat in NMexico's third district is any indication, tod

right right-wing movement is not wholly ready

such a potent message to be drummed into t

hands. In the modern political landscape, a la

scape in which neoconservatism has been a driv

force in the GOP, the liberty movement's messag

a radical one; it's easier to slowly administer li

tarian ideas to the populace, than to try and g





with blunt force.

The reality is that Rand Paul's positions vary

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

one must be very careful what they say and how

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

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

ivist prior to his congressional run, and that history did have an effect on his campaign. Paul has been

ess vocal about his disagreements with current for-

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

ampaign; 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 Democratsock-in-step... meaning the anti-war crowd isn't go-

ng to find any friend in Jack Conway. Jack Conway

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

heerleader.

For ideological purists, Rand Paul admittedly

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

titutionalists dislike his views on Gitmo and mili-

ary tribunals. The majority of the liberty movement

will disagree with Paul on this position, but nothingbout Paul's position on this issue reflects neocon-

ervatism, as it is properly defined.

It could be argued he is more traditionally

onservative, and less libertarian than his father

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

hose seeking to move government closer to liber-

arian ideals, Rand Paul remains a step forward, not

backward. For pragmatists, it is understood that

Paul is someone who could become a resoundingvoice in the Senate against the tragic policies that

have unraveled liberty in the United States; endless

undeclared wars, the drug war, private central bank-

ng, federal mandates, oppressive taxation, and the

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

tand 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. U

libertarians see Rand Paul rubbing elbows with

New Citizenship Project or singing "Bomb-bo

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

fit to be a little less leery, and a little more sup

tive.

A Stricter Foreign Polic

Now that Kentucky republicans have deci

to give upstart politician Rand

Paul a chance to capture a Senate

seat in the bluegrass state, Paul‟s personal views

being looked at with a greater degree of scrutiny

While many of Rand‟s views are not all

out of sync with the majority of those within theerty movement, his stance on foreign policy is

one stand out exception to his otherwise mo

agreeable platform. Certain areas of Rand‟s sta

on foreign policy do appear as somewhat m

hardnosed and aggressive than his fathers‟ so

more humble approach. Nevertheless, should he

cure himself a senate seat this November, his rol

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

direct involvement in the shaping of how Amer

foreign policy is carried out.

And so in this article, we will look at a fe

Paul‟s more contentious points of view that h

made some in the liberty movement slightly un

about Paul himself.

Iran is perhaps the greatest neo-con dr

target of the day. The imperialists in our gov


Jeremy Dav




ment would love nothing more than to get its de-

tructive hands wrapped around that country

hrough further military adventurism. So in turn, we

re treated to a barrage of fear stoked propaganda

bout the immediate threat posed by an Iran that

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

lear weapons. Granted Rand may not promote suchhawkish and militaristic views of a full fledged neo-

on, his stance on Iran has raised eyebrows never-

heless.

Rand has previously stated that a nuclear

rmed Iran represents a serious threat to the stabil-

ty of the Middle East and believes

hat the United States should do

verything possible to prevent

ran from attaining nukes. Inerms of dealing with a nuclear

rmed Iran in a possible military

ituation, he believes that taking

nuclear weapons off the table is

eckless as is pronouncing your

military strategies to your enemies. Unfortunately

his 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-ive in regards to civilian life and in the number of

nnocent casualties. I believe it to be truly reckless

o even consider using them under any circum-

tances.

Almost generating equal controversy has

been Rand‟s support for trying terrorists in military

ribunals and keeping the U.S. detention center at

Guantanamo Bay up and running. Rand has pub-

icly criticized the Obama Administration for its an-nounced intent to shut down the military prison and

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

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

hat “foreign terrorists do not deserve the protec-

ions of our Constitution” and that “these thugs

hould 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

Military Commissions Act and its contribution

the neglect of human rights and the danger

precedents set within its jurisdiction.

Aside from Rand‟s less than idealistic outl

on Iran, GITMO, and military tribunals, he wo

also grant a significant leniency in allowing president to act in a more unilateral manner to

peal immediate threats. However, Rand does st

that when the time must come where war seems

minent, then Congress must fulfill its constitutio

duty and provide a proper declaration of war.

official declaration of

would force Congress and

president to set out the spe

ics of war such as who is btargeted, what defines succ

and a timetable for withdra

In fact, had he been in the S

ate at the time, Paul has st

that he would have voted

war with Afghanistan but not Iraq and would h

use his position in Congress to hold up the deb

until a formal declaration of war was issued.

While I do agree with his terms of decla war to prevent indefinite military adventures, I

lieve there needs to be an extremely well thou

out and carefully laid out plan in considering

specifics of the nature of a military conflict. It co

be argued that a formal declaration of war aga

Afghanistan would not be entirely justified sin

was a rouge, stateless band of terrorists who

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

ever, I do not deny that Paul‟s intentions mithose of enforcing stricter responsibility on the

of those who decide to invoke a declaration of

as his official campaign website explains that “R

has clearly stated that once war is underway, h

we wage war is up to our generals and the Presid

It is Congress‟ job to decide whether or not

threat requires war. It is our commander-in-ch

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


“Although Rand does stray awayever so slightly from many of those within the liberty movement who

favor a stricter non-interventionist foreign policy, he still refrains fromsubscribing to the total neo-conservative philosophy that plagues our country today. “




n the vesting of too much authority and leniency in

how the president conducts war.

Although Rand does stray away ever so

lightly from many of those within the liberty move-

ment who favor a stricter non-interventionist for-

ign policy, he still refrains from subscribing to the

otal neo-conservative philosophy that plagues ourountry today. Rand does not share in the neo-

onservative love for the continuation of a world-

wide American empire, with hundreds of unneces-

ary military bases stationed around the globe. He

lso denounces nation building, wasteful military

pending and the propping up of the military indus-

rial 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-

or, Rand would oppose allowing our military to be

used under the command of certain international

nstitutions like the United Nations and would tar-

et the massive waste of dollars in our mismanaged

oreign aid programs and reform the military

budget into a more responsible and sustainable one.

At this point, we can only truly speculate as

o how Rand Paul will actually handle the situationsdescribed 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

hat he makes the right decisions when the time

alls for it.

Wargaming: Afghanista

Chinese foreign officials are quick to p

out that their objective in American foreign polic

to “distract them

with little regions

like the Middle East.” The Chinese know someth Washingtonian officials can‟t seem to underst

sensible foreign policy. Operation Enduring F

dom (more like Operation Enduring Obligation)

now lasted a long eight years and not going to

any time soon. As the United States plans to de

an additional 20,000 troops into Southern Afgh

stan, the Taliban‟s stronghold, will there ever b

plan B for Afghanistan? Maybe those Chinese ha

point.Since the Obama Administration planne

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

limelight of current American foreign policy. H

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

across the border into South-Central Asia. Afgh

stan has now become a nation-building obliga

from its original priority of finding Bin Laden

has now turned into a campaign against all in

gency groups and has mistakenly displaced Amica‟s priorities. In other words, Afghanistan has

become a huge task and has now taken the “too

to fail” mentality in the international arena. By

end of the troop surge, almost 100,000 troops

be sent to Afghanistan to fight insurgency gr

that never attacked us (the Taliban did not attac

on 9/11 contrary to popular belief), fail to mee


Marissa Yturralde-Gianno




ounter-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, ourconomic situation cannot sustain the path we are

moving towards in regards to either Afghanistan or

raq. If Iraq drained our economy, then Afghani-

tan will demolish it. To date, the United States

overnment has spent $190 billion in Afghanistan.

When comparing to Iraq, this might seem like

hump change; however, the 2007 CBO reports that

Afghanistan will cost a total of $1.7 trillion by 2017

f troop levels are 75,000. Today, our troop levelurpasses 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

hat rate we can buy the entire country. Afghani-

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

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

ng?

Secondly, counter-insurgency in the regiondoesn‟t work for political and combative reasons.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Prior to our invasion of

raq, the country had basic government infrastruc-

ure, unlike Afghanistan. Afghanistan‟s government

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

lready fractious populace. Different ethnic tribes

n the country are seen more legitimate than the

Karzai government. Iraq never had this problem.

Although, it was seen as oppressive and brutal (forhat we cannot justify) Saddam Hussein left no

oom for power vacuums to occur and terrorist or-

anizations to flourish. Afghanistan has this prob-

em. From the United States prompting Al-Qaeda in

he 80s to our invasion today, Afghanistan is one

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

anizations with different objectives to formulate.

These groups such as the Pashtuns see the United

States as occupiers and this, as you may know,

lead to blowback.

Thirdly, the United States must be carefu

its calculation. The South-Central Asian region

sesses one threat: Pakistan. Terrorist organizat

such as Al-Qaeda are moving into nuclear Pakis

Westphalian mentality of borders poses no threaterrorists as moving in between countries is hig

accessible. Destabilizing Pakistan will undoubt

have repercussions especially because it holds

clear weapons. Our military presence must

push into Pakistan in trying to deal with terror

It will exacerbate a problem we are trying to li

date and create further damage in our national

curity interests.

So what war gaming tactics can the UnStates plan?

Well putting this briefly, it‟s easy to say n

intervention and immediate pull out for many li

tarians. And while our end goal for the fu

should be non-intervention, our current prob

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

States should return to its original priority in try

to capture those who were responsible for the

committed on 9/11 and nothing else. As staabove, Afghanistan is too big of a problem to ta

with ongoing historical, cultural, and political p

lems in its roots. Nation building would require

enormous amount of funds the United States d

not have and would violate cultural sovereignty.

stead, the United States should focus its prior

on offshore units such as drones, intelligence,

Special Forces units who can effectively pos

threat to Al-Qaeda while lowering costs and liThese units can also get the job done in a time

manner, saving America a few bucks we owe to

Chinese.

Now, if just Obama would be that anti-

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

ngry Turks and Palestinians who,

upon arrival, repetitively beat Israeli commandos

rying to perform an inspection of the vessel. The

ommandos reacted and the scene ended with 9

dead protestors.

There is one focus to this analysis. The out-

age that the world showed toward Israel was ut-

erly naïve; states will always choose to defend

hemselves however they please and this should

ome 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

vessel just outside the Gaza Strip (clearly he was

ngry). 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

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

sulates what many believe to be the “right” wa

thinking in regards to Israel. However, wDrezner and many other pundits failed to recog

was that, as Israeli commandos were being ro

down into the vessel, dangling from a helicop

Palestinians and Turks on board were preparing

the inspection with metal rods, knives, small ar

stun grenades, and fire bombs. Videos released s

after clearly show that Israeli commandos rea

only after they were welcomed aboard the ship w

open arms. Except in this case, open arms inclu weapons in hand whereas Israeli commandos w

initially armed with paintball guns.

For Israel (not for me- for the Israeli sta

Palestine poses a legitimate threat to Israeli secu

and way of life, considering that these two ac

border one another and have, historically and

petitively, attacked one another in a series of p

vocative engagements coming from both sides.

for a nation like Israel to just allow anything toter Gaza without Israeli supervision would be

allowing al Qaeda to move in and out of Me

freely, without any supervision. And although

analogy is simplified, this is the way Israelis p

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

would perceive a threatening situation that invo

their threatening neighbor.

For pundits to admit that those on board

vessel did not act in “Christ-like” ways and tcondemn the Israeli commandos for retalia

against those attacking them is quite naive. I

situation where you are dangling off a helico

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

anyone would react differently. Two comman

left with bullet wounds and others were beaten

thrown off the deck. It's natural human instinct

under those circumstances, you're not thinkin


Roy Antoun




he "political repercussions" that may ensue; you

ust want to get the guy beating your face in away

rom you.

Now we come to two other obstacles in this debate.

While I admire the notion of property rightsiven by many on this issue, I have to ask, doesn‟t

srael have a right to defend its property as well?

srael has, in several occasions, found arms being

muggled into Gaza via the coast and that is why the

blockade has existed since 2007. Those arms are

ventually used to send rockets onto Israeli terri-

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

ively react this way when their very neighbor is the

hreat. So, if Israel chooses to defend itself close tots shores, as it did in the May 31st situation, I be-

ieve this to be more prudent than, say, sending

roops 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

hose in distant lands. Our concept of “property

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

nd the way to defend property is conceived differ-nt as well. After all, it was President Bush‟s concept

of rights embedded in “liberty and freedom” that led

o spreading that liberty and freedom abroad. The

United States should play no role in defining what

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

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

United States, Israel was actually seeking to secure

tself just a few miles from its shores and not in

ome faraway land. Not to say that Israel‟s blockades prudent, but who are Americans, the United Na-

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

blockade Israel should or should not have? Should

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

hink 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

ters? World governments? Superpowers? The wh

idea of having international waters is biased;

shaped according to some arbitrary carve of wh

few people deem as “navigable seas.”

It is fantastic that nations believe in so

form of adherence to law in the international arhowever, what use is international law or wa

when there is no one enforcing this rule? Do

really want to police the world or let internatio

organizations police countries? Again, I think

The whole concept of collective action – that sev

states would cooperate with one another at the

pense of their security or liberty – is flawed,

covered in Issue II of FPH.

The United Nations is scrambling, the m

is blowing things out of proportion (for both side

the debate), and Turkey feels insulted. What

Turkey is doing interfering in Israel's affairs is

yond Realist understanding; however, given

events, Turkey should have minded its own b

ness, aid or not. The naive understanding that in

national institutions have on Middle East pol

and polities only creates more trouble and entmore to reactionary violence. Lest we forget that

state of Israel was created by the West but so

the entirety of the Middle East after the fall of

Ottoman Empire in the antebellums off WWI &

The West has essentially crafted all of tod

Mideast problems. The last thing we need is

West "condemning" one side or even funding

other. The United Nations needs to understand





eeling sorry for a people or state truly gets everyone

nowhere. Simply condemning does nothing, but in-

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

useless as everyone thought it is.

And although foreign affairs academics such

s Hans Morganthau admit that states have always

nd will always intervene in the affairs of others,hat gives no excuse (either to Turkey, the U.N., or

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

airs, 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

poon 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 Sta

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

this coming?

I yearn for an age where the Middle East

see peace. But that peace will come when Ame

learns to mind its own business and Palestin

learn that sailing a flotilla into an Israeli blockmeans you will get inspected (five other vessel

the flotilla went through inspection with no p

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

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

did you not see this coming?"


By the FPH Team



“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

Documents

FPHandbook_issue3