Last
week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, and I had the opportunity to raise some of
my concerns regarding US government policy and the cost of our
interventionism around the world. Many observers claim that the recent
overthrow of governments in Northern Africa and the Middle East will
result in more liberty for individuals across those regions. I
sincerely hope this proves to be true, but history is replete with
revolutions that began as a cry for freedom against oppressive
governments but ended badly. There are no guarantees that Egyptians,
Tunisians or others will be better off after these heralded "regime
changes." We do know, however, that there conflicts in Africa and the
Middle East can be made worse if the US government attempts to
intervene and support certain candidates or factions.
Such
intervention would not further US interest or win new friends, but in
fact, would undermine the legitimacy of any government that may emerge
after the end of the old regime, just as we would resent and reject any
political force that came to power here with the sponsorship of a
foreign government. Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans and others are not
likely to take kindly to what they view as one US puppet being replaced
by another US puppet. It is ironic, but the US government's endless
promotion of democracy overseas actually distorts and undermines
democracy in targeted nations. The involvement of a foreign power often
undermines true self-determination. Radicals who understand this may
use rising resentment and anti-Americanism as leverage to gain power,
thus defeating the stated purpose of US government in the first place.
I
have never understood how the US government justifies subsidizing a
newspaper or political party abroad in the name a promoting
independence and pluralism. It makes no sense. Unfortunately, it seems
to me that the administration has learned nothing from recent events in
the Mediterranean region. Secretary Clinton emphasized several times at
the Committee hearing that "nothing is off the table" with regards to a
US response to internal civil unrest in Libya. Since when is it our
obligation to use political pressure or even military force to solve
every problem overseas? Washington is currently buzzing with talk of
no-fly zones and even a land invasion of Libya to aid rebel groups
seeking to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. Some military leaders,
including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have rightly warned the more
enthusiastic interventionists that such military operations can be
enormously costly both financially and in lives.
The costs of
trying to run the world are unsustainable, and we simply don't have the
money. Morally, it is inexcusable for the US to pick sides in such
conflicts overseas, no matter how odious either side may be;
financially, it is no longer possible. The 2012 budget request from the
administration for "international affairs," which is a code word for
"foreign aid," is two and a half times larger than was it was just nine
years ago. As our economy shrinks at home, our obligations increase
abroad. As our infrastructure crumbles at home, we continue to spend
billions of dollars expending infrastructure in places like Afghanistan
and Iraq.
If the interventionists have their way, no doubt we
will soon pay to reconstruct the infrastructure we destroy in Libyan
military operation. It does not take a genius to see that we are going
broke, but Washington remains in denial and intent on business as
usual. I fear that if we continue this way, we may soon be out of
business altogether.
