DBR40

Foreign Policy and the American Constitution

Now what I find truly remarkable about the conventional wisdom is that it argues what America ought to do and sort of like what America, not necessarily what America can do. It implies that America must eliminate instability, uncertainty, poverty, insurgencies, threats to allies. And essentially the sort of natural patterns of global politics. They never ask is what is the likelihood of such a disruption? In terms of our access to foreign markets, was the harm if the access to markets is closed? And for how long, how we've dealt with such disruptions in the past which we have. And are there available alternatives if there are certain threats to access to markets or to our allies for that matter. I think what is also really remarkable and truly astonishing about the conventional wisdom is that poverty, uncertainty, and instability are everywhere. As tom Homer likes to say, poverty is the natural state of mankind. So, to eliminate the inevitable patterns of global politics isn't intrinsically Sisyphean task. It's an essentially limitless mission that conventional wisdom argues in Washington. Another astonishing part about the conventional wisdom is how it argues for free trade and free markets while simultaneously contradicting free trade and free market principles.

It argues not that the United States should withdraw from the world in order to allow for international transactions, for peaceful economic exchange. But that the government should impose trade and impose order in order for free trade to take place. In some respects, this is a very radical leftist, and some might say Marxist-Leninist interpretation of US foreign policy is this pernicious notion that the United States should use aggressive military force and political intervention to secure the flow of raw materials. It's very pernicious argument. I think most importantly, and what I'd like to focus on for the remainder of my talk is what the conventional wisdom advocates. And that is a very work perception of American exceptionalism. I truly believe that America is exceptional literally for its history, but also its values and its principles. Both the conventional wisdom argues is that because of our history, because of our principles and values, we have a special role to play in the world and we must impose order and course others in the process. We can intervene all over the world because we're exceptional. We have the wisdom, the foresight, the sophisticated weaponry, and the capability to reshape foreign societies. It's a very self-loving mission in the notion that the US government is entitled to metal and reshaped foreign societies almost becomes immoral if we don't use our power for good.

Now what the conventional wisdom does, does is replace what should be an argument about empirical data and outcomes with wishful thinking and hypothetical threats. What it needs is an honest assessment about the success of military intervention and its consequences for democracy. And I think that's what we can judge right here today. So, I just want to pivot and start with one case study. Iraq. Now despite daily bombings, mass casualty, cop car bombings and ongoing sectarian violence. Originally nobody pays attention to Iraq anymore, which is very sad. Now, certainly we were sort of led into war for national security imperatives. But again, we were misled. Later on, we find that the government had deceived many Americans. We were essentially duped. And it essentially drew into a mission or devolved into a mission to spread free-market principles and dem, democratic institutions to the Middle East. But over the past years, we've seen Prime Minister nori on molecules government has begun to harass and attempt to silence Iraq's news media and anyone else that considers a critic, the government virtually gave itself unlimited discretion to review the applications for the licensee and television satellite trucks, sensory and books, and controlling internet cafes. Former Prime Minister ion Alawi has said that a rock quote is slipping back into the clutches of a dangerous new one-man rule, which inevitably will lead to full dictatorship, unquote. Kurdistan president Masood Bassanio has said, quote, Iraq is facing a serious crisis. It's coming towards one man rule, unquote. Readers concluded that a molecule's authoritarian behavior evokes memories of quote, the laws used to muzzle the media under Saddam Hussein, unquote. And of course, we have the Freedom House is freedom of the world survey. And says that a rock is today less oppressive compared to Saddam Hussein, but just barely from a mood from a score of seven and Political Rights, which was the most oppressive score of political rights and of 72003, up to a score of six in 2010, a 1 difference in seven years. Sophia also hails, a women's rights advocate and an Iraqi parliamentarian, argues that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the radicalism that was spawned in its wake also lead to a severe deterioration and women's safety. The massive social dislocation men led many Iraqis to enroll and become enlisted in armed religious factions, sectarian militias, and religious political parties, many of which engaged in fanaticism and aggression directed at women. Even the practice of honor killings increased and intensified after the US led invasion.

In addition, Americans paid an enormous price in blood and treasure to end up with in Iraq that isn't under considerable Iranian influence. Now certainly saddam was a brutal tyrant, but he was also secular, hostile to Islamists and a foe of terror on Molokai in his various Shiite militias that he relies on for political support, is less secular. And his partner with a runs she ate regime. Just a quote here. In June the Associated Press reported that Iran quote, helped create unquote, the malloc he administration in 2010 and is now quote, calling in favors among its allied factions in Iraq, unquote. The API also reported that shaped clerical leader Matata all solder had gone to Iran for talks. Solders mentor Grand Ayatollah Qassim, I'll hear he issued a fatwa against support for secular leaders in the new Iraqi government. Now hops calling for war with Iran as a result of serve its expansion throughout the region. This sort of illustrates what Austrian economists looted Von Misses, calls, or describes as the cumulative tendency of government intervention in the sense that government perceives a problem, and it intervenes to solve it. But instead of solving the initial problem, the government intervention creates two or three or four further problems. And we see this with the case with a rock. The removal of Saddam Hussein as the principal strategic counterweight to Iran paved the way for the expansion of Iranian influence across region. And now we see hawks arguing for war with Iran, even though the invasion and occupation of Iraq was one of the many sorts of triggers and catalysts to the expansion of Iranian influence. And this is of course, why when we account for the investment we've made in terms of the dead and wounded, the time spent and attention consumed by our leaders, our journalists, and our scholars, again, pull show overwhelmingly that many Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake.

2