Why The U.S. Should Only Protect the U.S.

[bobevenson]

The last paragraph says it all, my friends. Or as The Who sang it, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"

Jewish World Review December 26, 2012

Middle East Democracy

By Economist Walter Williams

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Here's the first paragraph of my last year's column "Democracy Is Impossible":

"After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and 'experts' in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, 'Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy.' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that 'Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy.'"

It's good to have hope, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little chance for Middle East emergence of what we in the West call democracy. Almost a year ago, both Egyptians and Westerners welcomed and celebrated the downfall of three decades of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak's tyrannical rule. It was called an "Arab Spring." A year later, Egyptians are once again taking to the streets, this time protesting the tyrannical acts of President Mohamed Morsi, who represents the vision and ideological orientation of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal has always been to impose Shariah law. Egyptian tyranny hasn't been eliminated; its form has changed. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship is now being challenged by a hodgepodge of armed resistance groups nominally united as the Free Syrian Army.

Speaking for our nation, last year President Obama said, "The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples' pursuit of a peaceful transition to democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government." Is al-Assad's downfall in any way more likely to produce democracy than Gadhafi's downfall or Mubarak's downfall? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is optimistic in saying the rebel protest shows "the strong desire of the Syrian people ... for a Syria that is democratic, just and inclusive."

The human experience should have taught us that just getting rid of a particular dictatorship is only half the struggle. We must always ask what's going to replace it. The 1917 Russian revolution got rid of the Czars only to be replaced by the far greater brutality of the Bolsheviks under Joseph Stalin and his successors. In China, Chiang Kai-shek's dictatorial rule was replaced by Mao Tse-tung's unprecedented barbarity, which became responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. Cuba's Fulgencio Batista's dictatorship was replaced with that of Fidel Castro. The injustices of Western colonialism in Africa were replaced with homegrown brutal dictators who murdered their citizens.

In most countries in the Middle East, the collection of human rights that Westerners know as personal liberty is nonexistent. According to Freedom House's 2011 "Freedom in the World" survey, as well as Amnesty International's annual report for 2011, most North African and Middle Eastern countries are ranked either "repressive" or "not free." Moreover, I believe there's little prospect for liberty and whatever the West tries to promote in terms of liberty is doomed to failure and disappointment. The fact of the matter is that nations in the Middle East do not share the cultural and philosophical foundations of the West that created its respect for the rule of law and private property rights.

What should the West do about the gross violations of human rights so prevalent in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere? My short answer is: mind our own business and only intervene when there are direct threats to our national defense or economic interests. Otherwise, what they want to do to one another is none of our business.

[chaz wyman]

Probably the only worthwhile opinion you have yet expressed, since most of the human rights abuses are as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy, and/or have been the result of US support of oppressive regimes, this would be a great idea.

[bus2bondi]

Probably the only worthwhile opinion you have yet expressed, since most of the human rights abuses are as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy, and/or have been the result of US support of oppressive regimes, this would be a great idea.

alot of us learned this in college and here and there through our own searching. i even remember certain professors desperately trying to get this information out to us upcoming youth. so when we got it, what do we do with it? and what about those who haven't been exposed to it? it's not their fault. they just haven't been exposed to it. so their response is the typical understandable response.

so then its on our shoulders. how can we help our own governments be better, and other governments too? us poor, weaponless peaceful people?

[bobevenson]

Probably the only worthwhile opinion you have yet expressed, since most of the human rights abuses are as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy, and/or have been the result of US support of oppressive regimes, this would be a great idea.

On behalf of free-market and capitalist economist Walter Williams, thank you for your support.

[chaz wyman]

Probably the only worthwhile opinion you have yet expressed, since most of the human rights abuses are as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy, and/or have been the result of US support of oppressive regimes, this would be a great idea.

alot of us learned this in college and here and there through our own searching. i even remember certain professors desperately trying to get this information out to us upcoming youth. so when we got it, what do we do with it? and what about those who haven't been exposed to it? it's not their fault. they just haven't been exposed to it. so their response is the typical understandable response.

so then its on our shoulders. how can we help our own governments be better, and other governments too? us poor, weaponless peaceful people?

It's a good question. I suppose all you can do is be patient with people like Bob, and hope he will see sense.
There is plenty of information out there; eg John Pilger, that criticises US foreign policy, and lays out how it has resisted democracy with actions whilst promoting it with words the world over.
In the end people will believe what they prefer to believe and the facts can go hang.

Sometimes I despair at the prospect of the human race.

[bobevenson]

Unfortunately, like Walter Williams says, you can't just go to Africa or the Middle East and institute democracy. What difference does democracy make when virtually 100% of the people believe in oppression and subjugation?

[The Voice of Time]

Well, the problem about only protecting the US is that in real terms it might mean not protecting the US, since the interests of the US are largely in trade, and the protection of countries like Japan and smaller countries makes a lot of sense if it gives global stability, which is where trade flourishes. It also makes sense that the US does NOT give countries like Japan its own defence, because the dependency relationship stabilizes their trade and security relationship.

[Felasco]

Sorry Bob, this line of thinking is hopelessly out of date. It's not the 19th century anymore. We live in one world now. Everything is connected to everything else. There no longer is an "over there".

I would agree it's unhealthy for the U.S. to be doing most of the global police work. When others are ready to stand up and help shoulder the burden then the U.S. should play a more limited role in keeping with it's population size.

But for now, not many are both willing and able...

[bobevenson]

Sorry Bob, this line of thinking is hopelessly out of date. It's not the 19th century anymore. We live in one world now. Everything is connected to everything else. There no longer is an "over there".

I would agree it's unhealthy for the U.S. to be doing most of the global police work. When others are ready to stand up and help shoulder the burden then the U.S. should play a more limited role in keeping with it's population size.

But for now, not many are both willing and able...

No, you're wrong, you're totally wrong, you're absolutely wrong! You tell me one damn thing that the U.S. has accomplished for anybody with its billions of dollars and millions of lives in this Godforsaken world!!!

[Felasco]

Did you have to salute a nazi or soviet flag this morning?

How soon we forget...

[bobevenson]

Did you have to salute a nazi or soviet flag this morning?

How soon we forget...

It looks like you're the guy who either forgot or never read Walter Williams' last paragraph that I made specific reference to:

"What should the West do about the gross violations of human rights so prevalent in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere? My short answer is: mind our own business and only intervene when there are direct threats to our national defense or economic interests. Otherwise, what they want to do to one another is none of our business."

[Felasco]

What you don't seem to grasp is that psychopathic killers are never satisfied with what they have. As soon as they've taken over one place, they start looking to the next conquest. The point of being involved around the world is to squash the little bugs before they become huge bugs.

It's a smarter way to defend our national interests than what we did after WWI, disarming and sticking our head in the sand. We came very close to losing all of western civilization with that one so naturally, many hope not to repeat the mistake.

[bobevenson]

What you don't seem to grasp is that psychopathic killers are never satisfied with what they have. As soon as they've taken over one place, they start looking to the next conquest. The point of being involved around the world is to squash the little bugs before they become huge bugs.

It's a smarter way to defend our national interests than what we did after WWI, disarming and sticking our head in the sand. We came very close to losing all of western civilization with that one so naturally, many hope not to repeat the mistake.

I think the Pentagon and Defense Department are able to determine threats to our national defense and take appropriate action. Getting involved in Africa and the Middle East do not qualify as threats to our national defense. Bringing democracy to these countries accomplishes nothing when the people have no conception of human rights.

[chaz wyman]

Sorry Bob, this line of thinking is hopelessly out of date. It's not the 19th century anymore. We live in one world now. Everything is connected to everything else. There no longer is an "over there".

I would agree it's unhealthy for the U.S. to be doing most of the global police work. When others are ready to stand up and help shoulder the burden then the U.S. should play a more limited role in keeping with it's population size.

But for now, not many are both willing and able...

It seemed Bush and Blair had this dream of being a global policeman, which turned into a nightmare for millions of people.
The problem with 'the burden', is actually defining what that burden is. Policing has to be done by disinterested parties in the pursuit of abstract gaols such as peace, security, and justice.

The path the US has taken has always been in it's own interest exclusively. It has played the role of the enemy of democracy on several occasions and promoted its own interests in seizing oil rights, land grabbing and the sale of military hardware to all and sundry, but especially to dictatorships such as Mubarek , Saddam Hussien, Pinoche, and Shah Pahlavi.

[bus2bondi]

so what happened again to those millions of innocent and wonderful people? because our leaders are different than this phalivi guy?