The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

"The Best Defense Preventive War": The Costs of Preventive War



Before George W Bush became President of the United States and even after he became President up until 9/11. George Bush was talking about having a "Humble Foreign Policy" for the United States. Meaning that America wouldn't get involved everywhere in the World and our Foreign Policy. Would be based on defending American National Security interests. Not interfere in Civil Wars and other countries business. After 9/11 that changed for the Bush National Security Council and we got involved in the War in Afghanistan which is a Civil War. I supported that war but its now time that we get out of there because we've already accomplished our goals there. And eighteen months later we got involved in Iraq. Taking out the Hussein Regime before they could get Nuclear Weapons and sell their Weapons of Mass Destruction. That you take out an Authoritarian Regime that has military capabilities before they can use that threat to hurt you, even on your own. And the hell with your allies if they don't agree with you, were America and we can do this. This is what a Neoconservative Foreign Policy as well a National Security Policy looks like. You take out regimes that you don't like before they can hurt you. And you put security interests over everything else, including Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights and even Fiscal Policy. This Neoconservative Foreign Policy is much different from the Foreign Policy that America had from World War II up until the lead up to the 2003 Iraq War. Which was an Internationalist Foreign Policy designed to protect national interests not interfere in other countries and that you work with your allies. To deal with Authoritarian Regimes and peaceful means, with war being the last resort not the first.

Liberals such myself, Classical Conservatives and libertarians believe that without freedom there can't be security. Neoconservatives believe the opposite, that without freedom you can't have security. And that once security is established as they see it, through the Security State. Then they'll decide how much freedom people will have based on how much they feel the country can afford. In order to keep us safe and we've paid a heavy price for it. With the Patriot Act of 2002 that violates the Fourth Amendment as far as I'm concern. With government under this law and perhaps nothing else, being able to check through peoples emails and what books they've read. Just if they believe the person is dangerous or not and who've they associated with. Another words Guilt by Association, similar to the Joe McCarthy Investigations of the 1950s. And Warrantless Wiretapping, the Federal Government being able to wiretap people, just if they feel they are suspicious or potentially dangerous. As well as all the debt we've piled up with the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq all put on the National Debt Card.

The Obama National Security Council has kept in some aspects of the Bush Neoconservative National Security Policy, like with the Patriots Act to use as an example. But in other ways like in Egypt, Libya and Syria have moved away from that policy. And brought in a more Liberal Internationalist Foreign Policy that still leaves us strong if not stronger. But where we are working with our allies to protect our security interests.