April 27, 2012
Some reactions to Rubio’s war-mongering speech.
Michael Brendan Dougherty:
It is also very clear that Rubio was aiming his remarks partly at Ron Paul and Rand Paul, who have successfully built a small bloc of conservative Republicans who have grown skeptical of using America’s military to fix any and all problems on planet earth. “I recently joked that today, in the U.S. Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left,” he said.
Rubio’s speech is a remarkable political document. It shows that some Senators have learned nothing from the past decade.
John Quincy Adams’ declaration that America goes not “abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” says Rubio, is an idea that he rejects.
A wiser guide, said the senator, is Bob Kagan, Barack Obama’s favorite neocon, who calls it a myth that America is in decline and who urges a more robust and interventionist foreign policy.
Rubio says that on arrival in the Senate, he was astonished to find conservative colleagues advocating “withdrawal from Afghanistan and staying out of Libya.”
“Today in the U.S. Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left,” Rubio joked.
But is it leftist for senators, after 10 years of fighting two wars, with 6,500 dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk and a harvest of hatred reaped, to think that perhaps it may not have been wise to plunge into Mesopotamia and the Hindu Kush?
Rubio’s target is obvious: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and those elements of the Tea Party Right that dissented on Libya. Given that it barely scraped 20 percent in most primaries, it’s amazing how much the Paulite revolt seems to have upset the Republican establishment. In fact, Rubio’s entire speech (and it’s a long one) reads like a step-by-step rebuttal of the Paulite critique of neoconservative foreign policy – the belief that America has a moral duty and a strategic interest to promote global democracy…
Apparently, if some goatherd in the mountains of Afghanistan loses one of his flock to a landmine, the consequences for Topeka, Kansas could be terrible. The absurdity of the theory that literally every security problem in the world is a direct threat to the United States is but one example of Rubio’s naïveté. In his vision, America never makes mistakes and everyone loves it. Small nations regard the US as their protector against bigger nations, whose wickedness is irrational: “Other countries look apprehensively on the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst, and look to the U.S. to counterbalance them.”
April 25, 2012
In his foreign policy address that ended only minutes ago, Marco Rubio challenged the growing non-interventionist movement on the right. Positioning himself alongside such Democratic luminaries as Joe Lieberman, neocon favorite Scoop Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, he argued that the world’s business is our business, that the U.S. government must be the leader in battling against “international threats to peace and security,” that Russia and China are dangerous rivals, and that foreign aid makes the world a better place.
“Everywhere we look,” he argued, “we are presented with opportunities for American leadership to help shape a better world in this new century.”
“Preventing a dominate Iran” is one of these “opportunities” where “preferably we can succeed through coercive means through short of military force.” Rubio’s best case scenario, in other words, still relies on “coercive means.”
Syria is also in his cross-hairs. And even more frighteningly, he came out for the expansion of NATO into the Russian sphere of influence.
Six thousand dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of dead Afghan and Iraqi civilians, and at least $3 trillion blown is not enough for Rubio. He sees opportunities for more such disasters everywhere he looks, and he embraces them. Not one word about the human cost of American invasion and occupation. Not one word about the crippling national debt that is so exacerbated by the kind of reckless military spending he advocates. And yet he managed to twice lament the lack of “trust in government.” Rubio is an authoritarian who pays mere lip service to the ideals of freedom and the free market.
He’s a dangerous man.
April 25, 2012
Not only is she a socialist on domestic policy, she also wants to starve the people of Iran. The Huffington Post reports:
Warren’s campaign website features a policy statement declaring that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons” and “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world.”
The statement continues, “The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.”
Warren’s claim that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons” is especially notable because it contradicts public statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as reported intelligence findings of the U.S. and Israeli governments.
At a February hearing, Panetta told lawmakers, “The intelligence does not show that [Iran officials] have made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.”
Reuters reported in March, “The United States, European allies and even Israel generally agree on three things about Iran’s nuclear program: Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead.”
April 7, 2012
Clearly, Iraqis hate freedom.
(Hat tip Travis Holte on the LRC Blog)
March 15, 2012
Judge Napolitano explains the latest outrage coming out of Washington on Fox News:
March 12, 2012
ABC News reports:
Justin Raimondo adds context in his most recent article:
What is it about American troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan? From Abu Ghraib [.pdf] to the Mahmudiyah killings to the Hamdania murder of a crippled old man to the horrors of the Haditha massacre, it’s been one atrocity after another (see here, here, and here). More recently it was the “rogue” team of killers that murdered Afghan civilians in the Maywand district for sport. Then it was US troops urinating on corpses, followed shortly afterward by the Koran-burning incident, the second such example of American contempt for the people they are supposed to be “liberating.” Now we have this, which – we’re told – is the result of a US soldier having a “breakdown.”
This incident is garnering attention because of the sickly calculated nature of the murders. But how are these dead Afghans any different than the thousands of innocents killed in drone strikes, which the media barely ever mention?
March 11, 2012
Last Wednesday I was interviewed by Scott Horton about my recent Mises.org article, Military Spending and Bastiat’s “Unseen”. We talked about the vast amount of wealth that’s deprived from the civilian economy to fund the military, why Americans support this, and how both Democrats and Republicans defend the status quo.
Audio is available here.
March 10, 2012
According to Politico’s Joel Brinkley:
Iraq remains in the headlines, but not in a positive way. Every day since the last American troops pulled out in December, the situation on the ground seems to grow bleaker. In an interview last week, a former United Nations official who worked there during the war offered the view: “We’re now at the nadir, politically, no question about it.”
But then just a few days later, Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, hiding out in Kurdistan because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants to arrest him, proclaimed on television that his bodyguards and other employees are being held in secret prisons and tortured.
Looking over all of that, R. Nicholas Burns, who was undersecretary of state, the department’s third most senior officer, during former President George W. Bush’s second term, said: “The war was a mistake, the biggest strategic error since Vietnam.”
Read the rest.
March 6, 2012
Included: even Rush is getting tired of trying to bring the Enlightenment to Afghanistan; O’Reilly says one of our duties as Americans is to shut up; Ann Coulter is afraid Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan will convince her to become a non-interventionist.
March 1, 2012
Progress in Misrata:
(Credit: Crossed Crocodiles)