The Dangerous Consequences of Interventionism

[Republicae]

For over 109 years this country has pursued a policy of intervention around the globe and if you honestly research the outcome of such intervention you will quickly see that it did very little to actually provide security for this nation. Most of the intervention was prompted by special interests, such as Sugar Magnates and Mercantilists during the Spanish-American War. This War opened the door to a massive drive toward global intervention by the United States government.

Along with the resources and markets of the Far East, Southeast Asia and Central America were also prime targets of the new expansive policies of the United States during this period of the later part of the 19th Century. The intent was to exploit our growing military might around the world while securing potential markets and natural resources. The United States came to the rescue as the “savior” of the oppressed colonial peoples under the rule of Spain; from the Philippines to Cuba a particular brand of liberty was brandished. That liberty came at a price and usually at the end of a bayonet. Unfortunately, the liberator became the oppressor and the people of these hapless nations came under the thumb of a new colonialist power.

In Cuba, The Platt Amendment was implemented to provide a permanent restriction on the people of Cuba to determine their own destiny. As much as we would like to believe that we were liberators of the Cuban people, the crafting of the Cuban Constitution was far from a free enterprise, it was totally subject to the acceptance of the United States and provided for the future intervention of the U.S. Military at any time our government deemed necessary. Under the agreement, the “sovereignty” of Cuba was only considered legitimate through the acceptance of all acts imposed upon it by the military government of the United States. It also permitted the U.S. to purchase or lease any lands, give the U.S. special privileges and thus we have Guantanamo. The consequences of that war, the occupation and the Platt Amendment are still with us today and are embodied in the name Fidel Castro who used the state of Cuban colonial despair to his revolutionary advantage. As with other unintentional consequences of such interventions, Fidel Castro took advantage of the remnants of colonialism and the disparity between those who benefited greatly from the U.S. colonialism and those who remained in abject poverty to successfully promote his revolution.

From 1898 through 2007, this country has “intervened” in the affairs of over 200 countries and out of that number; the only intervention that could remotely be considered justified was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The primary beneficiaries of an interventionist policy have not changed throughout the years the beneficiaries are the weapons makers and dealers! The American People and this Nation, on the other hand pay the price with increased taxation and the deaths of our sons and daughters, but our actual security interest has never been a real reason for such interventions.

Now the question is why, why would we intervene in all of these countries if the actual security interests of the United States are not threatened? It is the same old story, nations feeding upon the wealth and resources of other nations. Our interventions throughout the last century have this primary factor in common, the ones who benefit from them are usually not the American People as much as those who seek huge war profits.

Threats are now fabricated, exploited and amplified beyond reality to enjoin the sentiments of the population to support intervention and war, but the costs are much higher than we realize or wish to admit to ourselves. Many of the consequences are not immediate and therein are the real danger, for the fabric of history is changed by our actions and unbeknown to us at the time, our own future is changed in ways we cannot conceive.

World War I is a perfect example of the fabric of history being altered by our intervention into the war. At the time of the entry of the United States, both sides of the conflict we rapidly depleting their resources, drained of their ability to wage war and ready to sue for peace. The war to end all wars could have had a totally different outcome had the United States refrained from listening to our domestic war drummers and those who would eventually benefit from our entry into the conflict. Besides the actual monetary costs of the war, the social cost is hard to comprehend in our present time; whole societal influences were altered beyond recognition. Empires were broken apart, new nations were born from the despair and national influences were morphed into artificial boundaries. The war set the stage for not only the eventual break-up of the British Empire, but the generation of ethnic and religious sectarianism that had been more or less subdued under the old order. Most of the nations within the region were devastated for over a generation and such devastation helped set the stage for the massive struggle called WWII.

We rarely think of the differences in the world had we not been pushed into war by the war propagandist, profiteers and political influence peddlers. If we had not entered the war, both sides would have settled back into a world, while scared, would have been far safer than the one our victory created. Upon our victory, the fabric of history was severely distorted, everything changed and the balance of power shifted enormously. With victory came the end of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires; this led to the formation of entirely new countries throughout Europe and the Middle East. It also marked a great transference of colonies into the hands of other colonialist powers, just as oppressive as the former masters.

With that victory came some of the harshest war reparations visited upon a defeated nation. Germany and its allies became subjugated to the wrath of the victors and under that wrath were sown the seeds of a future dictator who exploited the humiliation of Germany into a cause of extreme nationalistic pride and a taste for revenge.

The stage that Hitler exploited would have never been set had the United States remained neutral, as it should have, during the latter part of the war. The powers involved would have been forced into a peace agreement due to each side’s inability to provide resources to maintain their respective war efforts. The world that was would have slumbered back into its decaying imperialism, eventually giving way to a natural evolution of nationalities and newly formed nations. The artificial borders created in the Middle East by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire would have been less likely to have been the future cause of continual conflict and strife as it is today.

Imagine for instance, for a moment, if you will, the world without Hitler. Certainly, this is pure supposition, but when you consider the possibilities what that the one act of U.S. intervention nearing the end of WWI did and how it drastically altered the weave of history, the conclusion that the world would be a very different place is more than a flight of fancy. As stated earlier, a lonely, dejected artist named Adolf Hitler would have had no fuel for his nationalistic incitements, Germany would have gradually reentered the community of nations and WWI, as we know it, would have never happened. Think of it, the European Jews and all their culture would have continued to flourish; there would have been no concentration camps, no gas chambers and 6 million Jews would have lived to propagate their lineage. The creation of the State of Israel would have never been forcefully imposed upon the Muslim nations of the Middle East and thus the current conflict would not exist in its present form.

The British would have never gained control over vast regions of the Middle East, and the imposition of artificial borders throughout the area would not be the cause of numerous ethnic disturbances over territories. Although the nationalistic fever began to sweep throughout the region during the late 19th Century, that fever was only amplified by the early 20th Century events of WWI.

The Soviet Union would have never had the opportunity to impose the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe without the events of WWII. The massive arms race, the nuclear threat and cold war would have had no stage on which to form and the incredible waste in manpower and funds would have been averted into more productive avenues. There are enough examples of the unintended consequences of our actions to fill volumes on the subject.

Interventions always have consequences and we rarely have the foresight to determine if those consequences produce far more danger than if the interventions never occur in the first place. The leaders of this country must once again regain the wisdom of the Founders and refrain from the use of intervention an ideological tool. We must come to understand that such interventions have the potential of drastically changing not only the fabric of our history, but also the fabric of our future. It has been proven that we have lacked that wisdom over the decades; it is time to stop the course that leads to dangerous unintentional consequences.

In Liberty,
Republicae

[William2012]

For over 109 years this country has pursued a policy of intervention around the globe and if you honestly research the outcome of such intervention you will quickly see that it did very little to actually provide security for this nation. Most of the intervention was prompted by special interests, such as Sugar Magnates and Mercantilists during the Spanish-American War. This War opened the door to a massive drive toward global intervention by the United States government.

Along with the resources and markets of the Far East, Southeast Asia and Central America were also prime targets of the new expansive policies of the United States during this period of the later part of the 19th Century. The intent was to exploit our growing military might around the world while securing potential markets and natural resources. The United States came to the rescue as the “savior” of the oppressed colonial peoples under the rule of Spain; from the Philippines to Cuba a particular brand of liberty was brandished. That liberty came at a price and usually at the end of a bayonet. Unfortunately, the liberator became the oppressor and the people of these hapless nations came under the thumb of a new colonialist power.

In Cuba, The Platt Amendment was implemented to provide a permanent restriction on the people of Cuba to determine their own destiny. As much as we would like to believe that we were liberators of the Cuban people, the crafting of the Cuban Constitution was far from a free enterprise, it was totally subject to the acceptance of the United States and provided for the future intervention of the U.S. Military at any time our government deemed necessary. Under the agreement, the “sovereignty” of Cuba was only considered legitimate through the acceptance of all acts imposed upon it by the military government of the United States. It also permitted the U.S. to purchase or lease any lands, give the U.S. special privileges and thus we have Guantanamo. The consequences of that war, the occupation and the Platt Amendment are still with us today and are embodied in the name Fidel Castro who used the state of Cuban colonial despair to his revolutionary advantage. As with other unintentional consequences of such interventions, Fidel Castro took advantage of the remnants of colonialism and the disparity between those who benefited greatly from the U.S. colonialism and those who remained in abject poverty to successfully promote his revolution.

From 1898 through 2007, this country has “intervened” in the affairs of over 200 countries and out of that number; the only intervention that could remotely be considered justified was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The primary beneficiaries of an interventionist policy have not changed throughout the years the beneficiaries are the weapons makers and dealers! The American People and this Nation, on the other hand pay the price with increased taxation and the deaths of our sons and daughters, but our actual security interest has never been a real reason for such interventions.

Now the question is why, why would we intervene in all of these countries if the actual security interests of the United States are not threatened? It is the same old story, nations feeding upon the wealth and resources of other nations. Our interventions throughout the last century have this primary factor in common, the ones who benefit from them are usually not the American People as much as those who seek huge war profits.

Threats are now fabricated, exploited and amplified beyond reality to enjoin the sentiments of the population to support intervention and war, but the costs are much higher than we realize or wish to admit to ourselves. Many of the consequences are not immediate and therein are the real danger, for the fabric of history is changed by our actions and unbeknown to us at the time, our own future is changed in ways we cannot conceive.

World War I is a perfect example of the fabric of history being altered by our intervention into the war. At the time of the entry of the United States, both sides of the conflict we rapidly depleting their resources, drained of their ability to wage war and ready to sue for peace. The war to end all wars could have had a totally different outcome had the United States refrained from listening to our domestic war drummers and those who would eventually benefit from our entry into the conflict. Besides the actual monetary costs of the war, the social cost is hard to comprehend in our present time; whole societal influences were altered beyond recognition. Empires were broken apart, new nations were born from the despair and national influences were morphed into artificial boundaries. The war set the stage for not only the eventual break-up of the British Empire, but the generation of ethnic and religious sectarianism that had been more or less subdued under the old order. Most of the nations within the region were devastated for over a generation and such devastation helped set the stage for the massive struggle called WWII.

We rarely think of the differences in the world had we not been pushed into war by the war propagandist, profiteers and political influence peddlers. If we had not entered the war, both sides would have settled back into a world, while scared, would have been far safer than the one our victory created. Upon our victory, the fabric of history was severely distorted, everything changed and the balance of power shifted enormously. With victory came the end of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires; this led to the formation of entirely new countries throughout Europe and the Middle East. It also marked a great transference of colonies into the hands of other colonialist powers, just as oppressive as the former masters.

With that victory came some of the harshest war reparations visited upon a defeated nation. Germany and its allies became subjugated to the wrath of the victors and under that wrath were sown the seeds of a future dictator who exploited the humiliation of Germany into a cause of extreme nationalistic pride and a taste for revenge.

The stage that Hitler exploited would have never been set had the United States remained neutral, as it should have, during the latter part of the war. The powers involved would have been forced into a peace agreement due to each side’s inability to provide resources to maintain their respective war efforts. The world that was would have slumbered back into its decaying imperialism, eventually giving way to a natural evolution of nationalities and newly formed nations. The artificial borders created in the Middle East by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire would have been less likely to have been the future cause of continual conflict and strife as it is today.

Imagine for instance, for a moment, if you will, the world without Hitler. Certainly, this is pure supposition, but when you consider the possibilities what that the one act of U.S. intervention nearing the end of WWI did and how it drastically altered the weave of history, the conclusion that the world would be a very different place is more than a flight of fancy. As stated earlier, a lonely, dejected artist named Adolf Hitler would have had no fuel for his nationalistic incitements, Germany would have gradually reentered the community of nations and WWI, as we know it, would have never happened. Think of it, the European Jews and all their culture would have continued to flourish; there would have been no concentration camps, no gas chambers and 6 million Jews would have lived to propagate their lineage. The creation of the State of Israel would have never been forcefully imposed upon the Muslim nations of the Middle East and thus the current conflict would not exist in its present form.

The British would have never gained control over vast regions of the Middle East, and the imposition of artificial borders throughout the area would not be the cause of numerous ethnic disturbances over territories. Although the nationalistic fever began to sweep throughout the region during the late 19th Century, that fever was only amplified by the early 20th Century events of WWI.

The Soviet Union would have never had the opportunity to impose the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe without the events of WWII. The massive arms race, the nuclear threat and cold war would have had no stage on which to form and the incredible waste in manpower and funds would have been averted into more productive avenues. There are enough examples of the unintended consequences of our actions to fill volumes on the subject.

Interventions always have consequences and we rarely have the foresight to determine if those consequences produce far more danger than if the interventions never occur in the first place. The leaders of this country must once again regain the wisdom of the Founders and refrain from the use of intervention an ideological tool. We must come to understand that such interventions have the potential of drastically changing not only the fabric of our history, but also the fabric of our future. It has been proven that we have lacked that wisdom over the decades; it is time to stop the course that leads to dangerous unintentional consequences.

In Liberty,
Republicae

Blowbacks a bitch.
Thing is methinks the people of the world are getting ready to show their respective governments the true meaning of blowback and shove some cannons up their rears.

Heres to a possible future with ZERO elected officials.

[carlangaslangas]

...the only intervention that could remotely be considered justified was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

I agree with most of your post, but to say that the attack on Japan after Pearl Harbor was "remotely" justified is going a bit too far. Don't you think that US intervention in WWII was totally justified?

In some cases, the US has intervened to balance the rising power and abuses of another superpower like Spain, England, or Russia in the past. Similar to a judge breaking up a monopoly. Doesn't that particular type of intervention increase trade and benefit everyone?

Again I mostly agree with you, but I believe there are cases (Darfur genocide, invasion of a peaceful country like Kuwait in the first Gulf War) when intervention could benefit us as well as help the country that is being victimized.

Such an intervention would need approval by Congress obviously, but would also need to be paid with allocated funds, and limited to that amount. That way the taxpayer can see the real cost beforehand and get a chance to vote on it.
Otherwise, I would be against that type of intervention as well.

Basically, if you think of other countries as trade partners, customers, and suppliers of goods, you can see that we stand to benefit if they too operate in a free market where private property is protected.

[Republicae]

Actually, the only justified cause of war is when we are attacked, there are not other justifiable reasons to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation. We have no business making alliances with any country, our Founding Fathers gave us serious warnings against such alliances and there was a good reason…they are entanglements that are dangerous and costly.


We can no more be the social worker of any other country, or the policeman of the world than our government is capable of doing so domestically. Besides, this government has been technically bankrupt for years and we are about to move into effective bankruptcy within the next 5 years.


Aside from all that we never know the unintended consequences of our actions, especially when it comes military intervention. If you read the history of what was taking place prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor you will see that the Japanese felt they had little choice but to attack our country, it was not totally unprovoked.

[carlangaslangas]

We can certainly choose not to intervene to stop a genocide or a massacre, because we don't want to be caught in future entanglements. I don't know that I totally agree.

However, morals aside, don't you think that it is sometimes clearly beneficial economically for us to protect an ally from invasion?
Let's say that a terrorist group takes over Panama and shuts off the canal with the intention to cause economic damage, and what's left of the Panamanian government is unable to regain control of the country. We (and one would argue that the world) would clearly benefit economically by helping Panama militarily against those terrorists and re-opening the canal. I am talking here of a case where a victimized country asks for our help, and there's clear economic gain.

So I believe there are exceptions to the isolationist position.

But I also see how exceptions can later lead to abuses. The key is always restraint.

ADDED AFTER EDIT:

Do you think that such an intervention could be left to citizens and corporations to fund and vote for?
In other words, the government would not get involved, but would allow its citizens to fund such an effort?
I am curious if that has ever happened before?

[Republicae]

So, you don’t believe in the sovereignty of nations, what do you think about our own sovereignty? Is it also open to intervention based upon the determination of another nation? If intervention is based upon unilateral determinate values then are you open to our own land being invaded?

Did you know that Hitler invaded the Sudetenland based on the doctrine of humanitarian intervention? That was the policy that lead to that invasion. China invaded Tibet based on, among other things, humanitarian causes, do you therefore agree with such moves or, as I suspect, it is only right when America does it?

One of the most used excuses, perhaps you have heard the term: “support to minorities” within this or that country. The former Soviet Union was notorious in its “humanitarian interventions”, thus I must ask you hold such views based upon a uniquely Americanized world view?

The point is what gives us the right? Is it based upon the way we view ourselves, our country or is it purely based on a commonly held ideology that “something should be done”, or on the domestic front “there ought to be a law”. The affairs of other nations are completely none of our business. Part of the problem that we find ourselves in today is that we have excused all types of intervention, whether it be covert political activities used to undermine elected governments, undermine economies of those who our government perceives as potential threats or military intervention where the threat was not present. The doctrine of preemptive war, one that has effectively been used by the Neo-Conservatives and the Left Liberals, is also based in this type of overall interventionist doctrine.

Another interesting side-line of the doctrine of intervention is funding and weapon supply. In just about every conflict around the world we are or have been intimately tied to both sides. In many cases we supply weapons to both sides, fund both sides and in some cases we even train each side.

It is extremely arrogant, and potentially dangerous for us to even consider that we have either the actual power or the right to go around the world inserting ourselves into the affairs, wars, civil wars or rebellions of other countries. Not only that, but we are a bankrupt country, we have been technically bankrupt for several years and now we are just beginning to see the effective bankruptcy take place; what business do we have attending to anyone else’s business when we need to care for our own house and get it in order?

Now, concerning the Panama Canal, since you raised that question let’s take a look at it. Today, unlike in times past, the Panama Canal is no longer used in ways it once was. Oil transport is now transferred through massive oil tankers, far too large to pass through the canal. Most commercial shipping is ported in various ports from the East Coast to the West so the canal is no longer as much as an economic matter as it was. Primarily it is used for personal and some tour cruises.

This country has used the “threat scenario” on many, if not most occasions to intervene in the affairs of other countries. The “national interests of the United States” has also been a much used excuse to intervene in the affairs of other countries. The questions arise, based upon history, what were the effects of such interventions? Did they indeed secure an economic purpose or, as is the case more times than not, a military strategic purpose.

In most cases in our history, the consequences of our interventions have been far more costly than had we remained neutral. One of the problems, perhaps the most dangerous problems with interventionism, no matter the reason, is that one never knows the chain of events that are set into motion.

There is, as Dr. Paul will quickly tell you, a great deal of difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. He, as I, advocate non-interventionism, but not isolationism.

I fully understand that we have been conditioned that it is patriotic to accept a history that portrays our country in the best light possible, the real patriotism however, is looking at our history honestly and even critically, by doing so we will learn from those lessons, both from the successes and the failures it provides. It is shameful, and perhaps even dangerous, when we allow our history to be colored, misrepresented or manipulated to support ideologies, agendas, or causes.

It is an absolute mistake to use patriotism as a factor in convincing the American People to choose a spirit of aggression and intolerance in policy making over than the traditional values found within our Constitution and the Founding Documents. If we are to profit from the errors of the last century in particular, then we would come away from our history lesson with a very clear understanding that the United States has strayed extremely far from its foundation and it has costs us dearly.

In viewing the history of the United States during the Twentieth Century, we can quickly see that it was a century characterized by numerous provocations and interventions; rarely did we contribute to widespread stabilization, but a generalized destabilization within nations and regions of the world. We rarely consider that our popular history seems to be written for our consumption, portraying a very righteous and amicable nation that has sought only justice for the nations of the world, a view that is totally contrary to the facts of history. It is impossible for us to justify our national aggression by stating it is a consistent philosophy while claiming to maintain a peaceful influence in the world. Such aggression is an anomaly of our traditional American character. Indeed, such aggressive intervention has proven to be a defect in our modern national character, one that is in a vital need of correction by returning to our foundational Constitutional philosophy.

In general, the American psyche, both politically and socially, has been distorted to such a degree that it now reveals a lack of tolerance and respect for the rights of other nations, all the while promoting our own version of self-righteousness wrapped up in a faade of Red, White and Blue. Such distortions are far from the reality of Patriotism upon which this nation was founded. We cannot expunge our own national history through palpable evasions or distortions of the truth while maintaining that by doing so we are defending our nation. Nor can we claim to uphold our patriotism by such contortions in our history; such mental gymnastics are little more than a contradiction to all reason and indeed to the meaning of patriotism itself. Until we openly confess our political sins of the past it is doubtful that we can prevent their repetition in the future.

Our national militarism has naturally lends itself to national expansionism and, in ways we rarely consider, to that of the glorification of executive monarchism. We have seen the Machiavellian philosophy take root in this country over the past 40 years, a philosophy that teaches that the State and its ability to render its power unabated is the real source of all happiness and security. It feeds upon the doctrinal plea that by strengthening the reach of the State it can, through the medium of militarism, provide for the necessary security of the People by spreading its particular ideological agenda and making the world safe for democracy. That philosophy however, ignores the primary source of our national security by subjecting our nation to the consequential dangers that such militaristic interventions entail.

The most important factor, one that is often overlooked in this Machiavellian ideology, is that the greatest source of national defense can be found by remaining entanglement free. This Machiavellian indoctrination over the last 109 years has effectively been engrained, not only in the mind of the political apparatus, but also in the minds of the People to the point that the government has been granted an unlimited license to proceed without the restraint of the People's consent. I feel that eventually reality will force a rejection of the Machiavellian ideology and the maxims that have blinded our national conscience to the point that we can no longer rationally see the options provided to us by the wisdom of the Founders. The Machiavellian Shibboleth should be considered an obsolete doctrine, dangerous in its application and perverse in the tenets of Jingoism that now dominates this current Administration and grips large portions of the American attitude. We must disavow such national war fetishes and the demands of imperialistic traits that not only fail to deliver real security but actually decreases our national safety.

In our seemingly persistent denial of our own imperialism, we are simply being untrue to ourselves and through such denials we turn our backs upon those tenets that our Founding Statesmen ascribed, for our benefit, to this Great Nation of Liberty and Justice. When our politicians lay claim to a peaceful disposition while promoting the cry for intervention, they not only betray our national conscience, but deceive the People with such contradictions of traditional national principles.

Our history has been filled with threats, threats to our way of life, threats to our very existence and while we must be diligent in meeting all direct and immediate threats with a strong rational response, we should avoid the tendency to face such issues with a charge of reactionary emotionalism. Reactionary decision-making leads to little in the way of constructive measures and usually only opens us up to an increase of potentially dangerous threats. In our nature we are afforded the ability to either look at our actions based upon reason or based upon fear. Upon reason, we shall always find a sense of rational decisions combined with responsible actions that ultimately benefit us as individuals and as a nation however, if we are given over to irrational fears then our actions risk betraying our overall security through reckless actions both domestically and on the foreign stage. We would do well to consider that our actions are connected to events from times past and will always tie future consequences to the present.

A policy of interventionism is usually accompanied by a swell of national pride, promoted, as it were, by the State and its corporate sponsors, who are always the beneficiaries of such polices. It is rarely considered that a poor and potentially dangerous doctrine or policy, when consistently applied, will eventually embed itself deeply into the national character and influence that character in ways that will ultimately decrease all periphery vision, giving rise to unreasonable fears and trepidations that tend to blind us to other possible considerations. There has never, in all our history, been such a poorly defined doctrine as that we currently are witnessing with regards to our foreign policy. Its broad application has no real focal point, no perceivable goals and few effectual results that can be declared as successful in providing this country actual defense. The proverbial "can of worms" has been opened regarding our foreign policy and with that open "can" the "night crawlers" are finding their way into our domestic policies, creeping into areas that have always been held as sacrosanct to our traditional Constitutional values.

The common thread to all threats, throughout our history, has been the utilization of the fear, and the use of that fear is exploited by the government to increase its own grasp of domestic powers or to expand its global reach. Militarism is developed and defined specifically by tyrannical aspects within governments to support their own arbitrary authority and by designing such predatory ambitions the scope of government power is extended, usually pressed upon weak and relatively defenseless nations that have no real defense against facing such overwhelming force. The primary driving ambition is, besides power, the control over vastly rich resources within certain regions. These resources are touted as essential to our national security interests and the rights of another nations' sovereignty appear to be rarely enough deter our government push toward intervention to pursue such national interests.

Interventionist militarism has always promoted and utilized the development of pseudo-patriotism in the hearts and minds of the people to the point that they believe the push of military might is not only necessary, but, more times than not, it is portrayed as a noble cause. Rarely is there the consideration that such actions are not only used to maintain and grow the institutions of militarism, but that they are usually inimical to our own security. Of course, it is always in the interests of the Militarists to win the conflict, but even when a conflict is won the consequences of even victory are rarely considered.

The entry of America into World War I is a perfect example of the effects of militarism on a country. Prior to our entry, both sides of the conflict had almost exhausted themselves to the point of suing for peace, but with the entry of America the war was extended and the results of the war changed the power-structure around the world. Additionally, our entry and the victory that followed set the stage for several events that not only promoted a domestic extension of our government's authority, but also created events that would ultimately lead to the rise of Hitler and therefore WWII. Had America not entered WWI, both sides of the conflict would have settled for peace, Germany would have never faced the severe and shameful terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The economic drain of ruining reparations on Germany and the decades of national impotency would later give rise to the extremism of National Socialism and the disaster of WWII. This government rarely appears to take into consideration the consequences of its actions, its policies, and its interventions, if it would then not only would the world be a very different place, but our country would be a vastly different one then we see today. It would be far more secure, far more prosperous and far more respected.

Perhaps one of the most damaging results of our entry into the WWI was on the domestic front. The government created a truly massive propaganda machine called the CPI [Committee on Public Information] for the sole purpose of beating the drums of war, whipping the American public into an almost total acceptance of militaristic interventionism and repression of all dissent contrary to the war effort.

Those propaganda methods were extremely effective and they are still employed today by the government when seeking support for its militaristic agenda. The primary method utilized was fear and hate; fear of the enemy combined with hate, all epitomized by an inordinate demonization. The methods of the CPI portrayed Germans as the most dangerous enemy this country had ever faced, a threat to our way of life, depraved, brutal barbarians, intent of the destruction of our democracy and all freedom loving people around the world. Stories of atrocities and potential atrocities were common-place; the intent was to stimulate a national self-righteousness and complete indignation toward the enemy, it was very effective and produced the desired results within the minds of the people thereby making them pliable to the militaristic cause of the government. The CPI propaganda arm of the government had no qualms about the distortion of the truth or outright subversion of the truth and blatant lies utilized for the greater good of the cause and the expansion of American military might.

"So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about which the public is to hate. A handy rule for arousing hate, is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man." Lasswell-CPI

Obviously, it worked so well that it has continued to be used to this day. It is not hard to find the exact wording today as was utilized during WWI and WWII in describing the enemy and the potential extreme threat that enemy represents to our way of life. It also appears that the American people remain equally as sensitive to such methods today as they were nearly 100 years ago during the Wilson Administration. In such efforts, the government needs hatred to fuel its war machine and it is extremely skilled in presentations crafted to elicit those darker emotions among the People, all for the cause, the government's cause, whether justified or not.

After WWI, the CPI remained a very useful tool of the government, but instead of war, it used the same methods against potential political opposition, to enhance factions and special interest that government sought partnerships with in order to gain a far more powerful position on the domestic front. It became government policy to use such tools to mold American public opinion to fit the views and requirements of the State.

The use of Militarism, and the propaganda tools used to support it, is contrary to the goals once espoused by this country and the traditions upon which it was founded. It is impossible for the traditional institutions of this country to continue if such tactics continue to influence and direct public opinion based upon certain agendas which may not always be exposed to the general public but are sold to them as an absolute necessity for our survival as a nation when in fact that may not be the case. Unless we are willing to not only maintain our Rights and defend our Liberties, we will lose them to a systematic distortion of truth created to generate a particular agenda contrary to our real national interests and the traditional Constitutional form of government.

"The abuse of official powers and thirst for dishonest gain are now so common that they cease to shock."Edward Bates-Lincoln's Attorney General.

Of course, along with Militarism abroad comes an increase of political repression at home. Any government that gravitates toward Militarism tends to also move toward a Police State, especially when there is the advantage of an external threat or a potential internal threat. The two go hand-in-hand and rarely can Militarism be found without the backing of a degree of domestic oppression. It is also not unusual within such a mentality of such extreme views that those who promote it are ultimately gripped with the same fear it seeks to propagate. We have seen the shift in this country since the events of 9/11; it has been a drastic move toward dangerously irrational reactionary thought.

[carlangaslangas]

I never advocated intervention to infringe on the sovereignty of a foreign nation. Unless it was to protect a people from genocide. But I also think that protection from genocide can be done in non-militaristic ways. For instance, by facilitating the immigration into this country of those targeted groups, as we did with the jews in WWII.
Do you believe that accepting these political refugees can be reconciled with a non-interventionist agenda? Or would a non-interventionist government refrain from it?

I do believe in the sovereignty of nations, which is why my example talks about an attack on the sovereignty of another nation by a terrorist group, or by another country. And why I found it worthy to protect such sovereignty by helping a foreign government against such an attack.

However, I do believe there is one exception. I think back to the creation of this country, and how the founding fathers revolted against the sovereignty of England.
If at that moment, another country had come to the help of England to maintain its sovereignty on the colonies, it would have seemed unfair to the americans that were fighting a just cause.

So, I would like to make my position clear that I don't advocate intervention to protect a country under attack, if such attack comes from within - like a revolution.

But, a clear position like yours, is the best defense against future abuses of power and corruption like we have seen in Iraq.

There is a lot of good that comes from non-interventionism. And you cite many, if not all, of those advantages and disadvantages. And as long as the government allows its citizens to privately donate to whatever military or humanitarian causes they want to donate, I will agree with you that non-interventionism is the best position.

[Republicae]

“America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.” John Quincy Adams

Since the intervention of Lincoln into the affairs of the Sovereign and Independent Free State Republics of the South, this country has set a course of intervention into the affairs of other nations, using pretense and power to provide for the excuse to take actions far beyond the authority and indeed the Spirit of the Constitution. The corruption comes from the undue interests behind the politics, the massive corporate interests that have used the powers of the State to profit from the distresses of war and intervention. Vast corporate interests have always sought to bend the decisions of the government to advantage, and none has succeeded like the Military Industrial Complex.

If you notice, you will find that there is little interest in intervention when it comes to humanitarian issues and the reason for that is because in many of those situations there were few if any resources that would bring a profit in an intervention. To do a real study in the causes of intervention you should study NATO’s intervention into Bosnia, while it was touted as a humanitarian intervention to stop genocide, the truth is far from it.

The corruption within this government is hidden under layers and layers of legislation, under stacks of bureaucratic paper mazes and political favoritism to the point that legal corruption is readily acceptable and available.

We often hear the claim that we must intervene, either to protect American citizens or American interests. Remember Grenada, the reason was to protect American medical students; it came out later that the students were never threatened, never held against their will and not in danger until the actual invasion. The real reason was the leftist government that was not to the liking of the Administration. It was an easy target, a moment to induce American pride, it worked, or course.

I am almost certain that the American People cannot understand or grasp the depth of power politics that takes place in Washington, or the directions this government has taken by providing the People of this country with what amounts to little more than a ruse. This government has, over the years, become an expert at driving the emotions of the public into their corral to benefit their purposes. I remember Arthur Sylvester back in the 60s, when he served as the Secretary of Defense under the Kennedy Administration. He believed that it as the “inherent right of the government to lie”, to cook the news to benefit the agenda of the government; unfortunately that position is still very much alive in Washington. Time and again, if you look at all the cases of intervention by this government you will see that there has rarely been a legitimate reason for such intervention; most have been publicly manufactured pretexts, fabricated crises.

There is a pattern of absolute mendacity that has saturated this government for the last 100 years at least. Why did we go into Afghanistan? Ah, it must have been because Osama bin Laden was there, right? Well, less than two month prior to our invasion the Taliban delegation was in Washington and reneged on the UNOCAL pipeline that had been negotiated with the Taliban…that sealed their fate. By the time we invaded Osama and his cohorts were long gone from Afghanistan, he was not the target and the subterfuge continues to this day, the same with Iraq.

Interventionism is just another name for the expansion of political influence and plunder.