The folly of trying to police the world

JOHN STOSSEL

Published Feb 3, 2012 at 3:00 am (Updated Feb 2, 2012)

With an election approaching and at least some Americans upset about irresponsible spending, the President has finally expressed a political interest in cutting something. He says the Pentagon will spend “only” $525 billion next year. That’s slightly less than the current $531 billion.

A cut is good, but this will barely dent the deficit. We could save much more if America assumed a military policy designed for defense rather than policing the world.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul gets criticized for advocating that. Paul’s opponents, including many of my colleagues, complain about his “isolationist foreign policy.”

But shrinking the military’s role isn’t the same as isolation. America can have a huge impact in the world without deploying our military. We already do. By all means, let our movies and music alarm mullahs. Let our websites and books disseminate ideas that autocrats consider dangerous. Above all, let’s trade with everyone.

It’s said that when goods don’t cross borders, armies will. There’s plenty of evidence to support that. A report funded by European governments says armed conflict in Muslim countries is far lower today than it was two decades ago. A reason? Trade.

Richard Cobden, a 19th-century British liberal statesman, said, “The progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of peace, the spread of commerce and the diffusion of education than upon the labors of Cabinets or foreign offices.”

I agree. American music and consumer goods did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than our military did.

Ron Paul doesn’t say that we shouldn’t defend ourselves. He supported our retaliation in Afghanistan after 9/11. He says if we are attacked, or clearly threatened with attack, America should fight. That’s defense. That’s different from policing the world.

Today, America spends more on the military than we did when Russia threatened us with missiles. That’s irrational. And we can’t afford it.

Still, I am uncomfortable writing about defense. I’m surrounded by smart people who say America needs to spend more on the military. Some studied war for years. I haven’t. My instinct is to believe the hawks.

Except, I covered markets. I watched government try to improve on them. Doing that, I learned that government doesn’t do anything well. Why would that be different for military policy?

It isn’t. In 2004, the U.S. military sent $12 billion in shrink-wrapped $100 bills to Iraq. That money disappeared. We don’t know what happened to it. The U.S. official in charge said there was so much cash flying around his office that the staff called the packages “footballs” and threw passes to one another.

There is no cure for military inefficiency any more than there’s a cure for waste at the post office. The point is that we should rely on government central planning as little as possible.

Today, some people want the military to contain China, chase terrorists, train foreign militaries to chase terrorists, protect sea lanes, keep oil cheap, stop genocide, protect foreign states from aggression, spread goodwill through humanitarian missions, respond to natural disasters, secure the Internet, police the Mexican border and transform failed states into democracies.

Politicians have a hard time saying no to such noble-sounding goals. But the list is endless, which is part of the problem.

Transforming states — nation-building — is the worst form of central planning.

Running for President 11 years ago, George W. Bush called for a “humble” foreign policy and said, “I don’t think that our troops ought to be used for nation-building.” Yet four years later, he was nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Candidate Bush, rather than President Bush, had the right idea. We have tried to build a working democracy in Afghanistan for more than 10 years now. Have we won hearts and minds? No. A recent poll of Afghans found just 43 percent had a favorable impression of the United States, way down from 83 percent in 2005.

Nations are too complex for outsiders to “build.” Nations are organic bottom-up things. Saying no to nation-building is not isolationism.

Ron Paul is in good company when he says an interventionist foreign policy makes enemies and provokes danger to ourselves. It’s time we stopped confusing defense with policing the world.

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.”

To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.

Spike said:

Dr. Paul, from the notorious newsletters to his previous Presidential campaign to the current year, has reached out to fringes from Occupy Wall Street to 911-Truth with such fervor that his libertarian message never came through. He should have had Mr. Stossel as a campaign spokesman, because Mr. Stossel makes the case for returning the Defense Department to actual national defense without the blame-America-first rhetoric that could have come from Mr. Obama or Dennis Kucinich.Criticizing this more limited defense stance has consisted of saying that Dr. Paul's unwillingness to take ineffective steps toward prevention means he is in favor of whatever the future holds, such as a nuclear Iran. Didn't Mr. Gingrich's super-PAC allies take comparable cheap shots at Gov. Romney in Florida television ads last week?Sen. Ayotte, who has been willing to question individual weapons systems, should be willing to question our strategic stance of worldwide prevention, rather than cosponsor the bill to overturn the DoD sequesters--the only results we got out of Speaker Boehner's "supercommittee" con job. This bill might pass; her bill to freeze and cut the federal work force won't. And Rep. Guinta should break with the Speaker, and with business-as-usual, for good. Otherwise, the only thing we will be able to say about the Tea Party Congress is that the loot kept flowing.
(Report Abuse)

Michael Stevens said:

Even though he maintains his slightly condescending tone, along with one or two of his typical anti-government blanket statements I agree with John Stossel on this topic. He says that he does not feel comfortable about writing on defense, though I can�t see why not; knowing enough about any subject has never impeded him before.Plus he almost even nails this subject, though admittedly a lot of his views here seem lifted straight from Ron Paul. I did find the story about the scrimmage football game played with 12 billion dollars worth of shrink-wrapped 100-dollar bills fairly upsetting, and so should every tax-paying American. To blame this as just another military SNAFU and then use it as a tool for the advocating of privatizing the military is bit simplistic. I would rather use it a lesson in how not to go war unnecessarily in corrupt third world nations.Even though I am leftie-pinko, I really am quite hawkish. I believe that we can maintain a ferocious military threat for a fraction of our current cost. We may have to increase military spending for a short-term period while we fully convert to a new-form of military that we will need for the future. Mr. Stossel seems to prefer the term �nation-building� I prefer to call it empire maintenance. Call whatever you want, but it is already costing us a huge price as it slowly drains us of our resources, while allowing our internal infrastructure to collapse. After WW-2 the Soviet Empire was a real and present danger and our newfound role as the worlds policeman was both necessary and exciting. Since the Soviet Union collapsed over two decades ago it seems like we have been searching for a new rival. Pumping up our chest to Islam in hopes that they would fill the role was a costly mistake. The money and the lives that we spent over there should have been invested over here finding new sources of energy in our hemisphere and using new technology on a broad range of energy sources. Let�s face it, if we were truly energy independent why would we care at all about the Middle East?Do not mistake this for isolationism because it is not that at all. We can still advocate for what we want on the world stage, heck we can even still strong-arm other countries if we want to. If you think that we are making ourselves stronger by maintaining military forces in bases all over the world, then think again and try to remember why the Soviet Empire collapsed. We need to maintain a strong infrastructure at home along with a lean technologically advanced military that is designed for the safety of our citizens, not one that is designed to build nations or maintain empires.
(Report Abuse)

Matt Lulling said:

So Stoessel, you right wing hack, why were you so furiously kissing George Bush's *** when he was prez?
(Report Abuse)

Jason Czekalski said:

I agree with Mr. Stossel everything but the nation-building. Where there are real nations involved, it is the job of the victor to rebuild them after defeating them. That is what we did after WWII. Germany, Japan, and Italy were real nations. Rebuilding them was both easy and profitable.What we have to stop trying to do is nation-creating. Long before Iraq, didn't we learn anything from the disaster that was Yugoslavia? At least six different national groups were forced at gunpoint into a single nation. That worked fine while there was a powerful autocrat in charge. However, after Tito died, things fell apart.Iraq is three separate national groups forced together as a single nation. It cannot be held together without a strongman like Saddam Hussein. We are already seeing the results of nation-creating: Iraq is already starting to blow itself apart just weeks after our departure. If we had learned the lessons of Yugoslavia, we would have split Iraq into its three constituent parts and built those three separate nations. At least there would have been some hope of success. Afghanistan is an even worse situation. It is a tribal wasteland that is at least two or three centuries from being stable enough to form a nation. The only viable solution at this point is to turn control over to the UN Trusteeship Council and seal the borders so its chaos cannot spill out into the civilized world. Anyone who thinks we can create any semblance of stability there there is a fool. This is nation-creating at its absolute worst.
(Report Abuse)

Daniel Waterhouse said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is all well and good. But at this very moment we have 3 carriers and their strike groups headed to the Persian Gulf. 50k troops are rumored to be staging in Diego Garcia for deployment on Socotra island and Masirah. Another 15k troops were sent to Kuwait last week.And not a word of this to the America public who just might want to know and decide for themselves if this is something we really want to do rather than wake up to a fait accompli on Good Morning America in two months after Israel, Iran or the US lights the fuse. Not that it will stop 75% of Americans jumping up to salute the flag despite they again had no say in any of this.This could get real, real quick. Enjoy the Super Bowl. The most lasting memory may be $3.50 gas.
(Report Abuse)

Michael Layon said:

Prior to 1949 the Department of Defense was known as the Department of War. How ironic the department of war was used to defend this republic while department of defense has been used to initiate and wage nation building and occupation without provocation. Th constitution is crystal clear that war MUST be declared by the legislature, NOT the president. It is far harder to convince hundreds of men with disparate interests to vote for war than it is one person. I talked with a friend's father who was in Iran studying in 1953. Iranians were indifferent to Americans. They had not started a war in nearly centuries-predating the declaration of independance which lead to the formation of a once free republic. In destroying their democracy the US planted the seeds of its own hatred. Iranians lived under a brutal dictator (perhaps worse than obama) and never forgot why they lived under such a brutal dictator. When the dictator was overthrown Iranians let out their rage by taking Americans hostage. Modern media and historians like to start their story of Iran in 1979 rather than 1953. Sadly, many Americans blindly follow such people including FOX, MSNBC, CNN along with our immediate past president, current president and current presidential candidates with the noted exception of Ron Paul. Newt Gingrich went so far as to propose in a debate repeating EXACTLY the actions of 1953 and thought it would be his power and right as presdient to do so. Mr Waterhouse, you are correct but have understated the gravity in the gulf. There are already 50k troops in the region, 50k more being deployed over the next wfew weeks to the two islands you mentioned and the 15k being sent to kuwait. Two carrier groups are already in the region and the Enterprise is sailing that way. Major amphibious groups (2) are also stationed in the strait. The US has multiple military bases in every country, but one surrounding Iran and last week we removed our embargo on that country in exchange for building a base. Iwrael has cancelled the spring exercises with the US, which was original reason we were told for the deployment of 100k troops to the region. We are waiting for Israel to attack Iran and when Iran attacks Israel back will intercede and launch yet another war with a country which poses us no threat. They have no weapons which could reach israel let alone the US. They are surrounded by nuclear armed countries and Israel closeby has in excess of 200. Iran poses no threat to the US, they are hated for their form of islamic religion by their neighbors, save syria, who practice a different form of islam (the difference is quite comparable to the difference between catholics and protestants) Of course the Us is trying to overthrow the government of Syria and has already begun the process of exhiling the syrian president-exactly what Clinton did twice to the haitian president. If Romney or Obama win in November-the US foreign policy will be identical to what it is today and what it was under bush. I certainly hope it does not happen, but an Iranian strike within the US is a logical response to us attacking them. it will without question be used to crush what remains of our rights and freedom. Burn the flag or urinate on it, without the constitution, that flag represents nothing....3.50 gas? Lets hope it is that cheap!!!!!
(Report Abuse)

Ted Lebowitz said:

We need to elect Romeny and get those hundreds and hundreds of new ships built. Who care about the debt, just Ron Paul apparently.
(Report Abuse)

Warren Boisselle said:

Stossel for president!Dear Yankees, I am coming to the conclusion that America has never fought a war to defend its freedoms. NEVER. I am motivated to give this matter thought based on the disproportionate number of our beautiful young white boys dying on foreign soils. The recent death of Seal Team 6, based in Virginia Beach, accentuates this issue. Let me repeat very clearly: �America has never fought a war to defend its freedoms.�In the Revolutionary War, 1775, we fought to gain freedoms. In the Barbary Wars, 1801, we fought to stop piracy in mostly the Mediterranean. Our domestic freedoms were not threatened.In the War of 1812, the war was one of expansion and the British were obstacles. We lusted after the Northwest Territory. And we unsuccessfully invaded Canada. (see note 1)In the Texas War for Independence, 1836 ,again, it was a war to gain independence and not to defend freedoms. We occupied the land, with permission from Mexico, and later stole the land as Muslims are now doing all over the world. In the Mexican-American War, 1846, the war was one of expansion to gain California and New Mexico territories. Our freedoms were not threatened.In the Civil War, 1861. The war was all about slavery and a war to gain other people�s freedoms and not our own. Some will argue that it was to maintain the union ( not the same as defending freedoms).In the Spanish-American War, 1898, the war was one to gain freedom for Cuban patriots in Cuba. Our freedoms were not threatened. In World War I, 1914, the war was one to maintain the freedoms of European nations. Our freedoms were not threatened. In World War II, 1941, our war with Japan was mostly in retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor and to defend the freedoms of nations in Southeast Asia. Our participation in Europe was to defend the freedoms of Europeans. Our freedoms were not threatened any more than any other nation in the Western Hemisphere.In the Korean War, 1950, we fought to maintain the freedoms of South Korea. In the Vietnam War, 1969, again, we fought to defend the freedoms of South Vietnamese.In the Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961,we fought to reestablish the freedoms of Cubans. In the Persian Gulf War, 1990, we defended Kuwait against an invasion by Iraq. In the Invasion of Afghanistan, 2001, we fought to punish the terrorists with the intent to democratize this nation of Barbarians. ( people who have no concept of freedom).In the Invasion of Iraq, 2003, I�m not sure anyone is sure of why we got involved. In the whole of the Middle-East, we may be dying for a people who hate us and wish to destroy our Western Culture. In some of our wars, our men died in vain. Yes, our soldiers fought for the country and its aspirations for power and greatness, but not for their country�s freedoms.The real threat to our freedoms is Islam and our leadership is doing absolutely nothing about it other than to apologize and excuse its violence, and attributing its violence around the world to a radical few. Notes: 1. Re. the War of 1812, The British were quarreling with the French. America started to take advantage on the seas in order to advance its interests. This made the British irate. But, it is said that, �in reality, it was not so much the infringement of neutral rights that occasioned the actual outbreak of hostilities as the desire of the frontiersmen for free land, which could only be obtained at the expense of the Native Americans and the British. Moreover, the West suspected the British, with some justification, of attempting to prevent American expansion and of encouraging and arming the Native Americans. Matters came to a head after the battle of Tippecanoe (1811); the radical Western group believed that the British had supported the Native American confederacy, and they dreamed of expelling the British from Canada. Their militancy was supported by Southerners who wished to obtain West Florida from the Spanish (allies of Great Britain). Among the prominent �war hawks� in the 12th Congress were Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Felix Grundy, Peter Porter, and others, who managed to override the opposition of John Randolph and of the moderates.� In summary, it was a deliberate war with the British weakened by their conflict with France, to expand our nation towards the West, in order to fulfill our Manifest Destiny. Are we a nation of war mongers?http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htmAre we a racist nation for thinking our system of government is superior to all others?Sincerely,
(Report Abuse)

Ted Lebowitz said:

Warren, you don't think that getting involved in WW2 had anything to do with preserving the very existence our our freedoms? What do you think would have happened after complete European occupation? Let's just leave the Americans alone? I think the ratiale was that the US should fight the war on their turf as opposed to waiting for it to come to ours (as we had just seen the consequences pf Pearl Harbor). All this said, I can see your bigger point. I don't toally agree with the last part: as in, what exactly do you want the president to do? Attack Islamic people? Who do you think all of those predator missile strikes are targeting?
(Report Abuse)

Rck Walters said:

If you haven't read any of his previous material, Warren's phrase "our beautiful young white boys dying on foreign soils" should speak volumes.
(Report Abuse)

Warren Boisselle said:

Dear Yankees, @To Ted Lebowitz:As I said in my opening sentence: �I am coming to the conclusion that America has never fought a war to defend its freedoms.� WWII can be a sticky exception.During WWII, one could conclude that our war with Japan was a retaliation for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Negotiations had failed with Japan. I still don�t know what we were negotiating about. There is strong evidence that the war was coming, that our leadership knew it, that we sucked in Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Why else would our carriers be absent? There may have been serious cover-up we�ll never know about. In our involvement with Germany, it is only reasonable to understand that the Germans were sinking our ships. We were supplying Germany�s enemies with war materiel.One could argue that our freedoms are threatened wherever there is conflict on planet earth. Especially in modern times, We have troops spread across the planet. No matter who, no matter what, our troops are involved giving us an excuse to fight. Can we be sure the military-industrial complex is not behind it all. I don�t understand what you mean by �the last part.� But I am suggesting the we get out of foreign entanglements. @Rick Walters. First, I remind you that minorities are incessantly complaining about not getting the fair share of jobs, positions, wealth. What they don�t complain about is their fair share of body bags coming home from the Middle East. The contents of these bags are disproportionately white. No Affirmative Action or racial preferences there. Using your words, it speaks volumes concerning the abuse of whites by minorities. Your words speak volumes concerning your lack of patriotism. You have been well indoctrinated by your public school. You drank the KoolAid laced with strength in diversity and multiculturalism. You have been brainwashed into guilt for perceived sins of the father or for the mere color of your skin. Obviously, you are not an independent thinker.
(Report Abuse)

Allison Dorrington said:

Its not necessarily freedom that we are defending, it is more about our right to live in the world. It seems that we need to stop electing presidents and governors that focus only on the debt situation. I also think that we are always going to be at risk for an attack, not saying it'll happen now and not saying that it will happen, I am saying that it could happen. If the U.S. does not stand up strong to the enemy then we will lose our reputation and our credibility. Rights, freedoms, and privileges come wirth a price, economically, politically, and socially. It is sad that we may enter wars and rack up a bunch of debt doing it but if we don't protect what is ours it will be taken from us, because those other countries want to rule the world too. Thats the way it is and always will be until humanity becomes extinct.
(Report Abuse)

Rck Walters said:

Nice try WarrenActually, I have spent very little time in "public schools". You know nothing about me and are simply slinging excrement against the wall.The "body bags coming home" from any conflict of the last sixty years contain many more whites than any other racial group simply because there are many more whites in our population. Vietnam was a classic case when Blacks and Hispanics were killed disproportionately because more whites than blacks were able to take the college exemption. This is basic history, something you seem profoundly uninterested in.
(Report Abuse)

John Mercier said:

Warren Boisselle...Then your private school should have went over a few more reasons for the American Revolution and the War of 1812...
(Report Abuse)

Warren Boisselle said:

@Rck Walters said: �Actually, I have spent very little time in "public schools". You know nothing about me and are simply slinging excrement against the wall.�I agree that I was assuming but, what will your friends think of you for referring to public education as �excrement?� And your ignorance is showing. But it is only since 1973 that the white population has declined significantly. Whites are now 64% of the population but nearly 80% of body bags. Do your research before you attempt to insult me. I�ll admit to not know the statistics for Vietnam. I must admit that most cowardly hippies where whites from the more prosperous middle class. Occupy Wall Street crowd is of the same class of cowardly whites. Hippies, OWS, is there a difference?
(Report Abuse)

Warren Boisselle said:

@John Mercier said: �Then your private school should have went over a few more reasons for the American Revolution and the War of 1812...My dear friend, you picked two very bad examples. WWII is harder to explain. You need to improve your reading comprehension. I clearly state that the Revolution was �to gain� freedoms, and not to �defend� freedoms. I state again that none of our wars were to defend freedoms.As for the war of 1812, again, in my opinion, I explain that the war was one of expansion and not in defense of freedoms. In this war we sought to expand in the Northwest. We also attempted annex Canada.Actually, I took only one basic class in American history and didn�t know what I was into. I could not see the point of studying the past not realizing that the past is a window to the future. Nothing happening now has never happened before. Thankfully, I grew wiser as I aged which is more than many people can say. By the way, I am partial to French-Canadian names. �Mercier,� I like that. All things being equal, and living here in Virginia, I�d prefer you for a job, a service, for anything.
(Report Abuse)

Warren Boisselle said:

@Rck Walters After I posted, I did a little research and did find that blacks had a very slightly higher proportion of body bags than whites in the Vietnam War. http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwc10.htmI remind you that we did not die in Vietnam for America�s freedoms.
(Report Abuse)

Home » Opinion » Columns

The folly of trying to police the world

Comments

Post a comment