Monday, December 5, 2011

Newt-Onian Foreign Policy: No, Just Hell No

Via Bazz

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Newt Gingrich’s foreign policy views are a combination of wild, irresponsible, and aggressive warmongering, extraordinary naivete about the nature of government, and juvenile hero worship. One only needs to read his September 7, 2006 Wall Street Journal article entitled "Lincoln and Bush" to see the truth in this statement.

First, Congress should declare that we are in World War III, says Gingrich. This in turn will require a "dramatically larger budget." And what should be done with this dramatically larger budget? According to Gingrich, the U.S. military should invade Lebanon with the purpose of "disarming Hezbollah." This would effectively commence another war with Syria, says Gingrich, as it would be "the first direct defeat of Syria," which supposedly pulls the strings of Hezbollah. It would also be an assault on Iran, says the former House speaker, and would therefore be an act of war against that country as well.

Next, full-scale warfare should be waged against North Korea, Iran and Syria with the objective of "replacing the repressive dictatorships" in those countries. All of this would somehow serve in "restoring American prestige in the region," says Gingrich. Yes, murdering hundreds of thousands of Iranians, Syrians, and Lebanese, and destroying their cities and their infrastructure of civilization, which is what war does, would surely lead the people of those countries to think of Americans as "prestigious."

Gingrich seems vaguely aware that war always causes an explosion of governmental powers and a corresponding destruction of liberty and prosperity at home. Thus, he makes the case for magically transforming the Pentagon into a paragon of efficiency. He sounds a lot like an early twentieth-century communist preaching the praises of "scientific socialism." "Clear metrics of achievement" should be implemented, as though the usual politics would not prohibit such a thing, as it has for hundreds of years in all societies. The Pentagon must be made more "business-like," an oxymoron if ever there was one.

The domestic police state should also be expanded exponentially, said Gingrich, as long as the Fatherland Security Bureaucracy is also run in a super-efficient manner, with "metrics-based performance" measurements. He does have his business school lingo down cold.

Just in case anyone criticizes his proposal for a half dozen or so new wars, Gingrich plays the standard neocon "ace-in-the-hole" strategy of quoting the "sainted" Abraham Lincoln. "We must think anew and act anew," he quotes Lincoln as saying. He praises Lincoln’s response to Fort Sumter, where not a single person was harmed, let alone killed. In response to the knocking down of some bricks at the fort, Lincoln responded with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states, waging total war on the civilian population as well, and killing some 350,000 American citizens in those states. This of course was the very definition of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which defines treason as only "levying war upon the states" or "giving aid and comfort to their enemies."

Gingrich says that secession would have meant "the end of the United States" when in fact the exact opposite is true: The voluntary union of the founding fathers – their United States – was destroyed by Lincoln’s war. To Gingrich, Lincoln’s unconstitutional invasion of the Southern states was "the road to victory." (Lincoln’s greatest failure was his failure to do what all the other major powers of the mid nineteenth century did with regard to slavery, and end it peacefully).

Gingrich also seems totally unaware of or unconcerned about blowback or retaliation for American military aggression. He screeches that "terrorist recruiting is still occurring" (duh) without making any mention of the fact that such recruiting is an inevitable consequence of the American invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Such "recruiting" will increase by many orders of magnitude should Newt Gingrich be elected president and enter the U.S. into World Wars III, IV, V, and VI, as is apparently his pipe dream.
December 3, 2011

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.





5 comments:

  1. The democrats are by far the largest warmongers (Wilson, FDR, Johnson) because it does indeed provide an opportunity to distract and suspend liberties. Still, there are exceptions to the rule in the Republican party and Newt is one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reading what he proposes is mind boggling.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have been listenimng to Mike Church in the mornings on the way to work and he makes excellent points concerning the war mongering nature of both parties although at times for different reasons. He questions why do Americans feel it is right for us to go to war in naother counrty to push democracy (remember we are not suppose to be a democracy) upon other people. Especially various tribal peoples in a majority of countries where we seem to wage war. What business is it of ours if people in a far off land live under sharia law. Can we not not be the shining example of representative government by our actions at home without going to war in some foriegn country.

    This does not mean that we should have a strong defense comprised of a strong navy as outlined by the founders but the founders were against a large standing national army which could be used against the people as easily as against a foriegn force. This does not mean that they States should not have a well regulated militia to be called upon in need of national defense defined by repelling an invading force.

    I have had some issues with Ron Paul's stand on foreign policy if only becuase I do not believe we can go from the extreme of the police force of the world to totally removing all troops abraod immediiately but it can be done over time in a well planned mehtod.

    I do not trust basically the entire field running for president and Ron paul is not my ideal candidate but he will do. All the rest have been in the politics game too long and owe too much to special interests and the people are the fartherest thing from their concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gingrich & Romney: The least attractive pair on offer since the Polish were divided between Hitler & Stalin

    Heh!:)

    ReplyDelete