Not Our Quarrel

[SOCALHUSKER]

Not Our Quarrel

By Philip Giraldi

 

Not Our Quarrel

 

The Founding Fathers recognized that faction had destroyed the great republics in the ancient world and in the Middle Ages. The US Constitution attempted to minimize the danger from faction by carefully distributing power and dividing authority between the states and federal government, making it more difficult for any interest group or political party to obtain a national ascendancy. George Washington also recognized the particular danger that would derive from the new republic's citizens becoming involved in other people's quarrels, creating factions that looked abroad for support and for causes to embrace. He was most particularly referring to those who were engaged in the affairs of Europe, where contending monarchies had created a state of nearly perpetual warfare, but he recommended that the United States disdain foreign involvements and cultivate friendship with all nations.

 

George Washington would not now recognize the nation that he helped create. Today's United States is not divided by faction, though some might argue that the two principal political parties are in a state of permanent disagreement. It has, however, become addicted to nearly perpetual involvement in other people's quarrels. A bipartisan foreign policy consensus that does not serve the national interest endures due to failure of the two principal parties to disagree often enough on critical issues of war and peace. Substantial majorities in both leading political parties support an imperial America with a heavy worldwide military footprint used to support a democratizing and market driven agenda. There is not a whole lot of difference in the foreign policies of Republicans and Democrats.

 

The US foreign policy is partially driven by tribalism, with hyphenated Americans eager to involve Washington in ancient disputes back in their home countries. The Israel Lobby has been most successful in that regard with the US willy-nilly endorsing policies of a series of right-wing governments. And there are many others, Armenians pushing to condemn Turkish genocide of a century ago, dispossessed Cubans seeking to punish Fidel Castro, Mexican irredentists hoping to recover the southwest, aggrieved Irishmen in Boston seeking a united Eire. The list goes on and on and, in almost every instance, there is not a genuine American national interest to be served. In many cases, the bad decisions that derive from tribal politics only serve to damage everyone involved. Israel is not forced to make the hard and necessary choices that it should be making because unlimited US support relieves it of that responsibility. Armenian genocide resolutions accomplish nothing and instead make more insecure the Armenians still living in Turkey. Only the Cuban people have suffered from fifty years of sanctions, not Fidel Castro and his government.

 

An interlocking complex of groups both government and NGO constitutes another less visible component that has kept the United States engaged in places where it should not be. These interventionists are funded by congress's Freedom Support Act and have an official presence at the State Department's USAID, but their principal instrument is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that is little known to the public and which operates virtually independently in the many countries where it establishes democracy enhancement programs. NED, as the name implies, is dedicated to democracy promotion worldwide. It refers to itself as private and nonprofit, though it relies on taxpayer money as well as private sector contributions. Its private status is also a deliberate feature of how it operates, enabling it to fund programs without the usual scrutiny and safeguards afforded to government disbursements.

 

NED is internally subdivided into two organizations that are far from apolitical. One, the International Republican Institute is controlled by the Republican Party, and the other, the National Democratic Institute, by the Democrats. Senator John McCain is chairman of the IRI Board of Directors, which also includes his chief foreign policy strategist and Georgian lobbyist Randy Scheunemann. The National Democratic Institute is headed by Madeleine Albright. Both Albright and McCain are ardent interventionists.

 

NED is involved all over the world in selectively supporting parties that are engaged in what amounts to regime change, making it something like an ostensibly privatized though largely government-funded version of the old CIA. Most of the countries where it is active have left-wing governments or regimes that the US disapproves of. NED supports a number of programs directed at Iran, none of which have any real impact and which are best described as "doing something," sure to bring a smile to the face of every concerned congressman. It has had rather more impact in Eastern Europe, acting as a driving force behind many of the pastel hued revolutions that have rocked the region in the past ten years. When the Russians and others complain about outsiders interfering in the politics of their neighbors, they are frequently referring to NED, and the complaints about high handed and insensitive behavior are often justified.

 

In its most recent foray into the unknown, NED was involved in the "twitter revolution" demonstrations in Moldava that took place during the first week of April. Thousands of mostly student demonstrators filled the streets to protest against the Communist party victory in national elections, an election that the Communists were expected to win and in which there was no evident fraud. The students were out in numbers summoned by "twitters" over iPhones conveniently supplied by the US government as part of a number of programs being funded, including one called "Strengthening Democratic Political Activism in Moldova." Now, I daresay that we Americans have particularly difficulty in seeing ourselves as others see us, but how would most Americans react if a foreign government supported foundation were to set up and fund something similar in the United States?

 

NED and its affiliates were also active in Georgia's rose revolution, which helped bring to power the decidedly undemocratic Mikhail Saakashvili that almost led to a shooting war between the United States and Russia. Their hand was also evident in the orange revolution in the Ukraine, which also did little beyond dividing the country into pro-Western and pro-Russian camps. One might suggest that the pastel revolutions and the twitters are the latest iterations of the "rent-a-crowds" that the old CIA covert ops staffs used to specialize in.

 

The interference in other people's affairs leads to the question of why Washington is doing it at all. Establishment of fledgling democracies in countries that have no tradition of genuine pluralism has accomplished little, particularly as the new democrats have generally continued the pervasive corruption of the old apparatchiks. Propping up our own autocrats to keep the other guy's autocrats out is an old game, and one that has rarely produced anything positive. As the Iraq experiment has proven, democracy and a Western-style constitution are very expensive to impose and they are in and of themselves no guarantee of anything. The new sheriff in Washington has promised a kinder, gentler foreign policy, but there is little sign of any change at places like NED. Barack Obama would be well advised to ignore any impulse to change the world. He should instead go back to the sound advice of his predecessor George Washington and recognize that involvement in other people's quarrels is a trap that can destroy even the mightiest republic.

[SOCALHUSKER]

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

[T_O_Bull]

There is a rule in the world of business called the 80/20 rule and I find that it applies to a lot of situations. In this instance the 10% that resides at the two extreme ends of the 100% that makes up the worlds population are what causes a good deal of the problems in today's world. the 80% of us who make up the middle 80% simply want to live our lives as well and as happy as we can. Unfortunately the voice of the 80% all too often goes unheard while the voices and actions of the extreme-right and extreme-left are heard all too loudly.

T_O_B

[SOCALHUSKER]

There is a rule in the world of business called the 80/20 rule and I find that it applies to a lot of situations. In this instance the 10% that resides at the two extreme ends of the 100% that makes up the worlds population are what causes a good deal of the problems in today's world. the 80% of us who make up the middle 80% simply want to live our lives as well and as happy as we can. Unfortunately the voice of the 80% all too often goes unheard while the voices and actions of the extreme-right and extreme-left are heard all too loudly.

T_O_B

 

Nice, I agree!! Maybe the 80% will wake up enough to be heard over that 20%.

[rawhide]

"stretches and yawns" What?

[carlfense]

There is a rule in the world of business called the 80/20 rule and I find that it applies to a lot of situations. In this instance the 10% that resides at the two extreme ends of the 100% that makes up the worlds population are what causes a good deal of the problems in today's world. the 80% of us who make up the middle 80% simply want to live our lives as well and as happy as we can. Unfortunately the voice of the 80% all too often goes unheard while the voices and actions of the extreme-right and extreme-left are heard all too loudly.

T_O_B

 

I think that's very applicable to US politics. The extremist on both sides make all the noise while the 80% in the middle mostly just roll their eyes.

[Husker_x]

There is a rule in the world of business called the 80/20 rule and I find that it applies to a lot of situations. In this instance the 10% that resides at the two extreme ends of the 100% that makes up the worlds population are what causes a good deal of the problems in today's world. the 80% of us who make up the middle 80% simply want to live our lives as well and as happy as we can. Unfortunately the voice of the 80% all too often goes unheard while the voices and actions of the extreme-right and extreme-left are heard all too loudly.

T_O_B

 

I think that's very applicable to US politics. The extremist on both sides make all the noise while the 80% in the middle mostly just roll their eyes.

 

Most of this 80% are people with jobs who don't have five seconds to waste on self-serving politicians. It's no wonder hardly anyone gives a sh#t about politics in this country. Trusting the established parties is complete lunacy with the corruption they represent.

[SOCALHUSKER]

There is a rule in the world of business called the 80/20 rule and I find that it applies to a lot of situations. In this instance the 10% that resides at the two extreme ends of the 100% that makes up the worlds population are what causes a good deal of the problems in today's world. the 80% of us who make up the middle 80% simply want to live our lives as well and as happy as we can. Unfortunately the voice of the 80% all too often goes unheard while the voices and actions of the extreme-right and extreme-left are heard all too loudly.

T_O_B

 

I think that's very applicable to US politics. The extremist on both sides make all the noise while the 80% in the middle mostly just roll their eyes.

 

Most of this 80% are people with jobs who don't have five seconds to waste on self-serving politicians. It's no wonder hardly anyone gives a sh#t about politics in this country. Trusting the established parties is complete lunacy with the corruption they represent.

 

Agree 100%.

[SOCALHUSKER]

H7yb4xsZfBk

Event: House Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
Date: 5/5/2009

Transcript

Ron Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. I have a couple of concerns I want to express. The main concern I have is I was hoping to see maybe a change in our foreign policy from the last administration. But, of course, we see just more of the same; more nation building, more policing of the world, more involvement and it just seems like we never learn from our past mistakes.

We don’t learn from what kind of trouble the Soviets got into and yet we continue to do the same thing, and even in your last statement, it’s a grandiose goal that we want to work for a vibrant, modern democracy. Wow, what a dream. But think of how we are doing this. I mean, we label everybody that opposes what we’re doing; we call them Taliban, and all of a sudden, they are many, many thousands of Pashtuns that are right smack in the middle of getting killed by our bombs and then we wonder why they object to our policies over there.

This to me means that we’re into this for a long haul. It’s going to cost a lot of money and it’s going to cost a lot of lives, and if the members of Congress had ever realized what Iraq would end up costing us in the number of deaths, in the number of dollars, now, trillion dollars, they would have been a little more hesitant.

They admit that even now, “well maybe we shouldn’t have”, but who knows what this is going to end up costing in terms of lives and the odds of it working are so slim. This is what my great concern is, you know, in 1999, Sharif was the prime minister and we were supportive of a military coup and Musharraf comes in and we support him. So now, it’s said that we will have relationship with Sharif, which everybody knows exactly what that means. It means that we’re involved in their elections. That is the way we’ve done it for so many years.

But, you know, the Pakistani papers reported as “US taps Sharif to be the next Pakistani Prime Minister”. Now, whether or not we literally can do that, I think that we can have a lot of influence. That’s what they believe in. How do you win the hearts and minds of these people if we’re seen as invaders, as occupiers, and here we are just doing nothing more than expanding our role, you know, in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

I don’t see any end into it. But my particular question is this, it has to do with those Pashtuns that have been killed by our bombs. I mean, we’re bombing a sovereign country. Where did we get the authority to do that? Did the Pakistani government give us written permission, or did the Congress gave us written permission to expand the war and start bombing in Pakistan?

Why do we, as a Congress and as a people and as I represent not the executive branch, so casually and callously expand the war and say, “Well, today we have to do this. We’ll worry about it tomorrow.”

What about our national debt? We have a [huge] national debt facing us. We think nothing of $3.5 billion, which will turn out to be tens of billions of dollars after this.

So I’d like to know where you stand on this, the innocent killing of Pashtuns. Are they all Taliban or are there some innocent people being killed?

Richard Holbrooke: Congressman Paul, I did not say exactly what you imputed to me (*), but I have thought a long time about the issues you raised, and you mentioned Iraq. Afghanistan, Pakistan is not Iraq. The reason we are in this area, notwithstanding its immense difficulties, is because the people in this area attacked our country on September 11, 2001 and have stated flatly their intent to do it again.

They’ve done all the other things we mentioned earlier, and therefore it is not Iraq and it’s not Vietnam, despite the fact that many people say it is. It’s about defending our country. It is not easy. I agree with you. It’s not cheap and having seen wars on three continents, having been shot at for my country, I sure don’t feel comfortable in a situation where you ask brave, young American men and women, to risk their lives and sometimes pay the ultimate sacrifice.

However, the President of the United States reviewed everything in regard to this and he came to the conclusion, not that it’s the same policy, he spent the whole meeting today talking about differences and dozens of others, but it’s not the same policy but our goal has to be to defeat Al-Qaeda. You cannot let them take over an even larger terrain, move into other parts of the world, and then plan what they’re planning, in my view.

(*) Mr. Holbrooke actually said, “All of our efforts in Pakistan are geared toward creating the vibrant, modern, and democratic state that Pakistanis desire and U.S. policy envisions as a partner in advancing stability and development in a key region of the world.”