The Folly Of Interventionism
February 10, 2011 by Bob Livingston
The uprising in Egypt, a United States puppet state run for 30 years by an America-approved dictator, demonstrates yet again the folly of a foreign policy of interventionism.
Despite billions of dollars in aid to Egypt, the Egyptian people don’t view America in a favorable light. According to a 2010 Zogby poll, fully 90 percent of Egyptians viewed the United States as a threat. Other polls show that eight out of 10 Egyptians view America unfavorably, and almost half view America very unfavorably.
Egyptians, tired of tyranny, are protesting in an effort to build a more democratic country. For his part, President Barack Obama continues to walk the fence between supporting long-time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak and trying to get out front of whichever force on the ground establishes itself as the leader of the anti-Mubarak faction.
That leaves the U.S. in a precarious position. On the one hand, if Mubarak survives, the Egyptian people will see his survival as the result of America’s meddling in the affairs of their country, and they’ll hate us even more. If the anti-government forces prevail — particularly if the Islamist group Muslim Brotherhood achieves dominant status — the new government will not be as friendly to the U.S. or Israel.
To top it off, other U.S. puppet states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain may fall next. That’s many more billions of U.S. fiat currency out the window.
In the name of foreign policy the U.S. has spread untold wealth on nations throughout the Middle East and Eastern and Western Europe. It has propped up tyrants, created jealousies and hard feelings and supplied Europeans with nanny state-style benefits.
The money wasted over there could have been better used over here building a strong economy and improving the lives of Americans. Instead, it’s created enemies of the people who have suffered under the tyranny of America-financed dictators.
The current Congress is debating ways to cut the budget. Money to dictatorial regimes for the purpose of improving their military might and clamping down hard on their people should be the first line item to get the ax. Next should be money that funds U.S. military bases around the world.
President George Washington, in his farewell address, warned against establishing permanent alliances. He said:
“Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
“Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
It’s way past time for us to heed his advice.