I continue to hold that the foreign policy of the United States Government is dangerous to the security of the citizens of the United States, and is failing the purpose of the military branch of a proper government: to protect the individual rights of its citizens. I have written about this subject on 7/24, 7/18, 7/17, 7/11, 7/9, 7/7, 7/4, 6/29, and 6/28.
In this post, I’d like to offer two excellent articles recently written by members of the Ayn Rand Institute in support of my position.
Don’t Blame Our Intelligence Agencies–Blame Our Unprincipled Foreign Policy
September 11 was not the first time America was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists engaged in “holy war” against us. In 1979 theocratic Iran—which has spearheaded the “Islamic Revolution"—stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In 1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept; the explosives came from Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors.
……..
But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah? Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No—our responses were short-sighted and self-contradictory.
…….
Unfortunately, little has changed since September 11. Our politicians’ actions remain hopelessly unprincipled. Despite the Bush administration’s rhetoric about ending states that sponsor terrorism, President Bush has left the most dangerous of these—Iran—untouched. The attack on Iraq, though justifiable, was hardly a priority in our war against militant Islam and the countries (principally Saudi Arabia and Iran) that promote it. Moreover, when Bush does strike at militant Islam, he does so only haltingly. Morally unsure of his right to protect American lives by wiping out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Bush feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties. Consequently, he reined in the military forces (as he also did in Iraq) and allowed numerous Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters to escape. And Bush continues to allow their comrades-in-arms in the Mideast to go unharmed. He pretends that the Palestinians and Islamic militants attacking Israel—and who have attacked Americans in the past and will try again in the future—are, somehow, different from the killers in Afghanistan and deserving of a “peace” plan.
Foreign Policy and Self-Interest
America was founded on the recognition of each individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This means that the government may not treat the citizen as a serf–as someone who exists to serve the needs of others. Rather, each citizen is a free, sovereign entity, entitled to live his own life for his own sake. No matter how loudly some people may wail about their need for your services, you are your own master. That is the meaning of your inalienable rights.
Those rights are contradicted by a foreign policy that makes Americans sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, such as the Liberians.
When the government of a free country performs its proper functions, it uses force only to protect its citizens’ freedom. When the lives or property of Americans are at risk from some aggressor-state, our government uses force in retaliation, to keep its citizens free–free to pursue the goals and values that advance their lives.
This is what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We need a principled foreign policy based on the idea that the purpose of the U.S. Government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, which not only promises to do so, but actually acts in accordance with what is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.
