Can We Afford To Stay Out?

As Europe moved closer and closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress was doing everything it could to prevent it. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of the pro-Britain President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts (Wikipedia)

Presidential candidate Ron Paul is enjoying a lot of support with his "stay out" attitude. According to the latest CNN numbers, he is the best of the single-digit contenders, above Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman, with 9%. He is in fact asking us to go back to the isolationist days cited above. Let's bring all our troops home, he adds, including those stationed in more than one hundred bases around the globe. None of the other candidates has come even close to his proposals, except perhaps Rick Perry who offered the "novel" idea of cutting all foreign aid to zilch.

But the burning and essential question remains:"Can we afford to stay out of the world's conflicts?" As a man born in tiny neutral Switzerland, I have always wondered why my native country spends a ton of money maintaining an army and air force (don't laugh). My grandfather mentioned a military tradition dating to Swiss mercenaries being hired for their prowess during the Middle Ages; we can still see the remnants at the Vatican.

Actually, the United States, except for the size, has a lot in common with the 800 year-old country of William Tell. Remember the first Articles of Confederation that fizzled after a few years (1781 - 1789)? That was copied straight from the Confederation Helvetica (the actual name of Switzerland). And except for the Napoleonic invasion in 1815, my country of birth has successfully avoided being drawn into wars. Can America, or rather, should America do the same?

Mr. Paul's 10 million followers seem to think so; he even had the temerity of suggesting that 9/11 was caused by our military presence in Arab countries. It's hard to agree with him, but let's not forget that we used to help bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. We supported Iraq's murderous dictator Sadam Hussein in his war against Iran. We tolerated and helped Cuba's infamous Batista before the bearded rebellion in 1959. Examples of our international mischiefs abound, as we lied to start a war in Vietnam and in Iraq. That's what happens when a country becomes so powerful that it often turns into a bully.

 America, Mr. Paul, cannot and should not isolate itself from what happens in this globalized world. We must not let rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea threaten their neighbors with nuclear weapons. We cannot let China and Russia push us around; we should not abdicate our immense responsibility toward Latin America, where signs of unrest could lead to local wars. We cannot allow drug cartels to grow into military juggernauts. On the other hand..

American cannot intervene as the policeman of the world; we will never end global injustice and poverty. We must not engage our brave military in foolish actions such as Iraq and Vietnam. Direct terrorist threats must be solved with limited force; just enough to let them know that we will chase and eliminate them wherever they hide.

We have the economic clout to apply sanctions that hurt; we have the military deterrent that makes potential aggressors think twice before attacking us. But we must also focus on our number one priority: the American people.

STRANGE BED FELLOWS

Our foreign policy is strange indeed. We have cuddled up to dictators, only to drop the support when a popular revolt takes place; except, of course, for Iran, where we were dear friends with the Shah and his beautiful young wife. In that country, Iran, the mullahs simply would have nothing to do with the Great Satan (that's us, by the way). We welcomed the fugitive ruler with open arms and gave him the best medical care until he died of cancer. When Batista, the cruel despot of Cuba, whom we loved to do business with even though he persecuted political opponents and was rotten to the core, finally saw the writing on the wall, we dropped him like a hot potato and initially embraced Fidel Castro as the new tyrant. We all know what happened...Examples abound but they all have one thing in common: Our foreign policy seems, since the end of the Cold War, mostly focused on whether or not we can do business with that country. There are other important considerations of a political nature as is the case with Pakistan.



President Carter welcomes the Shah in 1977

We no longer invade countries to increase the size of the American Empire; the war with Mexico and with Spain allowed us to expand the Southwest considerably in the 19th century. We now invade sovereign nations because we, officially speaking, believe that they pose a threat to our peaceful existence. The fact that some have oil (Iraq) and/or fabulous reserves of rare minerals (Afghanistan) is simply icing on the cake. We waste billions of depreciated dollars in aiding Pakistan, an "ally" that has spread nuclear technology to other rogue nations and that keeps sending (informally of course) thousands of religious combatants to Afghanistan. With friends like these, who needs...?

"The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials."    

By JAMES RISEN Published: June 13, 2010 The New York Times 

We reluctantly helped the revolution in Lybia (more oil anybody?) amid the popular (in the U.S.) rejection of more billions spent on foreign wars and in the midst of a new potential recession. Oh, I forgot! We have a complete embargo of the Cuban island after more than 50 years, a fact which is not only stupid (just to please a few Cuban refugees) but constitutes an act of war. Why don't we do  that with North Korea, a country that has been pulling our chain ever since the end of the Korean War. Could it be because China looms in the background?

It is high time to reject the concept of Real Politik of our former Secretary of State Kissinger; it might have been expedient during the Cold War, but it has no place in the modern world. I am beginning to sympathize with the presidential candidate Ron Paul, who advocates a type of isolationism.




Let's stop playing the role of policeman of the world and start focusing on the numerous ailments that afflict this beautiful country.