The Perils of Intervention

The Perils of Intervention

By Philip Giraldi
View all 30 articles by Philip Giraldi
Published 02/10/11

Americans have become accustomed to presidents and secretaries of state pontificating on the condition of the world and advising other governments and peoples what they should be doing. But one rather suspects that George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson would be shocked to see our Federal government passing judgment on the doings of foreigners and doing so in a hectoring and imperious fashion that seems to suggest that Washington enjoys some exceptional quality that permits it to hand out advice.

The Founding Fathers warned against the perils of foreign engagement for a number of reasons. They knew that it corrupts the political process with foreign lobbies and interests doing whatever they can to distort decision making in their favor. But they also knew from their reading of history that involvement in foreign quarrels had resulted in consequences that had been the death of every previous republic. To prevent such an outcome, they carefully drafted a constitution that limited the authority of the federal government to engage in activities that might lead to international entanglements. As originally envisioned, the executive branch’s State Department was intended only to exercise traditional and limited functions to include negotiating treaties that would permit the United States to trade freely all around the world and providing consular assistance to American citizens who got into trouble while doing business overseas.

The Founders' limited intentions for the State Department reflected the expectation that the federal government would restrict its activities to areas that required a national rather than a state based response and to engage other nations when it was necessary only to bring some benefit to the American people. The national government, when dealing with other nations, was expected to operate within a framework of a generally agreed upon foreign policy that would limit its ability to enter into agreements that might damage American interests. That is why the executive and the Department of State cannot enter into treaties -- only the Senate has that authority.

A US administration’s foreign policy is a bit of a misnomer because it is really little more than a general guideline for dealing with a specific situation through the establishment of certain principles that guide the interaction. The principles can be moral in nature, but they are most often based on the national interest, seeking to maximize the advantages to be gained while minimizing any disadvantages that might ensue. America’s foreign policy, when it is effective and successful, does precisely that, making the American people net beneficiaries of the actions being taken. The overall objective of foreign policy is making the United States safer and more economically secure.

Foreign policy works best when it works quietly and non-confrontationally. It becomes dangerous whenever it interferes in foreign affairs gratuitously because it then complicates all international interactions. This taking on of responsibilities that are not really in the national interest means that the government is no longer responsive to promoting the well being of the citizens and is instead entangling itself in issues that can have no good outcome. That is precisely what has happened with American diplomacy over the past sixty years.

What is currently happening in North Africa and the Middle East illustrates perfectly what has gone wrong. The United States has precisely one significant national interest in the region and that is helping to maintain sufficient stability so that oil and gas enter the world market. This is not a difficult task as even repressive regimes generally are interested in selling their commodities. The US economy is heavily energy dependent and that means that there has to be an market for it to buy from. Whether Egypt and all its neighbors are ruled by dictators, democracies, or boards of governors is irrelevant to that process. The United States has no real interest in what kinds of governments they have and, when asked, should respond politely, as did George Washington, that the American people are friends of everyone and intend to remain that way.

Instead of a simple understanding of national priorities and interests, the United States currently pursues multiple and frequently conflicting foreign policies in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. It has a physical presence in the form of military bases in at least seven nations in the region, something the Founders would never have countenanced, and it apparently believes that it has a say in how all the countries in the area should comport themselves, including the recent warning to Egypt about changing its government. It has provided hundreds of billions of dollars in aid and military assistance to at least eleven countries, something that the Founders would also have found incomprehensible. Along the way the US has gotten itself involved in numerous local quarrels, precisely what George Washington warned against, has become involved in two wars, and is threatening a third if Iran does not disarm to Washington’s complete satisfaction. The sense of what the national interest might be in all of this has disappeared completely.

So what remains of the Founders’ intention of using the State Department to enable trade for American companies and citizens? Well, in most countries in the region the only products being sold by the United States are weapons, frequently with the US taxpayer footing the bill. Several countries in the region do not buy American products at all because Washington does not approve of their politics and will not sell to them.

And the real irony is that, because of the record of interventions and interference, no one really listens to Washington any more unless there is a price tag attached. The only hold President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have over President Mubarak of Egypt is the $1.5 billion in military assistance that they provide him every year. If Mubarak stays or goes it will not be because Hillary Clinton told him to do so and no matter what she says, Washington will end up offending everyone and will wind up on the wrong side.

Likewise Tunisia liberated itself of America’s friendly dictator Abidine ben Ali without the Clinton seal of approval, Lebanon and Iraq have formed governments that Washington does not approve of, Israel regularly thumbs its nose at Obama, and Afghanistan retains a corrupt government that is independently negotiating with the Taliban, the group that America calls its enemy. So much for being the regional hegemon.

It might seem naïve to suggest it, but America and its people would be best served by returning to simple solutions. The federal government should represent the interests of the people, not an amorphous world community that wants a certain kind of stability and order that ultimately benefits international elites more than it does the average citizen of any land. Reducing America’s bloated military and diplomatic presence overseas would be a good start, coupled with withdrawal from at least half of the bases and outposts overseas.

Letting other nations get on with their own governance without fearing the disapproving gaze of Washington would also be a good step to take. Withdrawal from empire will be painful, but in the end it will produce a better, saner United States.


Copyright © 2011 Campaign for Liberty