Buying Friends Creates More Enemies

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=1834:buying-friends-creates-more-
enemies&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

Buying Friends Creates More Enemies

Last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of my 
concerns regarding US foreign policy and the costs of our interventionism 
around the world.

Many observers claim that the recent overthrow of governments in northern 
Africa and the Middle East will result in more liberty for individuals across 
those regions.  I sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is 
replete with revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive 
governments but ended badly.  There are no guarantees that Egyptians, 
Tunisians, or others will be better off after these heralded regime changes.  

We do know, however, that these conflicts in Africa and the Middle East can 
be made worse if the U.S. government attempts to intervene and support 
certain candidates or factions. Such intervention would not further US 
interests or win us new friends, but in fact would undermine the legitimacy 
of any government that may emerge after the end of old regimes.  Just as we 
would resent and reject any political force that came to power here with the 
sponsorship of a foreign government, Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and 
others are not likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being 
replaced by another US puppet.  It is ironic, but the US government’s endless 
promotion of “democracy” overseas actually distorts and undermines democracy 
in targeted nations.  The involvement of a foreign power often undermines 
true self-determination.

Radicals who understand this may use rising resentment and anti-Americanism 
as leverage to gain power, thus defeating the stated purpose of US 
involvement in the first place.   I have never understood how the US 
government justifies subsidizing a newspaper or political party abroad in the 
name of promoting independence and pluralism.  It makes no sense.  

Unfortunately it seems to me that the administration has learned nothing from 
recent events in the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized 
several times at the committee hearing that “nothing is off the table” with 
regard to a US response to internal civil unrest in Libya.  Since when is it 
our obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve 
every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of “no-fly 
zones” and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups seeking to 
overthrow the Gadaffi regime.  Some military leaders, including Defense 
Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more enthusiastic 
interventionists that such military operations can be enormously costly both 
financially and in lives.

The costs of trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don’t 
have the money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such 
conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be. Financially, it 
is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the administration 
for “international affairs,” which is code for “foreign aid”, is two and a 
half times larger than it was just nine years ago!  As our economy shrinks at 
home, our obligations increase abroad.  As our infrastructure crumbles at 
home, we continue to spend billions expanding infrastructure in places like 
Afghanistan and Iraq.  If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we 
will be soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in a Libyan 
military operation.  It does not take a genius to see that we are going 
broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as usual.  I 
fear that if we continue this way we may soon be out of business altogether.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot