- ‘Tis the Season: London florist creates $4.6 million Christmas wreath
- No tailgating allowed at Super Bowl XLVIII
- Pentagon to transport African troops to Central African Republic
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend’s shopping jumps to his death
- Ukraine leader to talk with protesters; Washington urges caution
- Pope Francis: A nun saved my life
- Israeli P.M. Netanyahu backs out of Mandela funeral
- Elian Gonzalez makes first trip outside Cuba since custody battle
- U.S., British intelligence agents enter online sci-fi world to spy on gamers
- Sarah Palin to host the outdoors show ‘Amazing America’
FEULNER: How to handle monsters
The Founders’ rule for intervention abroad is relevant today
It goes without saying that Syrian President Bashar Assad is a monster. He’s killed thousands of his own citizens, unleashed chemical weapons against rebels, and is closely associated with Iran’s dangerous rulers.
It also needs to be said, though, as President John Quincy Adams did, that the United States “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”
Adams was speaking in 1821, explaining the foreign policy of the Founders. His father played a vital role in the creation of the country, and J.Q. Adams helped it grow and thrive decades later. He was serving as secretary of state when he discussed American foreign policy, and he went on to serve a term as president.
This all matters as we consider how to handle Syria, and its resident monsters, today.
“America’s Founders actually advocated and acted upon the idea that prosperity at home comes through active trade abroad and that peace is best secured through military strength and foreign respect of U.S. sovereignty and the principles of liberty,” he writes. They were neither isolationist nor interventionist. They were pragmatic.
He adds that the Founders were wary of permanent political alliances, foreign intrigue at home and coercive foreign powers. They aimed to protect America’s strategic independence and support U.S. interests. “Early diplomatic efforts were therefore dedicated to maintaining America’s strategic independence at all costs and were aimed at concluding treaties that strengthened U.S. sovereignty.”
Using that standard, the United States should only use military force if it serves a vital national interest. That’s a far cry from a progressive foreign policy, of course. That concept, born a century or so ago, teaches that the United States should act only when our interests are not at stake, since promoting our self-interest would be inherently bad. It’s an idea the Founders would have dismissed out of hand.
Despite his progressive tendencies, President Obama seems to be saying he agrees with the Founders. Discussing the use of chemical weapons in Syria, he said: “This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security.” While the first part of that statement is clearly true, the second part is far from proved.
It is indeed dangerous for Syria to have chemical weapons, but it would be far worse for those weapons to end up in the hands of al Qaeda or Hezbollah terrorists. While the administration has offered some halfhearted reasons for intervening, it hasn’t explained how U.S. vital interests are at risk, nor has it shown that the American people would be gravely threatened if our military doesn’t intervene.
That doesn’t mean we should do nothing at all. In a recent paper, regional expert Jim Phillips laid out some steps our government should take to contain Syrian aggression. He writes that the United States should:
• Work with friends and allies to prevent terrorists from obtaining Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons.
• Cultivate allies within the Syrian opposition, especially non-Islamist forces that would be willing to monitor the disposition of Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, track their movements, and destroy or seize them if necessary.
• Work with regional allies to strengthen non-Islamist opposition forces and accelerate the fall of the Assad regime.
Whenever anything bad happens, seemingly anywhere in the world, all eyes seem to turn to the United States. We’re the world’s leading nation, but we cannot be the world’s policeman.
About the Author
By Tom Fitton
Get Breaking Alerts
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- MILLER: Brady Campaign says Colorado recalls due to NRA, not grassroots opposition to gun control
- CURL: Obama tells a whopper on IRS scandal
- MSNBC host: Obamacare a 'wealthy white men' racist word
- Ted Cruz sees legal landmines ahead for Obamacare
- WOLF: The president's other Obamacare lies
- Lawmakers see 'false narrative' of Obama as a terrorist fighter
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report
- Satanists petition for statue at Oklahoma Statehouse
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral