LibertyMaryland

The Risk of Entangling Alliances

Thomas Jefferson upon his inauguration recommended peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

The threats of the modern world do change and sometimes call for signs of solidarity such as the NATO alliance. Created after the Second World War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s policy where an attack on one is considered an attack on all, made it clear that the free nations of the western world would defend any aggression vigorously and immediately. NATO was the answer for the very real threat posed by the Soviets. Anchored by America, a strong case can be made that NATO prevented World War III.

However, in this century, stubborn expansion of NATO could very well be the cause of World War IV. The nation of Georgia, a former state of the Soviet Union and birthplace of Joseph Stalin, is on a pathway to membership in NATO. Extending promises of mutual protection to countries so far away from any reasoned definition of the “North Atlantic” and greatly at risk of boarder disputes and internal conflict is unwise. If this month’s military action in the Caucuses instead took place two or three years in the future, America could very well find itself in a shooting war with Russia, something every President since Truman has wisely taken great pains to avoid.

I take seriously the advice of our third President. Alliances such as one with Georgia could entangle the United States in a war that we neither want nor are well prepared to fight. On a world stage that differs considerably from the middle of the twentieth century, we should reevaluate the numerous alliances that we are currently in, the deployment of our forces in over 130 nations, and the purpose of NATO. With a stressed economy and military 100% utilized, we cannot afford to look for new dragons to slay by further extending our commitments to far flung regions of the world.

- Richard Matthews

cross posted from RichardMatthews.org

No More Unconstitutional, Undeclared, Preemptive Wars!

I see through the lens of non-interventionism.  We should not intervene in other countries’ affairs, as I certainly would not want China, the U.N., or, for that matter, Israel, intervening in our internal affairs.  In May, Israeli Prime Minister suggested a naval blockade on Iran.  Now, HR 362 and SR 580 call for just that.  International norms recognize a blockade as a declaration of war.

Our cowardly Congress was derelict of duty with Iraq.  They passed a resolution that shrugged their responsibility to discuss the who, where, why, and when a war was necessary to protect our national interest.  The cowards allowed this administration to take our country into war, without the declaration of war from the legislative branch as required by the constitution.  Now we are in a prolonged occupation with over 4000 American soldiers dead, and 900,000 civilians killed, since we destabilized the Iraqi government.

Have we learned nothing?

Pat Buchanan’s commentary, “Who’s Planning Our Next War?”  quotes Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, on his return from a June meeting with Bush. “George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term.”

Buchanan then questions, “Is it not time the American people were consulted on the next war that is being planned for us?”

Congress should stop Bush from ignoring the Constitution’s directive on War Powers.  Before they pass another resolution to unconstitutionally yield their power to the President on paper, or in a naval blockade, they should come clean with the American people.  Their discussion should clearly answer two questions: How does Iran threaten the U.S.?  And, how many Nuclear missiles does Israel have?

The Iranian Problem

With Iran being presented much the same way Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in the past, and with it receiving so much attention in the 2008 presidential campaign, reason needs to be presented to counter our march to unnecessary war. You won’t hear reason from any of the media-loved Republicans on this issue (Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, or McCain) , nor will you hear it from the media-chosen Democrats (Clinton, Obama etc).

America’s policy on nuclear proliferation in Iran specifically, and Iran’s influence in the middle east in general, brings out the worst of American imperialist politics. First, America needs to step back from “pre-emption“. That is, the policy of invading or taking military action against a country we “think” might be planning to harm our “interests”. Pre-emption is a code word for imperialism. It means that we can attack anyone we think might be looking at us funny, as “interests” are so loosely defined as to make anything permissible. The only acceptable cause for using military force is to defend life or property of our citizens. Anything else opens up the slippery slope we have too often slid down, to our own peril and harm.

When a politician is asked, “Will you allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons if you are president?”, it would be refreshing and give hope for peace and freedom if the politician would answer “it is not my place, or the place of our country to decide who can have what weapons”. Unless we are currently at war with another country, we are overstepping our rights as human beings, when we presume to tell them how they can defend themselves. We are setting ourselves at a higher position, that of demi-gods or imperials lords, when we attempt to control others in such a manner. This is bad for freedom, bad for human dignity, and bad for our own souls.

Further, if one studies history, and understands why Iran and the United States are at odds today, one can see that the problem may not be intractable. Indeed, all the arguments made by our mainstream politicians regarding the sanity of the Iranian government and religious leaders totally ignores the fact that China, and Russia, and plenty of other countries are not terrified by that Iranian government. Continue reading The Iranian Problem…

Republican Matthews calls for troops to come home in 2009

Baltimore, MD – Republican candidate for Congress Richard Matthews calls for a safe and swift withdraw of U.S. Forces stationed in the Middle East in 2009. Matthews states as a campaign promise, “If I gain the trust of the voters of Maryland to serve in 2009, I will not vote for any bill that extends the presence of the U.S. military in Iraq. Any bill that includes spending for the continuation of U.S. military operations in Iraq, I will commit myself to vote against.”

Candidate Matthews thinks that the mission(s) in Iraq have been accomplished. “We have verified that there are no weapons that are threatening the security of the United States, we have toppled a dictator, and now is the time for us to step out of the way and let Iraq become a sovereign, independent nation.”

The Matthews campaign feels that the Democratic incumbent in Maryland’s Second District C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger can be commended for voting against the “surge” in Iraq in early 2007. However, his stated position of a “Perimeter Plan” does not help protect the security of the United States. Continue reading Republican Matthews calls for troops to come home in 2009…