Home » Members Posts » The National Security Requirements of Non-interventionism

The National Security Requirements of Non-interventionism

 

The National Security Requirements of Non-interventionism

A non-interventionist foreign policy has long been integral to libertarian thought.  The non-aggression principle suggests that it is incumbent upon the free state to avoid interfering in the choices and policies of foreign states. This 'incumbency' is a matter of moral obligation.   The idea that the free state should not be imposing its will on a foreign states is not the same as saying that the free state should 'respect' the choices and policies of foreign states.   One might very well reach the conclusion that the policy of a foreign state is destructive of prosperity, or even of world peace.  This conclusion might very well lead one to a reasoned disrespect and even contempt of the foreign state.    The free state is nevertheless under the moral obligation not to act unless attacked.   It is upon attack alone that force is justified and even required.   The necessary and sufficient cause for military action is an attack upon the free state.  It is in the very purpose of the formation and consent to the free state that it act to defend those who have consented to its governance. 

Long before such an attack occurs the enemy of the free state may declare his intentions of initiating hostilities.  Such is the case with a number of terrorist states of our own time….notably Iran.  In this case, as in the historical case of Pearl Harbor, it is incumbent upon the free state to take such actions as would defend against hostilities principally by following a policy which would deny the enemy the opportunity of attaining his strategic objective.

The purpose of the Navy of the free state is not to 'project power,' or guarantee the security of the high seas (Mahan notwithstanding), but to prevent the military penetration or invasion of coasts.   The idea that the general taxpayer should subsidize import and export, by providing security on the high seas is nonsense.   The security of such trade is a private matter and the associated costs should be carried by those engaged in this activity and their customers. 

Iran has openly declared its hostility to the United States on numerous occasions even as the historic policy of the United States toward Iran has not been without fault.   Without engaging in an historical tit-for-tat argument,  one must consider a policy going forward.   Nothing is gained by wallowing in ideas of recriminations and revenge.

The strategic objective of Islamo-fascists everywhere is to invade western civilization, corrupt western culture, demand imposition of Shariah law, and prepare to fold all nations into an international caliphate.  This strategic objective is easily defeated.   It is easily defeated by the free state merely carrying out its fundamental mandate of defending its own borders and preventing invasion.   The victorious strategist is as suggested by Sun Tzu is one who recognizes the conditions of victory first and then only fights if necessary, and the greatest strategist is one who achieves a victory without engaging in battle.

Those who attacked the United States on 9/11/2001 were first allowed by United States policy to enter the country.   Whether on student visas, or visitor visas, or work visas….these are matters which are of no account.  The fact that the terrorist were already in the United States constituted what was arguably the greatest example of the dereliction of duty in the history of man.  This is the case, because the requirement that the free state defend those who have consented to its governance is a fundamental moral obligation.

Today there are already in the United States between two and three million illegal aliens whose homes of national origin are terrorist dominated states. It is not a stretch to suppose that many of these are merely waiting for a single phone message of only one word:  'Now!'    What shall we do?

Successive administrations of both political parties have taken the view that the 'war on terrorism' be conducted on foreign shores thousands of miles from the United States and have turned a blind eye to the terrorists in our midst.   Recently, the Obama administration even characterized the Fort Hood massacre as 'work place violence.'   This spurious definition meets at once the needs of political correctness, and the need to escape the constitutional responsibility for the maintenance of national security.

The security of the borders of the United States does not  merely involve issues of  the southern border, nor is it directed at only one ethnic group,  but it is about all borders, all ports of entry, all types of visas, and all ports and coasts.  It is about having a vetting process for those legally entering the United States that weeds out the underpants bombers.  It is about having a vetting process that weeds out the terrorist from the ranks of the uniformed military.   It is about having a limited student visa program that eliminates those interested in learning how to build bombs or fly commercial aircraft.  It is about rounding up those conspiring to damage the nation and deporting them. None of these activities need to require a repeal of the fourth amendment.   We need only admit that there is no natural law obligation upon the free state formed by consent to admit any new applicants.

  Finally, it is about having a stiff criminal code that imposes suitable punishments upon those who are actively seeking to kill their neighbors and death penalties for those who succeed in doing so.   When we consider these types of activities we must concede that in recent years the truly effective means of achieving victory in the 'war on terrorism' remain largely unused.

The 'most dangerous' of policies are those which fail to carry out these basic responsibilities.  Those who insist on invasions of foreign countries and 'nation building'  either have not read or understood the wisdom of Sun Tzu which suggests that he who fights first and then looks for victory is destined for certain defeat.

These ideas do not mean those who desire 'preemptive' military action are merely 'Muslim haters' as has been recently suggested.  It means only that they are ignorant of how to achieve strategic victory.  In the end, the security of the free state will be best preserved in an atmosphere of economic prosperity un-sapped by the costs of perpetual war and nation building.

 

 


Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.