Minding our own business: the merits of non-interventionist foreign policy

A user comment on my introductory article on libertarian principles asked about libertarian military beliefs, so in this article I am covering the principle of non-interventionism.

At the core of libertarianism is the belief that force should only be used in defense--that aggression is wrong. A lot of the problems libertarians have with our government today are because the government is using force without cause. An obvious example is the use of eminent domain to take property.

Most libertarians believe that one of the valid purposes of government is to provide protection to its citizens. However, the power of the military should be limited to defense only. The Founding Fathers were in almost universal agreement that the U.S. government should avoid getting overly involved in foreign affairs.

George Washington, in his farewell address, stated:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Thomas Jefferson in his inaugural address listed as one of government's objectives "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

The provisions in the Constitution for an army assumed federal forces would be temporary--only active during a war--and that most military operations would be provided by state militias. The founders knew a strong centralized military is actually a threat to liberty.

The dangerous side effect of meddling in international affairs is that you're always going to piss someone off. Most times when you support a foreign nation, you're probably gaining a few enemies. Related to this is the concept of "blowback", the idea that when you perform covert operations against a country or faction, there will be unintended consequences years later that are unexpected by the public. This is exactly what occurred with the 9/11 attacks--our covert (and not so covert) actions in the Middle East decades earlier was largely responsible for breeding radical Islamic terrorism. [For an excellent discussion on blowback, read Chalmers Johnson's excellent book, Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire.]

Neocons don't like to admit blowback is real. Instead they shout the message that we were attacked because the terrorists are envious of our way of life and wanted to destroy American culture, ignoring the fact that there's no evidence to support that. The terrorists we captured (and some we haven't, including Osama bin Laden) have said on multiple occasions that they attack us because we have invaded their holy lands and so they must now exterminate us to win back favor in the eyes of Allah. It has nothing to do with the things we have in this country.

So should we just have ignored the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. But rather than starting an illegal and ineffective series of wars, it should have been handled as a police action. Alongside the power to declare war in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given authority to "grant letters of marque and reprisal". That's a fancy way of saying they can put a price on someone's head. In the aftermath of 9/11, neither was war declared or a marque granted, therefore all the military actions have been illegal under the Constitution. Of course this has become standard practice in modern times--war hasn't officially been declared since World War II. All the foreign military actions since then have been unconstitutional.

Consider how much more effective and efficient it would have been to capture Osama bin Laden and other related terrorists using Special Forces teams (or even private posses) rather than involving the full force of our military. The largest mistake the U.S. government has made in recent times, and possibly in its entire history, is how it handled the 9/11 attacks. At a time when we suddenly had the world's empathy and support, instead of doing the rationally expected action of quickly and quietly hunting down the rest of al-Qaeda, we showed the world the might of our great empire building machine. Within the course of just a few years, we went from having almost universal support around the world to being the world's bully, severely damaging our global reputation and destroying any remaining doubts that we are aiming for a U.S. global empire (while claiming we aren't).

With each continuing military operation, blowback is creating more enemies than we are destroying. The propaganda of the military-industrial machine has made this a counterintuitive notion, but one of the primary reasons we have had such an unexpected struggle in recent conflicts (Viet Nam and Iraq in particular) is that the intended effects of our operations barely overpower the unintended side-effect of breeding more enemies.

President Eisenhower may turn out to be the most prophetic public figure of modern times. In his final address as president, he warned of the dangerous implications of our rapidly growing military-industrial complex. It has only increased since his departure from office and today that military-industrial menace of which he spoke has become exactly what he warned about--a political machine that ensures the continuing initiation and execution of wars.

Today, we have somewhere between 700 and 800 military bases in 63 countries around the world. For what purpose? Consider the effect our occupations have on the residents and governments of those countries. Imagine how we would feel if, for example, China had several active military bases within our borders. Our founding fathers are surely rolling in their graves.

Beyond the geopolitical factors, consider the financial implications of our foreign entanglements. Total U.S. defense-related costs today exceed $1 trillion per year. Remember, there has not been a declared war since World War II. The Cold War has been over for almost fifteen years. There is very little reason for our military to even exist today, let alone demand such a huge portion of our GDP. Greatly reducing the size of our defense operations would liquidate a very substantial and much needed chunk of our budget that could be used to solve the looming financial crises of our entitlement programs (and could even be a possible way to end them while still meeting obligations to all current participants).

During debates of our proper role around the globe--these days common during discussions of the Iraq war--someone will take the humanitarian position, saying, "But don't we have a responsibility to help people who are living under oppressive regimes? Isn't it our moral imperative that we should help out people in those countries?" This argument also applies to all the various foreign aid we send around the world. The problem with this argument is that governments don't have moral obligations; only individuals do. Morals are a definition of right and wrong. A government made up of a vast collection of individuals will not have agreement on what is right and wrong and therefore cannot have morals. People may have so-called moral obligations. Therefore, people who are compelled to assist those around the world in need should form and support voluntary organizations to do exactly that. This way those who do not share their morals are not forced to participate. When our government initiates these actions, everyone, regardless of their own beliefs, is forced to participate based on their citizenship (and obligation to pay taxes). This is, in effect, immoral on the government's part.

Our military should be solely located within our own borders except during times of war, and wars should be officially declared by Congress as dictated by the Constitution. Other than embassies, we should not have a permanent presence in foreign countries. We should avoid meddling in the affairs of other countries.

This is not to suggest pure isolationism. We should be free to engage in free trade with other nations. But free trade must be true free trade, not the protectionist arrangements our government passes off as free trade in such abominations as NAFTA and CAFTA.

Logic and evidence shows that libertarians (and the Founding Fathers) have this one right. Unfortunately, our leaders have done ourselves and the world a great disservice by continuing our domineering military presence around the world.