Before discussing the US involvement in any foreign affair, especially war, one must first read and consider the insights found in the book, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath, Edited by Harry Elmer Barnes with the collaboration of William Henry Chamberlin, Percy L. Greaves, Jr., George A. Lundberg, George Morgenstern, William L. Neumann, Frederic R. Sanborn, and Charles Callan Tansill.
This book, published in 1953, takes the reader on a journey through the period of world war. Along the way, the reader will be challenged by chapters that show how US ended up in each war; the reasons and the outcomes.
The reader will reach the aha conclusion that Iraq, and soon to be Iran, are simply extensions the public policy of many politicians; a policy of perpetual war in order to achieve perpetual peace.
Yet, we never ever see the peace dividend, though we continue to invest in war and death. Along with the hope for prolonged peace, the propaganda about democracies always straying from war can finally be discarded.
Many of the same folks that truly believe government is an abject failure with regard to social policy and domestic matters truly believe that government is the altruistic force with regard to foreign affairs. It as if government abroad is righteous, always seeking the ethical and moral ends, while government at home is incapable of ethical and moral ends.
Certainly, I agree with the second part, yet I don't understand the leap of faith that one can hold in government which allows logic to clear the chasm between the vision of government abroad and its historic actions.
Anonymous claims that US involvement in WWI was moral, the right thing to do, when, in actuality, US involvement in that horrible European war was strictly a matter of Wilson's grandiose plan for the US Empire -- a plan that Bush and the neocons have adopted wholeheartedly. The reality is that our entrance into WWI simply extended the war another year, added almost 1 million dead, and led to the rise of Hitler some fifteen years later.
What about WWII? Weren't American soldiers fighting for freedom for hostage Europe? Well, they may have been fighting for that cause, however Roosevelt sold out to Stalin, thus muting their efforts and lives. You see, the end result of WWII was over half of Europe enslaved under communist rule. The same result occurred in China where the politicians again sold out to the communists.
In the end, close to 100 million noncombatants were murder under communist rule. So much for world freedom.
Oh, and by the way, Roosevelt was so enamoured with Stalin and Mussolini that he tried to establish their policies on American soil, to ingrain these policies in the American soul. In the end, he and subsequent presidents have done an effective job at instituting socialism in the land of the free.1 So much for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Perpetual War details the steps taken by politicians to drag the US into war. The intentions then were the same as today: the broadening of US borders and sphere of control, plus money and power. Its the same old same old, some things -- evils -- never change.
By the way, WWII and the Korean Conflict have never ended. We are still act as the occupying force in both Germany and South Korea. Does Anonymous truly believe that the government has any intention of leaving Iraq, especially given the construction of a $1 billion plus embassy, a fortified embassy that is nothing less than a military base for long term occupation?
So, we agree that government is incapable of good intentions within our borders, but Anonymous still holds onto the vision of the well-intentioned government abroad. I challenge him to read Perpetual War so that we can continue our discussion. Oh, did I mention, the book is free for download at Mises.org.
Of course ... Go Ron Paul ...
1. Of course, Wilson wanted to institute the Prussian socialism of Bismarck.
I have to say that this article is way below the usual high standards of this blog. Then again, there aren't very many articles on Ron Paul so the pickins must be slim.
Ron Paul is a novelty act, and the GOPs Dennis Kucinich. Dr. No's career position on taxes and spending is the object definition of integrity--and a model that his colleagues in the GOP should aspire to; but his positions on global affairs and national security are so thoroughly discredited that he appears insane uttering such silly musings. Ron Paul opens his mouth and it sounds like he's channeling the feel-good mumbo jumbo from Hoover's "Peace Programme" at the outset of WWI (or, for that matter the other isolationist junk that Harding and Coolidge espoused before him).
WWI showed them wrong, just as WWII showed them wrong. The detente-loving isolationists ("peaceniks") showed what non-intervention did in Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia, etc. Then came Reagan who reminded us all just how ridiculous that mindset was. And now the isolationists will try to make us believe that playing nice with the Chritian loathing, West-hating psychopaths in the Middle East will charm them into liking us.According to Paul's (and the Paulians') twisted logic, if we stop putting out fires then fires will never happen.
History shows us just how ridiculous Ron Paul's positions are.