Yesterday,
Markos alerted us to a possible
schism on the Radical Right. It would appear that President Bush is not conservative enough for some conservatives on some issues, as if that was possible.
Indeed, the chief complaint of raving lunatic-in-chief, Michael Savage, is that President Bush is a liberal when it comes to foreign policy. The claim is that Bush is a champion of nation building and international intervention championed by Democrats, Liberals and recently President Clinton during the 1990's.
And I think he is right. Bush has quite obviously championed nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan and intervention elsewhere wherever the War on Terror shall take him.
Bush, once a critic of such liberal policies during the 2000 campaign against Al Gore, simply explains away his change in opinion by saying "9/11 changed everything."
So if Bush has adopted a liberal foreign policy, then what would Michael Savage have Bush do? What is the true conservative foreign policy in the 21st Century and with respect to terrorism?
And do liberals actually still follow the ideals of nation building, being the world's policeman, and intervening in humanitarian and politcal crisis around the world?
Has the fact that Bush has stolen our foreign policy soured us on it?
It has for me.
First, I should state that I supported the war against Iraq at the very beginning. I wrongfully believed the President when he told me that Iraq had ties to terrorists and had weapons of mass destruction. At the time, I was a Democratic hawk who possessed a liberal, or what would be called now, neo-conservative, foreign policy.
I have since changed my mind. But by seeing the spectactular failure of my once preferred foreign policy in the hands of the most incompetent President of any country in all history, by seeing my once preferred foreign policy misused and abused by those who just wanted a reason, any reason, to go to war and make profit and distract a nation's populace, I now realize the folly of the formerly liberal, now neo-conservative, foreign policy.
I have become what I call a 'temporary isolationalist,' advocating a foreign policy that I liken to the Prime Directive in Star Trek lore. The reason why is that the world hates us today. America is only given grudingly respect due to the size of economy and capital, and of course, the size of our military arsenal. We are simply something that people around the world have to deal with, rather than want to deal with.
And the world hates us today because we feel entitled to butt in whenever we please because we think it affects our national interests. And our intervention not only makes the locals angry, but also relieves the locals and their leaders in government any responsiblity for their situations. A policy fails, blame America. Something happens, blame America.
For example, by guaranteeing the security of Israel, it ensures that no Israeli government will make a territorial settlement with the Palestinians. Therefore there will be no peace in the Middle East. I am as supportive of Israel as anyone, and even I recognize that Israel will have to make some concessions in order for there to be peace.
By supporting the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the Saudi royal family in Saudi Arabia, the US removes the pressure for democratization. With an external power guaranteeing stability, the people of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will never revolt or at least take part in democratic reform. Terrorism against America is easier, because we ultimately are at fault for their predicament. Now some will say that without American intervention and backing, these regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, these countries will become theocracies like Iran. Well, as least then we will know where they stand. Right now, we are allies with Saudi Arabia even though their people hate and kill us at every opportunity.
So, I got to thinking, what if we just allowed the world to take its course, without America's help?
What if, in the past, we let Vietnam go communist without losing 50,000 Americans to achieve the same result?
What if we let Europe deal with Yugoslavia in the 1990's?
What if we did not support the Shah in Iran for all of those years? Would Iran hate us as fervently as they do now?
What if today we let Mubarak and King Fayd fall to the Islamists. Hell, Pakistan too. What if we withdraw from Iraq? Let if fall into civil war. Let an islamist regime take over. It is ending there anyway. Why let more Americans and innocent Iraqis die in vain. (And yes, every American in Iraq has died in vain. Don't be angry at me for saying that, be angry at President Bush for lying to you).
I believe America should step back from the world for the moment. Yeah, we will still be watching for our own national security, to make sure that no nation or terrorist group is planning to attack us. But what if we let these countries and their people take responsibility for and control of their own destiny, free to make their own revolutions, and fumble toward liberal democracy of their own accord. At least then, they would have no one to blame but themselves and their government. The point is they would not blame the United States.
The US rails against the irresponsibility of the European and Asian powers for their failure to manage even their own backyards, and despises the anger of the Arab masses at America. However, our foreign policy is responsible for such failure and anger. With the best of intentions, the US encourages the very behavior it works against. The more we dominate and intervene, the more terrorists created, the more unsupportive fellow allies and enemies become.
Therefore, now is the perfect time for the United States to withdraw from the Korean peninsula. To withdraw from the Middle East. Finally we can worry about ourselves, and we can let the world survive on its own for awhile with no America to blame.
I guarantee that if we do that, the world will eventually be begging for us to help them, and soon they will all love America again.
This is a true alternative to the foreign policy espoused by Bush. It is similar to the foreign policy once championed by real conservatives. Once real we lost in 2004, and 2002, is because John Kerry and the Democratic Party offered no real alternative. We were just a little "less Bush" or a little "more Bush" with respect to policies. We always said "We agree, but..."
I open this up to the floor...are there merits, or disadvantages to this foreign policy?