Rebuttal from Harry Browne: Government Does Not End Up Solving Such Problems Well, Michelle The Constitution authorizes the federal government to defend us from enemies- not run around the world creating enemies. By meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations we make enemies of people who would otherwise be friends. We thus inspire terrorism and subject the American people to threats that should not exist. There will always be evil people and dictators. Republicans and Democrats counter them by going into their countries and killing innocent people who mostly hate these cruel rulers as much as we do. Is that a smart way to handle the problem? Shouldn't we be looking for a better method of dealing with trouble? Abortion Bill of Rights Constitutional Government Drugs Education Environment Family values Gay & Lesbian issues Gun Control Healthcare Immigration Income Tax National Debt National Defense and Foreign Policy Social Security Welfare Harry Browne's Position on Foreign Intervention Moral Crusades We are told we must exercise moral leadership -- that we must right wrongs, punish the wicked, and save the innocent. But, as with any other government program, it will be the politicians and others with political influence who will decide who is right and who is wrong, who is evil and who is innocent, in foreign disputes. There is no reason for our politicians to be any more perceptive or accurate when judging whose side we should take in foreign conflicts than they are when judging how to fix America's social problems. The World's Policeman U.S. intervention and meddling hasn't brought us a single unqualified success since World War II -- not in Somalia, Rwanda, Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, or Cuba. In every case, the original reason for our intervention still exists (as with Iraq and Libya) or an enemy that's equally bad has replaced the original adversary (as in Afghanistan). The U.S. armed the Afghan "freedom fighters," Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega (among others) -- all of whom became enemies that eventually had to be attacked. This has happened again and again for the simple reason that war is just one more big government program -- and, like any government program, we shouldn't be surprised when it achieves the exact opposite of its promised results. Where Meddling Leads In 1937 Winston Churchill told an American reporter: "America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the [first] World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent in Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives." As a major leader in the British government during World War I, Winston Churchill knew what he was talking about. And he was right. Without our intervention, World War I would have ended in a negotiated peace, and the provisional government in Russia probably would have been able to resist the Communists. Russia would have been a democracy instead of a dictatorship. There would have been no Soviet Union, no Lenin, no Stalin, no famines, no Gulags, no purges, and no Cold War. There would have been no Communist China, Communist Korea, Communist Vietnam, Communist Cuba, or Cambodian killing fields. And if America had stayed out of World War I, there would have been no Hitler, no World War II, and no Holocaust. And tens of millions of innocent lives would have been saved. Stirring up Trouble Today, the Cold War is over but our political leaders seem determined to lose the peace. There is no Soviet Union now, but our government still acts as though we were in danger of imminent attack. You are paying for the defense of Europe -- a group of nations with as many people and as much wealth as we have. You are paying for a military designed to fight two wars simultaneously. Most of the world is at peace, but our politicians and diplomats are searching the globe looking for any excuse possible to get us involved in other people's squabbles. Why? Because, as Randolph Bourne put it, war is the health of the state. Constant dangers mean more power and money for politicians and government -- and less freedom and prosperity for you. This self-destructive foreign policy also means less security, as you are exposed more and more to the threat of terrorism. Every conflict has at least two sides. And whenever we intervene, we make an enemy of at least one side (and sometimes both). Many of these enemies can't threaten us with missiles, so they engage in acts of terrorism to get back at us -- blowing up American buildings. How can we defend ourselves against the terrorists? The politicians have a ready answer: take away more of your liberty by authorizing wiretaps and illegal searches of our property. Again, war is the health of the state. Wouldn't it make more sense simply to quit meddling in other people's disputes? Wouldn't that be safer than having our troops stationed in nearly a hundred countries around the world -- treated in some countries as an occupying force and in others as a target for terrorism? Yes, it's a dangerous world out there. But who made it so? To some extent, it is our politicians who roam the world in search of trouble. Not surprisingly, they almost always manage to find it.