Can America Bring Peace to the World? By Harry Browne |
October 9, 2004
I received this email yesterday:
I just finished a book The Pentagon's
New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a strategist for the Navy
and Defense Department, in which he talks about America's
role in the world, with concepts such as exporting rule-sets
to the world, and dividing the world into "core"
and "gap" countries.
Overall, what he presented challenged some of my assumptions
about America's role in the world. I was wondering if
the same ends he describes, e.g. peace in our lifetime,
could be achieved in more freedom-oriented ways that you
have figured out.
I commend this book to your reading, and if you have
time, I would be interested in your thoughts.
Unfortunately, because of the book I'm
currently writing, I can't spare any time for reading books
that aren't related to my current project.
However, from what the email-writer said, I would guess
that Thomas Barnett has never bothered to examine the history
of government programs – and the sad record of failure
after failure after failure. It isn't just the War on Drugs
or the War on Poverty or the War on Illiteracy that has
failed to fulfill its promises. There hasn't been a single
American war in this century or the last in which the U.S.
government actually achieved the results that were promised
when it went to war.
Here's a brief overview . . .
World War I
Objective: Bring democracy to all the
countries of the world, self-determination for everyone,
and a new world order that would end wars forever.
Result: American entry into the war prevented
the two sides from negotiating a just end to the war. Instead,
the Allies saw American entry as decisive, and so they rejected
all peace overtures, fought the war to a bitter end, won
the war, and imposed devastating, humiliating peace terms
on Germany.
The result was an expansion of the British and French empires,
subjecting millions more people worldwide to foreign rule.
In addition, millions of Europeans were herded into foreign
countries.
The U.S. entry into the European war prompted the Germans
to finance and facilitate Lenin's takeover of Russia –
creating the Soviet Union. And the oppressive peace terms
imposed on the German people caused them to accept a thug
named Adolf Hitler as their avenging angel. Thus U.S. entry
into the war was responsible for what many call the two
worst regimes in world history – and the cause of
52 years of wars from 1939 to 1991.
World War II
Objective: Liberate Europe and China,
and impose peace upon the world.
Result: Half of Europe was controlled
by the Soviet Union, and China was quickly taken over by
the Communists.
The Cold War
Objective: Free subjugated countries.
Result: In the process of "fighting"
the Cold War, Iran's democracy was overthrown with the help
of the CIA – leaving the Iranians subjugated by the
oppressive Shah. That's just one example, however. The U.S.
government imposed or assisted dictators in Panama, the
Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Cuba, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Egypt, China, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines,
and numerous countries in Africa.
The Korean War
Objective: Save South Korea from being
taken over by an oppressive dictatorship.
Result: South Korea was left in the hands
of an oppressive dictator, Syngman Rhee, who was just as
oppressive as the communist North Korean dictator, Kim Il
Sung.
The Vietnam War
Objective: Save Indochina from Communism,
and prevent dominos from falling all over the world.
Result: Indochina was overrun by communists.
(Surprisingly, the world didn't come to an end.)
The Panamanian War
Objective: Stop Panama from being a conduit
for drug-running.
Result: The Panamanian army was destroyed,
leaving the country more vulnerable to drug-running.
The First Iraq War
Objective: Free Kuwait and stop Saddam
Hussein from taking over the world. (Seriously, George H.W.
Bush called him a modern-day Hitler, who had to be stopped
the way Hitler should have been stopped at Munich.) At the
end of the war, George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqis to
overthrow Hussein.
Result: Kuwait is still run by a family
dynasty that has no interest in democracy or in providing
rights for the people. Apparently, Saddam Hussein wasn't
stopped from his diabolical plans of world domination –
at least according to George H.W. Bush's son 11 years later.
And Bush Sr. helped put down the postwar rebellion that
would have overthrown Hussein.
The Bombing of Serbia
Objective: End the ethnic cleansing of
Albanians in Kosovo, perpetrated by the Serbs.
Result: The Albanians ethnic-cleansed
all the Serbs and gypsies out of Kosovo, as well as terrorizing
the Macedonians in Macedonia.
The War in Afghanistan
Objective: Stop the country from harboring
terrorists, get rid of the Taliban, create human rights
for women, and establish a free Afghanistan.
Result: Al-Qaeda operatives continue to
function there, and Osama Bin Laden himself may be safely
hiding in Afghanistan. Women are still treated as tools,
rather than people. And as for freedom, the Afghan people
are subjugated by brutal warlords, and the Taliban have
been invited back in to help restore order.
The War in Iraq
Objective: "Disarm" Saddam Hussein
and liberate the Iraqi people.
Result: Turns out that there was nothing
to "disarm." (Surprisingly, George Bush is still
justifying the war by saying that "Saddam Hussein had
no intention of disarming." Disarming what???) And
over 10,000 Iraqi deaths later, Iraq is not only not liberated,
it's being occupied by a foreign power that's being fought
by a determined resistance movement.
Success?
So while Mr. Barnett's objectives may be attractive, they
are irrelevant – since the odds against the U.S. government
actually achieving them are at least 100 to 1.
The Pentagon will try to export rule-sets to other countries,
with no success (rule-sets that, incidentally, don't apply
in the U.S.). If I understand the terms correctly, the "core"
countries will be those whose rulers agree to do whatever
the U.S. President tells them to do, and the "gap"
countries will be those run by rulers who insist on making
their own rules.
There is no way that America can make the entire world
peaceful – or, in fact, any part of the world except
America itself.
Peace in our Time
We could lift the state of siege in America tomorrow morning
if the U.S. would simply stop meddling in other countries'
affairs.
The supposed "hate America" feeling is really
the fear that America is going to come into one's country
and throw its weight around – as it has in Afghanistan,
the Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Colombia,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama,
Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, Pakistan, the Congo, and dozens of other countries.
The question really is simple: Which do we want . . .
To have our government make a futile
effort to bring peace and democracy to the world –
in the process generating such hatred that we live the
rest of our lives in a state of siege, with America becoming
progressively more like the chaos that exists in Israel
and the Palestinian territories?
Or
Bring all the troops home, end all foreign aid to friends
and foes alike, keep out of the affairs of other countries
– and restore the peace and liberty that America experienced
throughout most of the 19th century?
You decide. But when you decide, remember that you're choosing
the inevitable consequences at the same time you choose the
objective.