FPHandbook_issue6

8/8/2019 FPHandbook_issue6

1/27

Redefining the National Interest

YOUNG AMERICANSforLIBERTY

ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

Issue VI | September 20

Mosque on Main Street?

Mission

Accomplished?

p. 14

p. 3

Dont Nuke Me

p. 19


2/27

The Young Americans for Libertys

Foreign Policy

Handbook

September 2010


3/27Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Sept 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, controrip. And, for this we do not stand.

Editor in ChiefRoy Antoun

AdvertisingAndrew Rawana

Contributors

Jihan Huq

Gabriel Aquino

Fabian Gambino

Ryan Bell

Nelson Chase

Jeremy Davis

Marissa Yturralde-Gianno

Brian Beyer

Brendon DeMeo

Daniel John

Ground Zero MosqueBy Jihan Huq

The Retribution GospelBy Gabriel Aquino

From a New YorkerBy Fabian Gambino

Petraeus vs. McChrystalBy Ryan Bell

Mission Accomplished?By Nelson Chase

The War is not over.By Jeremy Davis

The Fate of CubaBy Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Dont Nuke MeBy Brian Beyer

Foreign Aid Horror Files: USSRBy Brendon DeMeo

Are Perpetual Wars Keeping Us Safe?By Daniel John

3

7

10

11

14

15

17

19

21

22

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


4/27

Letter From the EditorDear Reader,

This month, I have a tidbit of satire for you.Mission Accomplished. The war in Iraq is over. Thetroops are coming home. Obama saved the day.

Better yet, Americans are upholding the de-mocratic values of the Constitution and are under-standing the legality of building a Mosque two blocksaway from Ground Zero.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is saving theworld this month by locking the United States into a$51 million dollar program to give clean cookstovesto the third world.

Now lets review whats actually happening.

President Obama, like President Bush, actually thinks that the war inraq is over. 60,000 armed troops will be stationed in Iraq indefinitely.

New Yorkers and Americans who are not from New York are protest-ng a Mosque being built two blocks away from Ground Zero in their zeal-

us attempt to be tolerant.Hillary Clinton actually stamped a $51 million deal to buy clean cook-

toves for people living in third world countries stating that this will help elimi-nate climate change.

Really?

Roy M. AntounNew York State Chairman,Young Americans for Liberty

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.foreignpolicyhandbook.c

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


5/27

ommentary| Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010

Jihan Huq


Ground Zero Mosque

The recent controversy revolving

round the proposed ground

ero Islamic community center

nd mosque has raised a fire-

torm across the country. The

ontroversy itself has been fueled

by many zealots from the neocon-

servative right. Though many9/11 victims families oppose the

project, there are some individu-

als that are wholeheartedly suspi-

cious over all. However, regard-

less of the controversy this is

causing, some important ques-

tions have yet to be answered,

like where is the funding come

from? Who is Imam Rauf? Is hstealth jihadist? Do these Mus

lims have the right to

build this community center/

mosque? How did this contro

versy originally begin? I will b

discussing both sides of the de

bate: the opposition, the prop

nents and my personal opinio


6/27



The Opposition

For starters, we can definitely say that the con-

roversy came into light in December of 2009. Since

Laura Ingram's interview with Imam Rauf's wife, Daisy

Khan, Laura Ingraham clearly seemed very supportive

nd liked what Daisy and the individuals behind this

ommunity center and mosque were doing. Since then,

here was merely silence from opposition groups.

So here's the question: Why did it take seven

months to manufacture the perfect political storm?

ince May of this year, far right and anti Muslim blog-

ers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have created this

notion of a mega mosque being built on ground zero.

Geller, Spencer and their minions claimed that Imam

Rauf was initially being insensitive and that it was just a

bad PR move [which were legitimate arguments]. it did-

n't take too long for these anti mosque bloggers to add

more fuel to the fire by claiming that this mosque has

onnections to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and

went even far as to say that the Imam had indirect con-

nections to al Qaeda. Their slanderous statements

tinued from then on, also attempting to destroy

Imam and his wife's reputation by depicting them as

headed stealth jihadists with alternative motives.

these allegations are absurd and extremely arrog

since they also challenge the government's dome

abilities to protect itself from terrorists and their alli

Also, the term mega mosque or ground

mosque is extremely misleading. For one, a m

mosque [or a mosque in general] cannot have a c

nary school, a movie theater and a restaurant. So

does the anti Muslim blogger Pamela Geller and

overzealous supporters still claim it as such? The ans

is very clear since Geller and even her partner in cri

Robert Spencer are known for misinformation [claim

the president is the illegitimate child of Malcom X,

ing Obama the Muslim president, calling democarts

tional socialists, claiming Elena Kagan is a Nazi, etc.]

Questions were also raised regarding the fund

and where the money is coming from, only to find ou

heyre ok with the strip clubs and other mosques already there but this one is just a big no -no.


7/27



hat neither Rauf or anyone involved with this mosque/

ommunity center has started raising any money. Many

pponents of the mosque/community center alleged

hat Rauf was getting funding from the Saudi and Ira-

nian governments (an allegation not only erroneous but

bsurd). To claim that the money would be coming

rom Saudi Arabia is misleading and hypocritical (since

Fox News has received donations from Bin Talal be-ore) Also, to claim that the money is coming from Iran

majority Shi'ite) is much more ridiculous, since the

ommunity center is behind a Sunni based organiza-

ion.

The Imam also being depicted as a stealth ji-

hadist is a clear example of the level of nastiness this

ssue has become. However, he does deserve a largeortion of the blame for remaining silent until just re-

ently. Now many of the opponents are more paranoid

nd believe some of the more bizarre allegations and

umors out there. Imam Rauf and the community cen-

er itself has received tremendous support from Rabbis,

Pastors and other religious figures, so to still hold on to

he misleading argument that he has ties to terrorist or

s a secret jihadist is simply a lie.

The Proponents

Proponents of the mosque/community ce

also lack understanding. Many claim that if this pro

does continue, it will bring peace and harmony in

city. However, during the recent strain of events is

trary to this claim.

Not only is this mosque/community center

viding Americans, it is also potentially harming Mlims and can lead a path of a violation of Constituti

rights for American Muslims. Ever since this con

versy came into light, there has been a string of a

mosque activity/protests around the country, inclu

in places like California, Florida, Tennessee, etc.

cently, there also was an attack on a taxi driver in

who happened to be Muslim. Before the attacker

action, he asked the driver if he was Muslim or not

this is mostly happening because of the proposedlamic community center and mosque near ground z

If Imam Rauf would take more heed than he

already is now, he could at least try to

give some thought about

changing the loca-

tion.

Also, if one expects to be apart of the commu

sometimes one must take heed of their neighb

Many people (including most 9/11 victims family m

he manifestation of the Other in American culture has been a detri-ment to tolerance and republicanism.


8/27



bers) dislike the idea of this project; Imam Rauf also

needs to take more heed for these individuals as well.

As far as rights go, the Muslims behind this pro-

ect do have the right to build it. However, the bigger

question is, it it the right (and the safe) thing to do?

Proponents tend to get emotional just as the opposition

do (including irrational at times). However, proponents

must see the more important things and how it is seen

hrough the victims families shoes; being sensitive is

lso what should be considered as well. The Muslim

upporters should also speak up and combat a lot of the

landerous statements coming from the other side.

My Opinion

From my personal point of view, I honestly

ould care less if this community center/mosque is

built or not. For me this is not the biggest issue. There

re many places where a community center/mosque

an be built without insensitivity. It is not the best idea,

since many of the victims families feel insulted. Am

can Muslims must understand that if they want to

similate and not alienate themselves, sometimes cpromises should be made. It is also about being a c

siderate neighbor and showing the sometimes i

tional opposition that Muslims do care and do wan

be apart of the society and will do whatever it ca

improve relations with the rest of the country

maybe even around the globe.

As for the opposition, originally it was t

part by many of the victims families. However, once

Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and their minion

Stop Islamization of American got their hands on

issue, it became uglier and obviously extremely m

lead. This mosque debacle teaches us that politics

religion mixing together can often be ugly. It

teaches us that people like Ms. Geller and Mr. Spen

are merely political opportunists that take advantag

issues like these and politicize the important and un

gettable events of September 11, 2001.

heres this thing called the Bill of Rights that everyone constantly forgets.


9/27

As a human, am I to deny the life of another?As a libertarian, where is it suggested that I may inhibithe freedoms of someone else?

As a Christian, am I told to compensate for the actions of

thers with retribution that I see fit?

Plain and simple? Never, nowhere, and REALLY?

The assumption that, as an American, as a

servative, or as a patriot, that I must unquestioni

support an imperialist foreign policy is an absurdity b

out of selective historical education and inconside

tradition. All in all, the advocates of book-burning

those who have found themselves offended by

building of nothing more than a community center

simply victims of history. As of late, this issue has r

to the forefront of American politics. Since I have

pinion| Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010


Gabriel Aquino

The Retribution Gospel


10/27

sinners, entitled to throw stone

anyone? Not only that; this is

curring because the prover

stone throwers are correlating

different groups of people v

world religion that is practice

over a billion human beings.

So why again, do we

our mass media purporting

this is some kind of epic sh

down between two blocs of Am

cans, the right and left wing

surprise, there)? Not to men

that the medias portrayal of

rhetorical Ragnarok consists

angry conservatives and retr

tive Christians in one cor

against an American Intif

the Democratic Party, and

always, my favorite)

loony libertarian fringe.

Reallywere letting

happen? Never in my g

eration have I witne

such a blender full of

litical vomit and rheto

diarrhea, but I guess w

have to visit the circu

least once.

Of course,

been pressed into a corner regarding

single issue in the umbrella of top-

cs, Ill take the opportunity to cover

he topic as far as I see that the scope

uns. Follow my spiel of reasoning

Ill have you know, Glen Beck stole

his from me), as I tie it back Ameri-

an Foreign Policy.

Why all of a sudden, eh? This

micro-issue was thrown into the po-

itical fray, raised emotions,

nd immediately became, more or

ess, a legitimate debate. Even in the

irst days of media attention, both the

eft and the right immediately were

ble to utilize their put-together talk-

ng points. For days, the rhetorical

talemate dominated television me-

dia. Most Americans did not even

ake a second to think about the tim-

ng of this issue, its implementation,

nd its overall effect in the political

tmosphere. The construction of a

Cordoba House in New York immedi-

tely garnered plenty of nativist, anti-

slamic rhetoric. As the

Beck-Palin herd spewed

alking points, such as

THE MOOSLIMS ARE

GONNA BUILD A TERRORIST

CHURCH ON TOP OF 9/11!, they

overlooked a terrible amount of

holes. The building that is proposed

to be built is a no different than a

YMCA or a JCC. The right-wing in-

sists that the mosque not be built two

blocks away from Ground Zero.

Wheres the sense in this?

As a Constitutional American,

I respect ones rights to religion, as

well as property rights. As a Chris-

tian, I will not persecute Muslims,

who wish to worship God, by tying

them to the marginal statistic of Is-

lamic Fundamentalists. Even if I did

feel emotionally disheartened by the

whole issue, or if the Muslim Ameri-

c a n s w e r e d i r e c t l y t i e d

to extremists, isnt it my commission

to forgive and show love, so that they

may also know Gods love? What part

of the Bible is this nativist horde, of

neoconservative, CHRISTIAN Re-

publicans, reading? Where are we, as




11/27

merica: Land of the Free, Home of the Christian Right only?

ight scores in the political facade, with the mosque

ssue, so how does the left-wing media retort? Likening

omeone to a dystopian villain usually does the trick.

Zoom in on Pastor Terry Jones, of Gainesville,

Florida. The audacity behind book-burning is some-

hing that we should all be glad to say that we are all,

t least, 100 IQ points above. You will never know deepseeded hatred like that in the Deep South. The other

day, I heard someone use carpetbagger in conversa-

ion.

o Left-Wing America: 1; Right-Wing America: 1

Who throws the next punch, you might ask? It

will be the state. as always. Same old story, divide and

onquer. This issue will get Americans out to the vot-

ng booths in November. But who will win? A few

progressive incumbents will remain, and as will

many Monarcho-Republicans. The new blood? A

substantial Republican candidates voted in by S

Palin idolaters.

This issue may strike a chord with many

pine for national attention. Fight the urge to NOT

common sense. Does this have anything to do w

politics on a national scale? No. Seeking retributfairness, or compassion via government inter

tion as a solution at a time like this reveals how de

tive the media can be. Manufactured consent?

thanks.

Long story short, nothing changes. Why?

cause, once again, we didnt pay attention to hist

We wanted an answer, but we turned on the T.V.

Media strikes back. The Empire remains.




12/27



Lately there has been much

ontroversy over a proposed IslamicCommunity Center planned for

ower Manhattan. The proposed

roject is to be located two blocks

way from where the World Trade

Center complex once stood. Many

ight and left wingers are up in arms

gainst the project, while a minority

f less than 35% support the rights

f the individuals who wish to con-

truct the Islamic Community Cen-

er. What are numbers anyway in

ur Republic? This isnt a democ-

acy where mob rule decides what

happens and what doesnt happen.

f 99% of the public was opposed to

he construction of a Mosque on pri-

ate property, that still wouldnt

make it right.

Lets begin with property

ights, something people on the

ight who call themselves conserva-ives profess to support. Property

ights are the foundation of capital-

sm, individualism, and liberty.

ome Republicans are calling for the

use of government force, probably

y the use of eminent domain, to

halt the construction process. The

hypocrisy here is so clear that it

doesnt need to be explained. You

ant be for private property rights

et at the same time call for govern-

ment interference against property

ights. But then again many modern

day Republicans pay lip service to

hings that they never believed in

nyway. All you have to do is look at

heir records. This being easily dis-

mantled, other opponents, of par-

ially higher intelligence, declare

hat the Muslims have every right to

private property as, however, that

they are being insensitive, looking

for trouble, and disrespecting the

9/11 victims. Once again, this argu-ment is actually easily taken apart as

well. Insensitivity never trumps

rights. Heres a short example. If

someone is standing on a box

screaming homophobic things, and

it hurts your feelings, youre not

supposed to go grab an officer of the

state to drag him down and violate

his rights, rather, you should stand

on a box right next to him screaming

about how ridiculous and stupid

that person is. Of course using gov-

ernment force to achieve your goals

is easier, but that doesnt make it

right. Period.

And who is to claim Muslims

are being insensitive? There has

been a mosque built near the World

Trade Center since before the towers

were even built. The insensitivity

seems to be coming from Republi-cans who claim that having an Is-

lamic Community Center in lower

Manhattan is an atrocity, as if some-

how, Islam is responsible for 9/11.

At least this issue brings to note a

potential discussion as to the rea-

sons behind the 9/11 attacks besides

the common nonsense that contin-

ues from 9/11 until this day that they

hate us for our freedom. If we were

at war with Islam, America would

know it. There are billions of Mus-

lims in the world. You wouldnt be

able to go to work if we were at war

with Islam. This issue however

seems to entertain such an idea.

Again, the motives of the attack on

9/11 were foreign troops in their

holy land, U.S. intervention and

support for their dictators, and U.S.

support of the subjugation of the

Palestinian people by Israel. I thi

its time to stop pretending that U

actions around the world dont hconsequences, something our cu

rent foreign policy seems to see a

irrelevant. All of the recent Islam

phobia is targeted at drumming u

support for a continually failing f

eign policy of intervention to sup

port the Post 9/11 Interminable

Global War on Suspected Interna

tional Terrorists while ignoring t

consequences of our policies. Oth

claim we already forgot 9/11. I co

test they forgot Auschwitz. When

they going to be forced to wear C

cent Moons as identification?

Back to the critics of the

Community Center, others like N

Gingrich say that we shouldnt al

Muslims to build mosques in Am

ica until other Middle Eastern Na

tions such as Saudi Arabia allow

construction of churches. Newt aways has something stupid to say

This is America and we have a Co

stitution. We have higher standa

of religious liberty here than in o

parts of the world. Not to mentio

that we support oppressive regim

such as those in Saudi Arabia. If

rest of the world is upside down,

dont have to be upside down too

Some Republicans suggested the

building of this Community Cent

was sort of like building Japanes

restaurants next to the U.S.S. Ari

zona by Pearl Harbor. Thats pro

bly one of the most comical weak

arguments Ive heard in relation

the Mosque. In no way are Japan

restaurants disrespectful. I actua

like sushi. And the service is grea

Fabian Gambino

From a New Yorker...


13/27



I do not think we can properly

ritique the man in question without

oing the same for the man replacing

im. We know who is going to replace

General McChrystal, it is David Pet-

aeus, commander of CENTCOM, who

as a sordid enough history particularly

uring the Bush Administration, that heequires no further introduction. While

etraeus has served honorably he is a

ery different soldier than Stanley

McChrystal. McChrystal served on the

round in special ops during Operation

Desert Storm. He went on many night

missions with his own men.

On the other hand Petraeus saw

ombat for the first time when he com-

manded the 101st Airborne division dur-

ng the invasion of Baghdad in 2003.

We do not know if he actually took part

n this battle himself. McChrystal suc-

essfully tracked down and killed Al-

arqawi, one of the main leaders of the

errorist base of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. While

etraeus successfully received a Phd. In

nternational Relations from the Wood-

ow Wilson school of Public and Inter-

ational Affairs at Princeton University

McChrystal had been running 7-8 miles

a day, eating one meal a day, and sleep-

ing 4 hours a night, devoting the rest of

his time to the American military effort.

Petraeus, if you remember correctly,

fainted a while back while being ques-

tioned by the Senate Armed Services

Committee.

I do not mean to disrespect

General Petraeus with this mention, as

his fainting was due to dehydration, butthis further underscores that one of

these men is a hardened soldier, while

the other earned his prestige and posi-

tion from behind a desk. This does not

necessarily say anything of their exper-

tise in commanding military forces, but

it certainly means they will have differ-

ent approaches to accomplishing the

same objective.

So you can see the man Obama

fired and the man Obama hired are twovery different soldiers.

The Policy Decisions in Afghani-stan: Rational or Worthy of Repri-mand?

My sense is that Gen. McChrys-

tal, who not long ago was the com-

mander of NATO's International Secu-

rity Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-

Afghanistan, was the right man for h

previous job as head of U.S. Special

Forces operations, but was not diplo

matic enough for the Afghanistan co

mand role.

He is bright, but he too muc

likes kicking butt and proving he is t

dog to manage the necessary cooper

tion of actors in Afghanistan, NATO

Pentagon, the State Dept., the White

House, the House of Representativeand the Senate.

The number of interests he

to address was something like the n

ber that Eisenhower had to address

Supreme Commander in Europe, ex

that Eisenhower had Gen. George M

shall to provide the interface with th

Pentagon, the State Dept., the White

House, the House of Representative

and the Senate. Sure, Eisenhower d

have more troops to manage, but a tgeneral should be good at that. The

litical management of the war in Af-

ghanistan is a very confused and ill-

managed mess.

Gen. McChrystal is more an

analog to Gen. George Patton than t

Gen. Eisenhower. Gen. Patton was

great general and played a critical ro

in Europe in WWII, but he would ha

Patraeus vs. McChrystalRyan Bell


14/27

hoto courtesy of WashingtonPost.com



been the wrong man for Eisenhower's job. Eisenhower had to

nd ways to get the most he could from Patton and from

many another prickly general, many of whom were British orrench. The Rolling Stone article suggests that McChrystal

imply could not get the most out of the many actors in Af-

hanistan, such as the U.S. Ambassador Carl Eikenberry, the

pecial Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke,

National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones, and VP Joe Bi-

en. Apparently, he did enjoy the support of Sec. of State

Hilary Clinton. Now, I have no doubt that he was bombarded

with many a mickey mouse request, which must have been

rksome for a fighting general.

The Obama administration is particularly ill-

managed. Pie-in-the-sky socialists (Note: when I use the term

ocialists I mean those who prefer socialization of

he national community and advocate for egalitarian-based

rograms over free market individualism based systems) sim-

ly wish things to be as they want them. They wish that eve-

yone had health insurance, so it must be made to be so,

omehow, they do not care how or know how. They wish the

oor had more money and better homes, so it must be made

o, somehow, they do not know how or care how. Socialism is

ivorced from reality.

Under Obama,

mickey mouse regulations

requirements that keep pe

who want to do their jobs

from doing so has skyr

eted. The choices for man

ment positions are particu

poor. The computer sys

and the incredible cost ofcontracts paid for the ou

management of these in

quate and inefficient sys

that government emplo

must use boggle the mind.

Such an otherwo

mentality as that of the

leftists is not well-unders

by most military men.

must have some contact

reality and have a real abto manage men and war

or the results are soon ap

ent in American deaths a

bogged down war. Ma

America's military men

from the same stock of Am

cans that Tea Party Ameri

come from. They comm

do believe that the U.S. is exceptional and they believe

they are fighting to preserve our freedoms and our Cons

tion. Military officers may in many cases not have very

phisticated viewpoints on American history and of poli

theory, but their knowledge of both is usually greater

that of most Americans. At least they have studied somet

about America's wars in many cases. They are usually i

viduals who have lived in several different states and

often been abroad and learned that most of the world su

without the kinds of freedom we have in America. As

tioned above, they are forced more than politicians and

reaucrats generally are to deal honestly and rationally

reality.

A theater commander for a major war effort is a

who must have very special insight and wisdom, as we

intelligence. Apparently, Gen. McChrystal has the in

gence, but he was lacking in wisdom at the level require

the job he had.

Afghanistan is a country primitive beyond the

prehension of most Americans. The social organizatio

Afghanistan is essentially pre-Medieval. It is of the

Ages. It is a land of clans, tribes, and warlords. It is sad

with a primitive religion and particularly primitive version

ecretary of State Hillary Clinton and General David Patraeus at a Congressional Hearing


15/27



hat primitive religion. It would take decades to trans-

orm the country to anything resembling a modern coun-

ry, and that supposes that the people there were inter-

sted in such a transformation to begin with. They gen-

rally are not.

They are simply suspicious of anyone who is not

f their own clan, and often even those within their own

ribe. Then each tribe is very suspicious of every other

ribe. Force and treachery has always ruled their lives.

They have no concept of free market cooperation. They

have no concept of the rights of the individual, or even

hat of slightly modern concepts in property rights.

Families know their territory down to feet and often have

bloody clashes with others over those exact same

eet. These are Enlightenment ideas which it took

Europe at least 800 years to develop from the time when

Europe was something like Afghanistan. Of course, with

more readily available technology, communications, and

ravel, Afghans could make that transformation much

more quickly, but it still would take a couple of genera-

ions or more. This again, assumes that they are inter-

sted in doing so to begin with.

It is not in America's interest for us to maintain a

ounterinsurgency or any other operation in Afghanistan

or two or more generations. Our purpose in going there

was to oust Al-Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban. A

lausible response to that need may well have been the

ower level effort in Afghanistan of the Bush administra-

ion. Though I suspect that effort had too much nation-

building in it, curtailing its overall effectiveness.

Strangely, the Obama administration has adopted

he policy advocated by Gen. McChrystal for an even

reater effort in nation-building. Afghanistan is so much

more primitive than Iraq that I do not believe this effort

s in our national interest and I do not believe there will

be any chance of getting out of it in reasonable time with

ositive results. Most likely our policy should be little

more than to go in

locally and disrupt

any Al-Qaeda or other terrorist bases of operation.

McChrystal - Obama policy is not in our national inte

and it will not work, so a change of commanders may

cilitate a change of policy. The question of whether

raeus was the right kind of change has yet to be seen,

only time will tell.

While I have read and thought about war an

history since I became fascinated with history in

fourth grade, I have not carefully studied the Afghan

as much as I would like. My father was originally a m

tary man and I enjoyed many discussions with him w

growing up. I know of many people that were dra

into the earlier wars, and many that have fought in

current ones.

I have read about the wars of the Greeks, the

sians, the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Romans,

Franks and Visigoths, the Scythians, the Israelis, the

thaginians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Bohe

ans, the Dutch wars, the Chinese, the Japanese, the M

gols, the Vikings, the Celts, the Angles and the Jutes

Swedes, the Russ and the Russians, the wars of in

pendence from Spain in Latin America, the Hund

Year's War, the Thirty Year's War, the Burgundian w

the Polish wars, the Cossacks, the Napoleonic wars,

Prussian wars, Native American wars, World War 1

and all of the American wars. I have plenty of conte

understand war, but still I have not the detailed kn

edge of present-day Afghanistan to be formulating

best strategy for the U.S. to follow there.

However, I am quite sure the McChryst

Obama strategy is not in America's best interest and

we should be formulating a strategy with a much m

modest goal. You don't need to know much to re

that.

The War Continues


16/27

Nelson Chase



I am a veteran of Operationraqi Freedom. I flew into to Kuwaitnternational Airport the day the

U.S. Invasion of Iraq began. I re-member wearing chemical suits forwhat seemed like an eternity waitingor supposed chemical attacks fromaddams weapons of mass destruc-ion. I can remember May 1, 2003watching then President Bush an-

nouncing to the world that our mis-

ion was accomplished. (I was in ourecreation tent watching it on either

Fox or CNN). I can remember thecuttlebutt being that we reservistwould all be home within three

months. Well I didnt go home inhree months; I wouldnt leave fornother ten. And here we are, seven

years later and we are still in Iraq!Yet, I thought our mission was ac-omplished?

So you can image my skepti-ism when President Obama an-

nounced that our combat operationshad come to an end. The last of

0,000 combat soldiers had finallyeft Iraq. Yet, there are still 50,000

U.S. Soldiers in Iraq. I thought wehad left? Oh but they are notcombat troops so we who opposehe war should be happy that finally

President Obama has ended George

Bushs mistake. There is only oneroblem. All soldiers regardless of

what job they do or where they servere combat soldiers. How can youeparate combat for being a soldier?ure infantry soldiers are more spe-ialized in the art of combat but alloldiers are trained for combat.

They all carry weapons, they all arequalified with the M-16, and they

re still in Iraq. The Cato institute

brings up that there is much confu-sion over terms like combat and

combat units. But all units arecombat units. All units train togo to war. So really labeling thisgroup combat and the othernon-combat is a fallacy. So arecombat units in Iraq reallygone? Is the war finallyover?

The War inIraq is far from over.C o n g r e s s m a nR o n P a u lstates that thewithdrawalo f c o m b a ttroops:was merelyanother one ofthe administra-tions operationsin political maneuvering and seman-tics in order to convince an increas-

ingly war-weary public that the IraqWar is at last ending. However, mili-tary officials confirm that we arecommitted to intervention in thatcountry for years to come, and ouroperations have in fact, changedminimally, if really at all.

So forgive me (and Dr. Paul)if I dont believe President Obama.

As long as we support an ever in-creasingly unpopular government in

Iraq and continue to meddle in anincreasing violent sectarian civil warthat we helped create the war willcontinue to go on and on, with noend in sight.

We need to leave Iraq and weneed to leave it now. That means allsoldiers, contractors, and let thepeople of Iraq decide their own des-tiny. We need to embrace a return

to the traditional American forpolicy of active private engagem

and non-interventionism.

In closing I want to challethe anti-war left. Where are yoremember under President Buslarge anti-war movement fromleft. Is it because now a libpresident is in power that younot out protesting the war? Anthe Tea Party, when will you thaway the neo-conservative perpe

war foreign policy? Isnt 4,000

American causalities enoughwill it take another Vietnam to wthe right up to the insanity of

war in Iraq. Sadly, I think wealready in another Vietnam whecomes to Iraq and Afghanistanam a veteran of Iraq, I am agathis war. I still hear echoing inear, Mission Accomplished.

been seven years now, how lontwo long?

Mission Accomplished


17/27



Despite heralding a simple change in semanticss the beginning to the end of the war in Iraq, a full-scale

American withdrawal from that nation may never truly

ome.The Obama Administrations championing of the

emoval of the so-called last combat brigade from Iraqhas been touted as a kind of unsaid mission accom-

lished moment for Obama. But even this misleadingmaneuver of claiming that U.S. combat operations inraq have ended gives little reassurance that all U.S.orces will ultimately leave Iraq by the end of 2011 aslaimed by the administration.

The fact still stands that at least 50,000 Americanroops will remain within Iraqi borders, operating undervarying capacities. In a speech he delivered last month,

President Obama explained that going forward, a transi-ional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a dif-erent mission: advising and assisting Iraqs securityorces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterror-sm missions; and protecting our civilians.

Regardless of all the half-truths and sugar coatingbout an end to combat operations, the war for those

Americans still in harms will be just as real as it was be-ore the recent withdrawal. Convincing the public intobelieving that since combat troops have been removedrom Iraq, this somehow means that the remainingtransitional force isnt participating in an active and

ever present war is expressly misleading.As Congressman Ron Paul pointed out in a re

article, Their mission will be anything but desk d Among other things they will accompany the Iraqi mtary on dangerous patrols, continue to be involved inhunt for terrorists, and provide air support for the I

military. They should be receiving combat pay, becthey will be serving a combat role!

What we are given is nothing more than ttional government doublespeak meant to please

weary Americans while maintaining a prolonged milprescience abroad at the same time. This whole chaof simultaneously withdrawing some troops while king thousands of others in the line of fire is a feebletempt at trying to have it both ways. Conjunctly it is a sad means to salvage or garner any means of pusupport and boost public opinion of Mr. Obama andDemocrats before a November midterm election.

Of course politicians are simply playing a danous game of bait and switch. Even if large scale numof American forces actually do withdrawal from Ithey will simply be replaced by private contractors, accountable than actual military servicemen. In fact,State Department is expected to more than doublenumber of private security contractors, or mercenarieIraq amidst all the chants of a U.S. drawdown anseemingly imminent end to combat operations.

However, as Congressman Paul also notes onmisleading exchange of U.S. troops for private merceies: of course the number of private contractors --

Jeremy Davis

The War is. not over.


18/27

resident Obama thinks hes General Patton. Photo courtesy of Getty Images.



erform many of the same roles as troops, but for a lotmore money -- is expected to double. So this is a funnyway of ending combat operations in Iraq. We are stillmeddling in their affairs and we are still putting our men

nd women in danger, and we are still spending moneywe dont have. This looks more like an escalation than adraw-down to me!

Although, if that is simply not enough to doubt the real-ty of a true U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, then just look athe governments dismal record in making its militaryxit after previous conflicts. Any astute observer on the

history of American foreign policy can see that there areevere reasons in doubting claims that we are leaving theraq behind anytime soon. Nearly sixty-five years afterhe conclusion of World War II, America still finds itself

with over 50,000 troops stationed in Germany and about5,000 in Japan; not to mention the mere thirty-

thousand U.S. troops stationed in South Korea sinceend of the Korean War.

Long after any combat operations ended in eithethose wars, the United States has never made a t

withdrawal. Realizing this, its not too difficult tskeptical about the supposed withdrawal deadline fIraq by the end of 2011. Of course whether or notUnited States actually leaves Iraq behind once that marrives depends on whether certain vague condithave been met. And its those intentionally vague teand conditions that will keep the hopes of a total Amcan withdrawal from Iraq from finally coming.

Americas involvement in Iraq, whether it is strictly military capacity, increased security assistance,through massive nation building efforts; a withdrawfrom Iraq is not in Uncle Sams vocabulary.


19/27



For 52 years, the once Pearl of the Caribbean,

Cuba, has been in jail in both political and economicerms. When Fidel Castro, a then- young revolutionary,

aptured the countrys adoration he proclaimed he was

not a Marxist. However, it became very clear to the Cu-

ban people and the United States that Castro was more

eftist than what he was declaring.

After Castro passed the Agrarian Land Reforms

nationalization of estates including American property)

nd the Urban Reform Laws (outraged American utility

ompanies in Cuba protested the 50% cut for all Cuban

utility bills), the United States turned its cheek on its for-mer banana republic. In 1962 the final straw was drawn

nce Castro nationalized the Esso/Texaco Oil Company.

The United States placed a complete embargo on the is-

and that has lasted up to this day. But, with the election

f Barack Obama the charismatic leader of change. the

urrent status of US-Cuba relations might just do that-

hange (only if Obama really wants it). With an open

rade policy towards the island, only our true objectives

f liberating the island of Communism can manifest. The

United States, however, should not use its hegem

military might to achieve this goal.

In 2009, the Obama Administration teased

American public on its serious indications of lifting

Cuban Embargo. This, unfortunately, was not the c

However, the Obama Administration did take cru

steps in lowering some of the restrictions it has on

island. The Black Congressional Caucus visited the co

try and concluded that the embargo should be lifted.

Obama responded to this by lowering travel restrict

(for Cuban-Americans) placed by the Bush Adminis

tion as well as some trade restrictions (you can now s

up to 40lbs instead of 4lbs!). Despite what seem

small steps, the Obama Administration has continue

engage in its Cuban Relations as compared to other p

administrations. The United States should continu

engage in our relations to Cuba into a more open po

for the obvious benefits it can have to the Cuban pe

and its potential changing government.

The trade possibilities the Unites Stated can

to the island can dramatically change the way in how

bans live both politically and socially. As Albert Hir

man famously tries to prove in his book Exit, Voice,

The Fate of CubaMarissa Yturralde-Giannotta


20/27



Loyalty, authoritarian governments such as Cuba

annot retain its legitimacy within its citizenry be-

ause its only choice is voice which pushes how a

overnment responds to its population. This can be

een in Cuba today. The younger generations are voic-

ng their opinion with their frustrations of the Cuban

overnment in their economic and social lives.

To combat this public sentiment, the Cubanovernment under Raul Castro has now passed two

mportant pieces of legislation last week that opens up

he Cuban economy. Raul Castro has now made it le-

al to own small agricultural businesses (although

hey pay heavy taxes to the state, its a huge step),

ombating the food crisis in the country. The second

s an even more important step towards liberating the

conomy. The country now allows foreign inventors a

9-year lease to come on the island. This means more

olf clubs, more resorts, and more of everything can

now be allowed in Cuba. There is no doubt that

American investors will not give up on this opportu-

nity if the embargo should be lifted. With foreign in-

vestors coming into the country, the government has

now taken a step backwards in their communist

genda. Foreign investors, such as the United States

nd other marginally pro-capitalist countries can im-

pact the way Cubans see their government as well as

how the government can be influenced by outsideorces in using trade, a non coercive tool. As we all

know, money talks.

So what should the United States do? The em-

bargo must be lifted as soon as possible. Each year

egislation never reaches the floor for serious consid-

ration because the Cuban government never gave

Congress and the American public a reason to do so.

But now as Castro is taking steps to liberalize Cubas

conomy due to a growing demand from its citizens,

he United States should seriously consider doing soo continue Cubas path to democratization. There is

no other force but open trade that can do this. War

nd coercion have not worked in Cubas case (can

nyone say Bay of Pigs?) in pushing for democracy.

However, it is now possible to actually conceptualize a

ree Cuba in a way that leads to peace and prosperity

or both countries.


21/27



What do Syria and Iraq have

n common? The answer is a lot.

Both are heavily Muslim, in the Mid-

dle East, and have had a war filled

ecent past. Another linking charac-

eristic is that their nuclear ambi-

ions were cut short by an Israeli

bombing. In June of 1981, Israel

bombed Iraqs French-built nuclear

eactor until it was unusable. Israel

truck again in September of 2007

when it destroyed a Syrian nuclear

eactor. Surprisingly, neither coun-

ry responded with force. Iran may

oon be the third member of the

Group-That-Got-Cut-Short. As the

slamic Republic continues to enrich

uranium, albeit peacefully, Israel is

becoming extremely worried. But

sraels fears are completely un-

ounded. Since most Israelis, both

ivilian and governmental officials,

annot even stomach the prospect of

nuclear Iran, an attack by Israel on

ran is becoming more likely by theday. However, Israel may ask the

United States to help lead the strike

because of Americas overwhelming

military capabilities.

Rhetoric about the nuclear

rogram of Iran has largely paral-

eled that of Saddams Weapons of

Mass Destruction in frequency, bel-

icosity, and the baseless nature of

the claims. Despite no evidence that

Iran is actually developing a nuclear

weapon, the American and Israeli

media are making their best effort to

convince people otherwise. PrimeMinister of Israel, Benjamin

Netanyahu, made this hyperbolic

statement about Iran and the pros-

pects of a nuclear Iran: You dont

want a messianic apocalyptic cult

controlling atomic bombs. When the

wide-eyed believer gets hold of the

reins of power and the weapons of

mass death, then the world should

start worrying, and thats what is

happening in Iran. Netanyahu con- veniently ignored history. Iran has

not waged an aggressive war in

modern history whereas Israel has

launched plenty. In addition, if Iran

would ever attack Israel, the Persian

nation would be bombed to oblivion

by Israeli and American forces.

Thus, Iran has absolutely no interest

in attacking Israel unless its wish is

utter ruin.

Jeffrey Goldberg, in an influ-ential piece called The Point of No

Return in the Atlantic, chronicled

that Israelis view a nuclear-armed

Iran as an existential threat. Such

views, however, are not limited to

the far-right Likud party. Even the

left-wing Meretz Party feels the

same way. Some Israeli policymak-

ers have begun to rationalize a war

with Iran on other terms. Ehud

rak, the defense minister of Is

said, The real threat to Zionism

the dilution of quality Our yo

people can consciously decide toother places if they dislike living

der the threat of nuclear attack.

Israeli view of Iran as an existe

threat is two pronged: 1.) if Iran

velops a nuclear weapon, it can

stroy much of Israel; and 2.)

mere existence of a nuclear Iran

completely undermine the stat

Israel and the Zionist Project. W

its existence on the line, Israel

all but decided that the threat nuclear Iran must be eliminated.

But will Israel attack Iran

its own? The answer is probably

While Israel has a military capab

that is surely to be feared, it w

be much easier if the United S

took charge. Prime Mini

Netanyahu, or Bibi, quipped in 2

that, America is a thing you

move very easily Sadly, h

right, especially when dealing wIsrael. What is more is that this t

around, Americas responsivenes

Israels desires could spell disa

American military leaders, suc

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of S

Admiral Mike Mullen, have

pressed serious reservations ab

attacking Iran. However, in

same breath, Mullen admitted th

Brian Beyer

Dont Nuke M


22/27



there is a military plan to attack Iran should thi

become unacceptable to President Obama. Am

ica is undoubtedly preparing for a conflict with I

The U.S. has shipped bunker-busting munition

Diego Garcia, a military base in the Indian Oce

which was used to launch attacks on Iraq during

First Gulf War and Americas most recent and on

ing war with Iraq. These would be perfect for

stroying any underground Iranian nuclear facilit

In addition, the U.S. has increased troop presence

the Iran-Azerbaijan border and has stationed 12 w

ships, along with Israel, around the Persian Gulf

rael has also taken its own measures such as usin

Saudi airbase in the town of Tabuk, near Jordan

prepare for engagement with Iran. Such prep

tions are not just casual military movements. T

are precise, strategic, and indicative of a future

tack.

Binzion Netanyahu, father of Benjamin

revisionist historian, accurately said that no two

mocracies have ever gone to war with each otHowever, bombing Iran would most likely stall

of the recent progress of their democratic Gr

Movement. The progress would be stunted becau

Iran were bombed by Israel or the US, the Iran

people would unite against a foreign threat rat

than over dissatisfaction with their domestic polit

climate. The elder Netanyahu, his son, and Isr

policymakers cannot have it both ways. Would t

rather wait for a proper democracy in Iran to eme

while living with the possibility of a nuclear Iran?

would they rather squash all attempts at democr

reform via an attack on Iran, and fuel even more

tred towards the Jewish state? The choice is the

but the consequences will be global.

Will a nuclear Iran cause the Israeli state to knee jerk? Israel has previouslyttacked, via surgical strikes, neighboring rogue states that possessed nu-lear capabilities. Iran may be next on their list.


23/27



This is the first entry in what I would like to call the foreign aid horror files. Each issue I will pick two or thountries which receive aid from the U.S. government, aka: the American taxpayer, and detail some of the fianvolved. We will hear grim tales of theft, extortion, shocking immorality, murder, corruption, greed and m

more, all fueled by the hard-earned cash of the American worker.

Foreign Aid Horror Files Brendon DeMeo

Subject: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) circaWorld War TwoStyle of Government: Stalinist CommunismPresident: Joseph Stalin

Joseph Stalin, who mercilessly slaughtered moref his own countrymen than Adolph Hitler did, was a

member of the Allied Forces during World War Two, aswe all know. Well, it turns out that communism, Stalinsavored style of dictatorial government, does not makeor a good economy. After nearly running out of war

materials and causing millions of Russians to starve todeath due to failed central planning, Stalin turned to hisood buddy American President Franklin Delano Roo-evelt, in order to obtain supplies to continue fightinghe Nazis on WWIIs bloodiest front.

The United States spent about $50 billion on thentire program, $11 billion of which went to the USSR,ccording to the uboat.net website. Unfortunately, there

was no lending or leasing involved, it was just giving.talin really appreciated the aid, saying "Lend-Lease isne of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vitalchievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alli-

nce during the Yalta Conference, also according touboat.net. He probably would have approved of much ofwhat Roosevelt did domestically as well Social Secu-ity, seizing the gold of American citizens, etcetera.

You can look up the exact statistics online, butbasically it gave the Soviets thousands upon thousandsf tanks, aircraft, guns, jeeps, and more, not to mention

hoards of raw materials, and even trains. Now you maybe wondering what is wrong with that, given the facthat Stalin was our ally and he was fighting Hitler, ournemy. First of all, many people believe we should not

have aided Russia at all. Its government surpassed theNazi government in terms of innocent civilian bodyount and it was also one of the most insidious, tyranni-al regimes the world has even known. Even the USSR

denounced Stalin not too long after WWII. Sure, theUSSR was the enemy of our enemy, but why not let theRussians and the Germans pound each other merci-essly while watching from afar? Assuming the Germans

did take Russia, and they did take a lot of it anyway,heir destruction was still inevitable, as they were des-

tined to run out of time, cash, and young men. ondly, we could have spent $11 billion arming othelies who were not so evil, such as our friends in the Pippines, or the many resistance armies in WesEurope who did not receive anywhere near as muchmaybe we could have just spent another $11 billionour own military, or even Great Britains.

Perhaps the main reason it was truly a blundbecause the U.S. government greatly aided a nation would go back to being hostile towards us as soon aswar was over. Basically, the U.S. trusted Stalin way

much. Stalin did not go along with the rest of the Alnations and he kept all the land he conquered, putEast Germany-westward under the dreaded Iron Ctain that was not pulled back until two decades ago.long after WWII, the Cold War started, which mean basically outfitted our own enemy, which might been destroyed along with the Nazis if we were mpatient and less generous to paranoid killers with of power. Without Lend-Lease, there probably wohave been no Cold War. Sadly, the weapons we gavthe Soviets may have been the tools of many an Am

can soldiers death, as the Soviets formulated their lend-lease plans with some of Americas enemies ing the 20th century, such as the Vietcong.

The U.S. did not learn its lesson from the LLease Act. It is common knowledge that much weapons we gave to Islamic militants to aid themtheir struggles against invading Soviet armies duthe 1980s wound up being turned against us after 9and that is only one example of the U.S. once again splying future enemies with weapons. Lend-Lease not the first American effort to supply an ally durinwar. According to an article on the NPR website entiNew Clues in Lusitanias Sinking, by Anne GoodSides, the U.S. tried to smuggle ammunitions into GBritain aboard a civilian vessel, the Lusitania. AfterGerman navy sunk the ship, we were dragged World War One, being outraged that Germany wattack our own unwitting human shields, I mean, incent American civilians. The human cost of feeding supplies to foreign powers has truly been high throuout American history. Perhaps it is time we did awith such deadly foreign aid.


24/27

pinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue VI | September 2010


It is quite evident just by lis-

ening to the language of so-called

conservative pundits on a certain

able news network that claims to be

fair and balanced, that the neo-

onservative establishment in the

Republican Party seems to be aim-ng to do one thing and one thing

nly, and that is start more wars

while continuing the perpetual occu-

ation of both Iraq and Afghanistan

ong-term.

The argument that neo-

onservatives and other pro-war ad-

vocates make, is that perpetual war

n Iraq and Afghanistan is somehow

keeping America safe from terror-sts, despite all the potential threats

nd probable blowback that could

rise as a direct result of these wars.

imply put, initiating more wars in

he middle-east to overthrow dicta-

ors will only provoke more terror-

sm. The CIA defines this as blow-

ack which is the violent, unin-

ended consequences of a covert op-

eration that are suffered by the civil

population of the aggressor govern-

ment.

Fifteen of the nineteen hi-

jackers behind the September 11th

attacks were from Saudi Arabia, our

supposed ally in the international

war on terrorism. Not one of thoseterrorist was from Iraq, Iran, or

even Afghanistan. By using the word

they when describing the sect of

radical Islam that attacked us on

9/11, the neo-cons can portray any

country in the middle-east as being

in the same group, or inside circle as

they , the terrorists or radical

Islam.

Our enemies in n

conservative language are vag

defined and vaguely named. Acc

ing to the mission statement on

popular neo-conservative web

KeepAmericaSafe.com, the wor

a safer place when America

trusted by our allies and feared respected by our enemies. With

being written, one must ask the

vious question, who exactly are

enemies and what must be done

them to fear and respect us?

enemies are usually defined by

conservatives as something a

the lines of radical Islamic extr

ists or just simply terrorists

Are Perpetual

Wars Keeping

US Safe?Daniel John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_operationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence


25/27



ven worse scenarios, our enemies

et referred to as they, as in they

ttacked us on 9/11.

The neo-conservative rheto-

ic is also purposely aimed at ma-

nipulating our service men and

women into thinking that fighting

nd winning perpetual warsalthough winning is vaguely de-

ined) is the right thing to do in or-

der to keep our country safe. Do you

eally think that Dick Cheney or Karl

Rove really care if our soldiers are

afe, or even care about our soldiers

eriod? They purposely blur the dis-

inction between supporting the

roops and supporting the war in

rder to gain sympathy (and votes)rom flag-waving Americans eve-

ywhere who have the upmost

espect for our soldiers. The

neo-conservative movement

laims to support the

roops, but with the emo-

ional and psychological

drain that tours of duty

end to put on soldiers,

long with thousands of

American casualties dying

nd getting injured in these

wars, which obviously weakens

he U.S military, then it is quite

bvious that supporting perpetual

wars is in direct opposition to

supporting our troops.

For the past four or five

years hawkish pundits have strongly

been emphasizing the importance of

not letting Iran get a nuclear

weapon because Iran is (and appar-

ntly has been for at least 5 years)

making enriched uranium. For

hose of you who dont speak neo-

on, that is code for the apparent

need to bomb Iran. They are basi-

ally advocating that the United

tates needs to point its nukes at

Iran and tell Iran what to do. The

neo-cons claim to have intelligence

reports to back up their story that

Iran has a nuclear program. Is this

the same bad intelligence that

claimed that there were weapons of

mass destruction in Iraq? The very

same intelligence that neo-con pun-dits everywhere were forced to ad-

mit was false after questions were

asked about weapons of mass de-

struction following the invasion of

Iraq. If so, then this intelligence and

these alleged reports should be seri-

ously questioned at the very least.

Dr. Rand Paul appeared on a

May 19th episode of The OReilly

Factor, where Bill OReilly himself

refers to Iran as a major threat to

the United States. Rand Paul re-

sponded by claiming that he did

think Iran having a nuclear weapon

is a threat to stability in the middle-

east. OReilly of course quickly

brought up the option of military

intervention by asking him if he

would go the military route to pre-

vent Iran from getting a nu

weapon.

This is a primary examp

how hawkish pundits like

OReilly have been using the dist

possibility of Iran acquiring a

clear weapon as a pathetic excus

start another war. The threat of having one nuclear weapon has b

extremely exaggerated by neo

pundits in order to justify yet

other war with Iran. The same e

way the Bush administr

(which was basically overrun by

-cons) justified military ac

against Iraq because Saddam H

sein apparently had weapons

mass destruction. If the Bushministration was any vaguer ab

their reasons to go to war,

would have said that Sad

Hussein had weapons.

The biggest fear

peace any loving America

have about a republican

trolled house, senate,

even another republican

the white house, is the obv

probability of a war with I

Especially with the strong

gering presence of n

conservative influence over

GOP, it is quite apparent that w

the political cycle shifts to repu

can control, that there will be a

with Iran. The pundits have

preparing their pro-war rhetoric

years now, but this time instea

weapons of mass destruction

Iraq, it is A nuclear weapon w

Iran. Just because Iran has enric

uranium doesnt mean it is goin

make a nuclear weapon, and

because Iran even has a nuke, d

nt mean that Iran is dumb eno

to use it.


26/27




27/27

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

FPHandbook_issue6