by: Humble Libertarian

Our military and foreign policy are in shambles. We are currently involved in two costly regional wars of uncertain value to America's defense. Both are against regimes that we had formerly supported and empowered, and both were triggered by an intelligence failure that allowed four commercial airliners to be hijacked by 19 terrorists and used as flying bombs to destroy the World Trade Center towers and part of the Pentagon. This was preceded by eight years of severe over-deployment of military forces overseas during the Clinton Administration. And despite a general consensus in America that we need change, the present administration shows no signs of affecting any real change. What we need is a radical re-envisioning of our entire military and foreign policy- and it can't come a moment too soon.

The Proper Role of a Military in a Civil Society

To begin, we have to determine the role and function of a military in a civil society. That role is the defense of its citizens and sovereign territory from foreign aggression. Remember that the purpose of a government is to establish the necessary precondition of human flourishing, which is a peaceful society, that is- a society wherein people live free from aggression. It can be justified in its use of force only to defend, which means only in response to the initiation of force by an aggressor. When government initiates force, it becomes an aggressor itself and does the thing that it exists to prevent, breaching its own purpose and moral sanction. So a military must be used only in its nation's defense.


The National Defense Threats America Faces

Having defined the purpose and role of a military as the defense of its nation's citizens, we must now determine and create an exhaustive list of the threats to a civil society's peaceful existence. These are: 1) Invasion or attack by a foreign military, 2) Internal civil war, 3) Acts of terrorism, and 4) Acts of piracy or other violence on international waters. The justification for having a large, standing army as we have in America today is to counter the threat of the first two possibilities, which are extremely unlikely today.

As Benjamin Friedman of the Cato Institute notes:

[America's] explosion in [defense] spending comes despite a historically benign threat environment. Invasion and civil war, which traditionally justified militaries, are unthinkable here. North Korea and Iran trouble their citizens and neighbors, but with decaying economies, shoddy militaries, and aversion to suicidal behavior, they pose little threat to the United States. Russia and China are incapable of territorial expansion that should worry Americans, unless we put our troops on their frontiers. And unlike us, they are out of the revolution export business. Terrorism is chiefly an intelligence problem arising from a Muslim civil war. Our military has little to do with it.
Disproportionately High Military Spending

It is truly inconceivable at this time in history that any foreign country would invade America, or that the United States would face a second civil war, so why the unprecedented level of military spending?

In the same article, Friedman notes that:

Non-war or base defense spending will be more than $515 billion in fiscal year 2009. Adjusting for inflation, that's 40 percent higher than the defense budget when George W. Bush took office. Add the wars, nuclear weapons research, veterans, and homeland security, and you get about $750 billion. That is more than six times what China spends, 10 times what Russia spends and 70 times what Iran, North Korea and Syria spend combined.
The Threat of Terrorism

In December 1998, nearly three years before the September 11 attacks, Dr. Ivan Eland of the Cato Institute published a foreign policy briefing entitled "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?" The study catalogs numerous empirical examples of the correlation between American military involvement overseas and terrorist attacks on the United States, strongly supporting its thesis as outlined in the paper's executive summary:

According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States... The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.
How To Reform American Foreign and Military Policy

In George Orwell's prophetic dystopian novel, 1984, the government was always at war in order to justify the endless sacrifice of its citizens and their freedoms. Though it was always at war, its war department was named The Ministry of Peace. Is it unfair to draw a parallel to our Department of Defense and its never-ending series of offensive wars and deployments? Imagine a military policy by which our Department of Defense lived up to its name and its proper role rather than bear that name to obscure its real purpose and the true nature of its activities.

The following is a list of proposals that would reform American military policy to best insure its defense from all four threats listed above and minimize monetary waste and unnecessary costs to American taxpayers. This is a blueprint for a slimmed-down, super-efficient, highly-effective American military machine that is modernized and makes sense in a post-9-11, 21st century world:

• Make major, across-the-board reductions in military spending and activity. These would include:

• The abolition of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Creating another cabinet level department to make national defense simpler and more efficient was a laughable absurdity. Keeping our homeland secure is what the Department of Defense exists to do.

• Reduce the budget for the Department of Defense to pre-Bush levels, as well as matching reductions in target recruitment levels and present employment levels of both military and civilian personnel.

• Remove all military personnel from foreign territory, including the dismantling and removal of all foreign military bases.

• Formally declare neutrality in all armed conflicts (sorry folks, that includes Israel) and proclaim a new era of American peace, harmony, and "liberal intercourse with all nations" as George Washington recommended in his farewell address, taking heed of his admonition to "to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

• Focus the DOD's competencies to center on counter-terrorism and continue to grow and improve our network of human intelligence. Our DOD should end up looking more like a national version of the NYPD's counter-terrorism unit. We do not need a large, standing army because we do not face the threat of foreign invasion or internal civil war. We should redesign a DOD that is streamlined and equipped to counter the two threats we do face: terrorism and piracy.
  

• Secure our nation's borders and ports of entry! While our nation and the world will benefit most from a policy allowing the free flow of people, goods, capital, and information across our borders, there is no reason why our DOD shouldn't be able to know who and what is passing over our borders and into our country.

Restore freedom and respect for basic human rights by ending the CIA's practice of renditions, repealing the Patriot Act, and abolishing the Selective Service System along with any possibility of ever reinstituting a draft.

by: Thomas Craig

As a Libertarian-Republican, I am strongly opposed to almost every tax out there (especially the income tax).  While taxes are necessary to keep our Country functioning, they are too often imposed and way too high.  There is one tax that I do support, a "war surtax".  In the budding days of our Nation, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we implement a war surtax so that we know the financial cost of our actions, we don't bury ourselves in debt to pay for it, and most of all, so our Leaders are that much more motivated to end any war.  Jefferson wanted us to avoid war and the idea of a surtax would be a strong deterrent.  Unfortunately, Jefferson was not in the majority with this belief.  Skip forward over 200 years later and we find ourselves borrowing billions of dollars from our competitors and enemies to finance a war where the objective is becoming more and more blurred.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being paid for with borrowed money and that money is going to have to be paid back sooner or later.  Instead of sacrificing and paying for the wars with our money, we have chosen to sacrifice our children's economy. 

Rep. Obey (D-Wis) and Sen. Levin (D-MI) both have proposed legislation which would impose a tax on a percentage of your income (tax would vary from 2% for middle class and low income to 12-15% for high income) to help pay for the wars.  This is a logical idea and dramatically help the debt we are accumulating fighting these wars.  There is an alternative, however, and it is simply to end the wars and bring our troops back home.  It is perfectly acceptable to support the war effort and to support sending in reinforcements.  Keep in mind, however, that if President Obama sends the requested 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, it will cost an estimated $40 Billion according to the Office of Management and Budget. 

Is it worth the cost of human lives and if so, is it worth crippling our Nation under debt?

by Dacia Nichol

“We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We’re the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in that fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit.”  - Dick Cheney

The April 28th, 2009 edition of the New York Sun had an editorial column titled, “Sound Familiar?”, in which the future of the GOP was debated in terms of “what if” Cheney had run in the 2008 presidential election.  Since Cheney has been popping his head up as of late, this author has decided to put her two cents in on the matter:

Why is Dick Cheney such a controversial figure?  Was it his role in the Bush administration (read: quintessential Darth Vader)?  His Chief of Staff’s penchant for revenge?  Wait...it has to be his striking similarity to Satan himself, right?  Perhaps all of these, perhaps none.  On some sides of the conservative fence, he represents strength and the gall to do the dirty work when it needs to be done.  On other sides, he’s everything that’s wrong in this country today - the complete lack of held sanctity for human life, the dissipation of civil liberties, and American values thrown out the window in the ultimate display of shame.

What do you think?

That leads to the next issue at hand...

The topic of fiercest debate in our “Overseas Contingency Operation” is over the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, and this debate undoubtedly had its deepest impact on the GOP.  What led the U.S. to hold such a high moral standard to begin with?  A feeling that ultimately has lead us to feel sympathy for those who would not hesitate to kill any one of us while taking their own lives in the same instance?  Is there suddenly no jungle to which certain rules must not apply as a matter of necessity in this world?  A shining city on a hill can only shine as long as it can defend itself against its enemies…or can it?  Teddy and Reagan seemed to think so, but Powell sees a different direction for their party.

Where do you stand?

Not to excuse the modern American practice of waterboarding (maybe to defend it instead), but the idea that waterboarding as was practiced at Club Gitmo bears any resemblance to that practiced by the Japanese is laughable.  The distinction is simple - one you can survive 266 times and walk away without harm, the other you can’t.  Ms. Coulter describes it best in her article, Watching MSNBC is Torture:

"The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.  Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death…Or they would "waterboard" the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.”

Do you think there’s a difference?

These questions seem to be causing a great stir in our party.  Perhaps the words of the Editor of the New York Sun can help us remember our direction:

 “...What the country, and the Republicans, sorely need at this point is not nostalgia for Mr. Cheney but the emergence of a new generation of leaders that will make the case for a strong national defense and a modest government that respects property rights and the rule of law.”

We concur!