Archive for interventionism
Say No to Kony 2012
Posted by: |Almost anyone with a connection to Facebook in the last 48 hours has probably heard of this “Kony 2012” thing making the rounds of the Internet. But what exactly is it?
At the core, Kony 2012 is a propaganda meme spread by the Invisible Children political-activist group. Their 30 minute Youtube video has received well over 55 million views in just a few days. Now, if you watch the video you would be completely justified in feeling mortified and stupefied by the violence discussed therein – everyone ought to feel such things when aggression is used against the innocent. Nonetheless, you need to know what it is really about. As Shaun Connell has well noted:
Like many “youth” targeted movements these days, the focus of the video is extremely vague about what exactly social media “activists” are supposed to do, while making it seem incredibly romantic and important that the social media users have the ability to click the “share” button to help their organization become more famous. It’s a clever way to get users pumped up on powerful soundtracks and clips to click the share button. And it’s worked.
Don’t get me wrong, Joseph Kony has definitely caused a lot of suffering, although I think it is probably a stretch to call him the most evil man alive today as IC wants to imply. I can think of others who might deserve that title more. Even George W. Bush is indirectly responsible for far more deaths and more destruction than Kony could ever hope to accomplish. It is remarkable that we tend to forget such perspectives in the face of rock music and catch phrases.
Kony is ultimately a small fish in a large pond of African warlords, not extraordinarily different from the others. We have to look through the Invisible Children propaganda – they are just a publicity organization that wants to get money so they can lobby the government to start another violent conflict. Sure, it would be nice if Kony were not around anymore, but we should not point the U.S. government’s guns at U.S. citizens’ heads to extract the wealth and lives necessary to do it. Moreover, removing Kony will not do much good because somebody else will inevitably rise to take his place. Don’t think that the Ugandan government is an improvement either.
Africa is a mess, and another war is not going to help.
Non-interventionism is still the solution. We can do a lot better by allowing free passage of goods and people to let people escape and thwart their economic controls over the area. Missions of mercy that get the innocent out will accomplish far more than missions of war which will only result in more death, especially of the innocent. The United States should not police the world, as it has done little good in any continent where it has been tried. We cannot expect that the results will be better this time.
Yes, Kony is a bad guy. No, we shouldn’t get politically involved. We should never forget the deadly lessons of past interventions.
——
P.S. Shaun Connell has written an excellent piece on this Kony 2012, and I highly recommend you check it out.
Tags: Africa, government, interventionism, Media, memes, politics, violence, war
The tension on the Korean peninsula escalated late last year when South Korea began live-firing drills off its coastline. That was after North and South Korea shelled each other for the first time since the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. U.S. forces in the area went on high alert even as the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington joined South Korean naval forces in exercises in the Yellow Sea. That carrier had just concluded drills with Japan involving 400 aircraft, 60 warships, and more than 40,000 U.S. and Japanese troops. South Korea was an official observer during the drills.
Korea shows all that is wrong with U.S. foreign policy.
After World War II, the United States and its allies — against the wishes of most Koreans — divided the country at the 38th parallel. After North Korea invaded the South in 1950, Harry Truman intervened with U.S. combat troops in a “police action.” The result was the senseless death of more than 36,000 American soldiers for Truman’s foolish policies, for the United Nations, for the failed diplomacy of World War II, and for the division of Korea in the same place it was divided before the war started. Since that time, a day has not gone by when the United States has not had thousands of troops stationed in South Korea, some no doubt the grandchildren of the soldiers who fought in the Korean War. There are at least 25,000 U.S. soldiers currently in Korea. There are also more than 35,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan.
There was no U.S. declaration of war against North Korea. On five different occasions, the United States has declared war on a total of eleven other countries: Great Britain in 1812 (the War of 1812), Mexico in 1848 (the Mexican War), Spain in 1898 (the Spanish-American War), Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917 (World War I), Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 (World War II), and Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in 1942 (World War II).
Only a few Republicans in Congress dared to object to Truman’s clearly unconstitutional intervention in Korea. Most notable was Sen. Robert Taft, who maintained, “The president is usurping his powers as commander in chief. There is no legal authority for what he has done. If the president can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” The Korean intervention set a terrible precedent, for no declaration of war has ever been issued since, even though the United States has been involved in many military conflicts since then, some of them being major wars, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Tags: Asia, foreign policy, history, interventionism, Korea, war
Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?
Posted by: |
The word isolationist is a pejorative term used to ridicule advocates of U.S. nonintervention in foreign affairs, intimidate their supporters, and stifle debate over U.S. foreign policy.
Throughout the twentieth century, opponents of U.S. intervention in foreign wars were smeared as isolationists.
Conservative and Republican opponents of Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, although they may argue and fight among themselves, are all agreed on one thing: Ron Paul is an isolationist and espouses a dangerous foreign policy of isolationism.
Actor and conservative activist Chuck Norris insists that “Texas Representative Ron Paul’s bent toward being an isolationist who wants to bring home every one of our 572,000 troops abroad makes the anti-terror, pro-military hairs on the back of my neck stand.”
Tags: foreign policy, interventionism, Ron Paul, war, war on terror
Should I be thanking God that Bin Laden is dead?
Posted by: |
After a brutal week of nature-induced devastation in the deep South and continuation of military-induced devastation in Libya, America began this week with President Obama announcing to the world that the military had officially killed Osama Bin Laden.
Perhaps I am just an idiot, but I would never have thought that this event would be covering the news with joyous jubilation in the way that it has. Hardly a sober consideration has crossed my computer screen via Facebook, Twitter, or otherwise. Even Chris Preble of the generally libertarian Cato Institute begs to differ:
“All Americans celebrate the news that we have been waiting to hear for over nine and a half years: Osama Bin Laden is dead. The operation that resulted in his demise is a credit to the prowess and professionalism of the men and women in our military, and our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. All Americans — and the world — owe them a huge debt of gratitude.”
Really? A debt of gratitude? For cleaning up one dirty spot amidst the colossal mess they themselves created? No way. Bin Laden was hardly a threat to me personally. If he was a threat to anyone, it was largely because of United States foreign policy to begin with. Instead of rejoicing at his death, perhaps the USA could consider the laws of cause and effect, reflecting on the concept of “blowback” from interventionism in other countries.
To make matters even stranger, the military buried Bin Laden at sea. What was the purpose? According to the White House, they wanted to bury him within 24 hours in accordance with Islamic customs. This seems somewhat ironic, since the military seems unconcerned about burials in accordance with Muslim tradition or anything else with the multitudes of innocent people who have died as a result of American interventionism.
On a different note, you’ve got to love how the timing of this event was near perfect. Certainly this will help Obama’s desperately low approval ratings. Make no mistake, he’s going to bring this up in the 2012 race. I can see it now…
Republican candidate: “I am tough on terrorism. We need a president who stops coddling terrorists.”
Obama: “Uh, I’m the one who caught Osama – remember how you guys failed to do that for ten years?”
Of course, Ron Paul would say: “Don’t forget, the CIA trained Bin Laden. He is a monster of our own creation.” Zing.
It looks like the Vatican has the best perspective on this deed:
“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”
Truly, Bin Laden leaves a dark legacy in America, with wounds running deeper than 9/11 can approximate. We should not cheer or rejoice in this evil man’s death, but contemplate what has been lost in the meantime.
Tags: Christianity, civil liberties, ethics, foreign policy, interventionism, libertarianism, terrorism
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 