Foreign Policy: Toward A Paleolibertarian Agenda

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Ari
Fleischer: Les. Reporter: Ari, the New Yorker reports that
only four months ago the U.S. government gave $40 million to the
Taliban, and the Washington Times reports that since the Oslo Accords
the U.S. has given $900 million to the PLO, which produces suicide
bombers and thousands who cheered at the September 11th
mass murder. And my question is, why does the President allow such
federal government expenditures? Fleischer: Well, the President
— if your question is about the Middle East, the President does
believe it's very important to work with the various sides in the
Middle East to help bring about peace. Reporter [incredulous]: Nine-hundred-million
dollars?

Fleischer:
I don't have the precise figure in front of me, Les. I can't indicate
that that's an accurate number or not. But the President has said
that it's important to work with the parties to help bring them
together, to create peace in the Middle East. — White
House Press Briefing Oct. 1, 2001

Thus
emerged a most astounding bombshell in an exchange between a White-House
spokesman and a reporter which floated away unexamined in the rest
of the media. This was no accident, since such facts are a devastating
repudiation of the activist foreign policy agenda.

Before
proceeding further, I'd first like to thank Gary
North
for reporting
in these pages
about the real reasons Evangelical Christians
have for supporting the continued existence of the state of Israel.
(Hint: it has nothing to do with a special love for, or affinity
with, us Jews and of course we Jews have long known that.) Unfortunately,
cynical and thoroughly self serving agendas are hardly endemic to
just Evangelicals. The ghastly events that occurred in our nation
on September 11, 2001 have inspired me to come forward to blow the
whistle about more of the same, this time from some members of the
establishment leadership of the American gentile and Jewish communities
bent on using their influence in tandem with that of the U.S. military-industrial
complex to perpetuate more warfare by both the U.S. and Israel,
and hence inspire more terrorist reprisals against both nations.

A
Parting of Ways Over War

Having
the surname of Israel, gentile friends and acquaintances have sometimes
made sweeping assumptions about my allegiances, all of which reveal
stereotypes some American gentiles have acquired about their Jewish
countrymen: supporting a whole host of leftist/neocon policies of
mass Third-World immigration, gun control, high rates of taxation
and government spending; and apologias ad infinitum support for
foreign aid to nations such as Israel, Egypt, and Russia (inevitably
ending up in the pockets of corrupt politicians, oligarchs, or psychotically-brutal
military officers).

The
assumptions that because I'm Jewish, I — like the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) — support the Marc Rich pardon, advocate letting the
traitorous spy criminal Jonathan Pollard out of prison, or condone
the unconscionable June 8, 1967 attack
on the USS Liberty
have now become intolerable and I'm more
than happy to join syndicated columnist Mona Charen and a few others
to emphasize that the ADL and the American Jewish Congress don't
speak for all American Jews.

Surnames
aside, the current leftist-neocon (Albright-Wolfowitz) foreign-policy
edifice is not only morally and intellectually vacuous, but unsustainable.
One sign of this was U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip
to the Mideast in early October to bribe his way to cohesiveness
for the current shaky international coalition supporting the War
on Terrorism.

The
Myth of Vital Interest

There
is certainly nothing wrong with favoring the existence of an independent
Jewish state in Palestine. This proposition, though, is entirely
different from making the case for U.S.-taxpayer support of said
entity and attempts to conflate the two propositions by Zionists
of all stripes (from William Bennett to Madeleine Albright) have
been characterized by a dialogue of evasiveness, circuity, and intellectual
dishonesty. Over the years, the only reason for U.S.-taxpayer support
that stands up to any coherent argument is that Israel's Mossad
constitutes an important intelligence outpost in the Mideast worth
$5 billion per fiscal year in direct and indirect U.S.-taxpayer
funded support of the government of Israel. The restated proposition
(revealing the starkly tenuous position of its advocates) is, the
Mossad is an American public good.

Now
the case for economic public goods, as our late, great Jewish friend
Murray Rothbard indicated, is pretty weak. But the Mossad as an
American public good? Pure chutzpah of the most blatant kind. First
is the assumption that a viable, truly free and non-aggressive state
needs to gather intelligence. Why would such a state need to do
so? If it's not meddling in other nations' affairs and thus creating
enemies that want to harm it, what is the reason for a costly, centralized,
bureaucratic intelligence agency? Indeed, the gathering of intelligence
is an aggressive act per se. It necessarily consists of an invasion
of privacy, lies, deceptions, betrayal, and a deliberate invasion
of and breaking of the laws of the targeted nation(s).

(Humorous
sidebar: You can tell I was never much a fan of James Bond movies.
One forensic thread running through the entire series is a public-good
rationale for the existence of James Bond and his fancy taxpayer-funded
rocket cars and sex flings with beautiful women. Prince Charles
never had it so good. And poor Brad
Edmonds thinks The Andy Griffith Show had a sinister agenda
.)

Hence,
a truly peaceful nation has no need for an intelligence bureaucracy,
whether it's the CIA or Mossad. Both of the latter certainly blew
it in terms of warning Americans about the September 11 U.S. attacks.
(We're now learning that a sizable fraction of Brooklyn's Arab-American
community had foreknowledge of the attack but chose to remain silent.)
Besides, "intelligence agency" is an oxymoron. These agencies
are anything but bright and they're notoriously bad at keeping secrets,
the John
Deutch
(17,000 pages of "classified" documents on
his home computer) and Aldrich Ames scandals notwithstanding.

Even
the awkwardly-named

Senate
Intelligence Committee
— with 17 members — can't keep a secret.
Recall the Bush administration's fury at Orrin Hatch (R, UT) for
spilling the beans that the U.S. suspected bin Laden's Al Queda
sponsored the terrorist attacks right after they occurred on the
basis of information gathered from an intercepted phone call. (By
the way, why isn't the German intelligence agency which intercepted
that phone call considered a "vital American interest"
necessitating the support of $5 billion of U.S. foreign aid to the
German government every year? )

If
the rationale for U.S. taxpayer support of Israel is shaky, it's
nonexistent for Egypt. In fact the basis for Egyptian aid is placation
of resentment in the Arab world aroused by U.S. aid to Israel. (Rothbard
again: government meddling on an international level always self-perpetuates
reasons for yet further meddling just as it always will on a domestic
level.)

Saudi
Arabia might be considered a plausible vital interest because it
supplies the U.S. with a significant portion of its demand for oil.
The root of the matter is, outside of the Saudi royal family (and
even inside it, below the surface), there is a great hatred of the
U.S. both for its support of Israel and its occupation of the Arabian
peninsula. These two actions were indispensable in creating the
U.S. enemies of Osama bin Laden (a Saudi national) and 16 of the
19 September 11, 2001 hijackers who were Saudi nationals.

With
the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, part
of the Pentagon, four airliners, and anthrax cases in New York and
Florida, Americans have finally seen the chickens of Mideast meddling
come home to roost. The real question is how do we, as grassroots
Americans, bring about a change in policy?

First,
by naming the real enemies of reform (hint: Osama bin Laden isn't
one of them).

u2018The
Second Most Powerful Lobby in Washington'

While
the case for foreign aid is tenuous, there's little indication that
it will stop anytime soon given two very powerful lobbies that have
an incentive to maintain the current perverse geopolitical nexi.
Next to the American Association of Retired Persons, the most powerful
lobby in Washington according to Fortune Magazine is The America
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
, an unholy creation
of gentile and Jewish war Zionists. By wining, dining, and filling
up the campaign war chests of U.S. politicians, it is able to cajole
$5 billion in money, weapons, and loan guarantees from U.S. taxpayers
every year and give them to the Israeli government. AIPAC, more
than any other lobbying group, has almost singlehandedly commandeered
U.S. foreign policy and skewed it overwhelmingly in favor of the
Israeli side of the Mideast conflict.

AIPAC
is careful not only to have its dollars gushing into the campaign
coffers of Senators and Representatives, it also has more than a
sufficient amount of its emissaries in journalism and government,
all of them issuing decrees (actually veiled threats aimed at George
W. Bush and Colin Powell should they stray from the AIPAC reservation)
calling for endless war around the world, and very conveniently
the enemies list is helpfully prioritized toward Israel's most threatening
foes. Thus we have de facto Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
calling for the War on Terrorism to
include not only Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden but also the Taliban,
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Iran, as well as terrorist groups such as
Hamas, Hezbolla, PLF, PIJ, PFLP, PFLP-GC, Al-Jihad, Gama'a al-Islamiyya,
and AIG. These latter groups have operations in Egypt, Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Sudan, Lebanon, U.K., Algeria, Austria, Israel (and its
occupied territories), Lebanon, Germany, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and
Iran. It's all an endless neocon world war in the making.

Unfortunately
the Wolfowitz Crusade is a piker's agenda compared to that favored
by Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of the Project for the New American
Century. Donnelly and Schmitt want an imminent full-blown subjugation
of Iraq with the details worked out later. "[T]he attack [need
not] await the deployment of half a million troops…The larger
challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over."
David Tell of The Weekly Standard has even grander plans. He wants
immediate destruction of not only past subsidizers of terror (regardless
of what they're doing today) but wants destruction of "any
group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them
in the future." Can anyone say, "Saudi royal family"?
The October 15 edition of the New Yorker did.

Despite
its tectonic influence and power in Washington D.C., few people
have ever heard of AIPAC. It has been able to repose quietly under
the radar for way too long. For grass-roots activists to bring about
any sea change in Mideast policy this much change. Like Handgun
Control Incorporated, its evil deeds must be flushed out, exposed,
and constantly put under the closest scrutiny. AIPAC lackeys in
Congress need to be written, telephoned, e-mailed, and humiliated
in town hall after town hall for their treasonous support for a
lobby with interests so antithetical to those conducive to keeping
our national peace and tranquility.

And
Then There Were…More Than Three

It
would be naive or unscrupulous to portray AIPAC as the lone root
of recent U.S. terrorism. The second crucial half of the equation
is the military-industrial complex, a public-private Leviathan defending
the military-budget demand for its product: weapons of widespread
destruction and the know-how of their use. The military-industrial
complex is composed of roughly three main components: the armed
services (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines), the centralized bureaucratic
military leadership (the Department of Defense headquartered at
the Pentagon), and private defense contractors. This is a formidable
hydra to be sure, but grassroots pressure can be effective by focusing
on the lifeblood of these entities: specific expenditures in the
federal budget that need to be as every bit vigorously as publicized,
protested, and de-funded as foreign aid.

Armed
Services: All outposts of U.S. armed services personnel outside
of the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska must immediately
be defunded. Officers who wish to continue living overseas will
have to do so on their own dime. The U.S. Military Empire currently
maintains at least an astounding 30 outposts around the world:

Europe
(120,000 troops scattered throughout in Iceland, Britain, Germany,
Bosnia, Serbia, Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Spain, and afloat on vessels
near those nations). Middle East (30,000 troops scattered throughout
Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and afloat on vessels near those
nations). Asia (100,000 troops in South Korea, Japan, and afloat
on vessels near those nations).

Along
with the worldwide War Empire, the military leadership at the Pentagon
which administers it must be defunded. While we're at it, let's
unplug the State Department, the National Security Council at the
White House, and the CIA as well.

Last
of all, there must be a conversion away from war production to consumer
goods at a number of defense contractors. Those who can't make it
in the market for consumer goods will meet a welcome demise in the
competitive marketplace as they should. From a quick search, they
include but certainly aren't limited to the following corporations:

Aircraft
(Murder From Above):

Missiles
(Murder from Afar):

Warships
(Murder from the Oceans):

Murder
on the Ground:

Bring
the War Home 21st-Century Style

In
the September 16 issue of the U.K. Independent, Robert Fisk
details his own confrontation with the AIPAC-military industrial
complex war machine:

America's
name is literally stamped on to the missiles fired by Israel into
Palestinian buildings in Gaza and the West Bank. Only four weeks
ago, I identified one of them as an AGM 114-D air-to-ground rocket
made by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin at their factory in — of all
places — Florida…[it] was fired by the Israelis into the back
of an ambulance near the Lebanese village of Mansori, killing two
women and four children. I collected the pieces of the missile,
including its computer coding plate, flew to Georgia and presented
them to the manufacturers at the Boeing factory. And what did the
developer of the missile say to me when I showed him photographs
of the children his missile had killed? "Whatever you do,"
he told me, "don't quote me as saying anything critical of
the policies of Israel."

The
companies listed above must not be allowed to continue rationalizing
and burying their heads in the sand about the murder to which they
are willing accomplices. Taking a page from the anti-abortion movement,
the victims of these corporations need to have their images (maimed,
mutilated all) put on large posters and paraded outside company
headquarters and munitions plants like the one in Georgia mentioned
by Fisk. Let employees who have young sons and daughters have to
drive in and out of their workplace every day and face the indirect
results of their handiwork and have trouble sleeping at night. The
Nazi excuses that "we were just following orders" or "we
just wanted to make a living" didn't work at Nuremberg, and
it shouldn't work at missile factories in Georgia.

Foreign
Policy: A New Paleolibertarian Agenda

[A]
passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety
of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation…betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions
to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is
apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions…by exciting
jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties
from whom equal privileges are withheld. The great rule of conduct
for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial
relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible
— George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796.

Lesley
Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died [as
the result of UN sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that's more children
than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?
Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the
price — we think the price is worth it — "Punishing
Saddam
," 60 Minutes, CBS Television, May 12, 1996.

After
working vigorously to de-fund the American war empire in its various
guises of foreign outposts, foreign lobbies, and private defense
contractors, a new domestic agenda must be pursued as well. It would
include but not necessarily be limited to:

Declare
and practice a policy of neutrality in all disputes between foreign
nations. George Washington's warning against foreign alliances should
have been heeded. Immediately deport all lobbyists and ambassadors
for foreign interests. Likewise, we should bring all our ambassadors
home. The entire ambassadorial system has encouraged the growth
and entrenchment of a activist foreign-policy establishment. Nine
of the infamous nineteen September 11 hijackers were living in the
U.S. legally. Three had expired visas and seven had no records at
all. Solution: repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 and enact a permanent
Constitutional ban on legal immigration (illegal immigrants would
be immediately deported with repeat offenders receiving lifetime
sentences of hard labor in prison). Yes, Mrs. Linda Chavez, it's
true that the price of farm products would increase in the absence
of your beloved Mexican illegal immigration. It would be well worth
it. You and your neocon friends who've attended Ivy-League schools
and never held real jobs in your entire lives (apart from making
public policy decrees that govern a real world you've never lived
in) will just have to pay a little more money from now on to entice
the "little people" to clean the toilets and scrub the
floors in your mansions. This may be unsettling to you, but from
now on you're just going to have to (gasp!) put the peace and tranquility
of our nation above your own incredibly selfish, elite interests.
Either get over it or get out of OUR country. Repeal all gun control
laws including the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which banned private
possession of automatic weapons). Terrorism is not only a Muslim
flying a plane into a World Trade Center tower, it is also domestic
criminal endeavors such as carjackings, home-invasion robberies,
burglaries, assaults, and rapes. All American citizens must be properly
armed to fight criminals, whoever or wherever they are.

All
in all the American public, who has so ignored the wisdom of its
first president expressed 205 years ago, is the body that bears
the most responsibility for the mess in which we currently find
ourselves. They are a groupthinking sheeple, that have allowed many
adverse changes to take effect in this country in return for some
perceived personal payoff (Social Security, veterans benefits, housing
and farm subsidies, SSI, HUD, ad infinitum, ad nauseum). In this
regard they have helped create an environment that naturally facilitates
the buying and selling of government policy. In this environment,
why would AIPAC and the military-industrial complex not partake
of mass largesse as well? They'd be crazy not to. It's time for
Americans to abandon their hypocrisy of "largesse for me but
not for thee" and unqualifiedly unplug the entire big government
establishment (not just those areas they happen to dislike). Failure
to do so will not only bring us more passenger jets turned into
kamikaze missiles, but nuclear terrorism as well.

October
24, 2001

David
F. Israel [send him mail]
is a contributor to Against
the Crowd
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare