Issuu on Google+

Issue V | August 2010

Redefining the National Interest

ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

War Shifts: Pakistan General Difficulties

p. 5 Leaving the Graveyard

p. 20

Pakistan Leaked!

p. 12

YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY


The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy Handbook

August 2010


Contents 3

Editor in Chief Roy Antoun

Undeniably Hypocritical

By Gabriel Aquino 5

“General Difficulties”

By Ryan Bell 9

Contributors

Afghanistan: Forever a Pawn

By Brian Beyer Gabriel Aquino 12

Pakistan Leaked

Ryan Bell

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta 14

Brian Beyer

Chalmers Johnson’s Nemesis

By Jeremy Davis 17

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Foreign Aid Horror Files

Jeremy Davis

By Brendon DeMeo

Brendon DeMeo 18

Terrorists or Insurgents?

Jihan Huq

By Jihan Huq 20

Elliot Engstrom

Leaving the Graveyard

By Elliot Engstrom 22

Daniel Suraci

Uganda Bombings

By Daniel Suraci

YAL MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committed to "winning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direction of our government. YAL STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES We are the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, liberty, and property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individual and directed by we the people. We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and conduct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace and prosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen. We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed and dragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controlling grip. And, for this we do not stand. Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | June 2010

1

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Letter From the Editor Dear Reader, As neoconservatives continue their worlddominating agenda, taxpayers in the United States are paying for undeclared, expensive wars. In the past decade, the U.S. has engaged in two undeclared wars and now the battle spreads into Pakistan. American military funding has doubled since 2000 and, today, the country is happily running a deficit. Governments will always find excuses for war because war is the health of the state. Wars generate revenue for the government through taxation and the money is spent frivolously on government programs, waste, and the military-industrial-complex. While many conservatives and neoconservatives preach small government, they never hesitate to say that they are willing to give up a portion of their income in order for government to keep them safe. But has government been keeping them safe? Why are we so willing to give government power over our own lives if it can hardly control its own spending habits? Now that American soldiers are engaging “terrorists” in Pakistan, it’s hard to say that perpetual war is keeping us safe if the world is left in constant turmoil. With Europe finding homegrown terrorists in its backyard and the U.S. relying on citizens (not Homeland Security) to find threats like the Christmas bomber and the Times Square bomber, I have to ponder: Ifthese wars abroad were stopping the terrorists, why do they keep popping up?

Roy M. Antoun New York State Chairman, Young Americans for Liberty

“Of the Youth, by the Youth, for the Youth” The objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American foreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected leaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interventionism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying the price in blood and gold. While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express the views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose any candidate for office.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

2

Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook? Contact roy.antoun@yaliberty.org http://www.foreignpolicyhandbook.com Find us on the web: http://yaliberty.org Find us on Facebook http://facebook.com/yaliberty Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/yaliberty

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

ures like these were introduced after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, and were replicated worldwide. Considering that the die has been cast, let's observe this as an informative experiment in the hamster cage that is international relations, shall we? Western imperialist rhetoric supposes that, in order to deter Islamic "terrorists" from continuing to attack within western nations, military forces must be deployed to Arab nations (conquest of Persia, coming soon!), but not necessarily the nations of origin for the aforementioned terrorists. The occupying force will give the terrorists something to chew on within their home country as they defend their homes, their families, and their way of life... wait, no... The occupying force will fight indefinitely against the nativist scourge insurgency...The occupying Western force will defend their country, from another country, protecting the freedoms that have been left alone by the increasingly large police state in their country will fight to prevent the inception of "terrorist" cells who are active on the other side of the world. Makes perfect sense, right? What good would it do to keep the military at home, to defend security? Why not just beef up local police forces? What better way to protect civil liberties that the "terrorists" hate than to keep them under lock

Gabriel Aquino One of the longest and most expensive terrorist investigations in British history came to an end in July, when three men: Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Waheed Khan, and Waheed Zaman were found guilty of a 2006 plot to attack seven transAtlantic airliners bound for the United States and Canada with liquid explosives. This trial follows up the convictions of three other men in a similar trial last year, bringing to attention an urgency of action, by British authorities. Their conviction has sparked some international outrage regarding the clarity of evidence, testimony, and verdict. Scotland Yard divulged specifics regarding the investigation, noting that it was their most elaborate effort ever mounted, costing nearly $40 million. During the time period when the investigation took place, over 29 surveillance teams were deployed to observe the plotters. Furthermore, the report of this plot has greatly impacted the international community's stance on airline security. Since then, airline authorities have laced tight restrictions upon the size and type of liquids and creams that passengers can take onto flights. MeasYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

3

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Photo courtesy of USNews.com

Undeniably Hypocritical


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Welcome to the Police State Riot police in England: the most apparent danger to liberty is state control. When wars overseas give bloated governments excuses to control society, the police state becomes your backyard. Photo source: www.digitaljournal.com

and key with new security measures? The "terrorists" won't relent, so let's continue to send young men and women into harm’s way to deter their presence at home‌ ...but the "terrorists" are still plotting attacks in the west? How can that be? Western military forces are killing "hostiles" daily. Why is it still happening? Aren't there plenty of targets to shoot at in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Western occupation has existed in the Middle East since the 1800s, starting with the British Empire. Since then, antiWestern sentiments, tied to fringe elements of Islam, began and have grown. So where is the validity of progress, causation, or even correlation, in the interventionist argument? Occupying Middle Eastern nations for decades has only led to escalated action on both sides. Is there any incentive for these "terrorists" to quit? Surely not, for psychologically, the Middle Eastern constituencies ripest for terrorist action are have had a first-hand account of Western imperialism. Very rarely is fundamentalism the sole factor. In this case however,

many of the "terrorists" found in Europe are "home-grown". It seems to be that the "home-grown" cells have felt the plight of their brothers and sisters a world away, or are rejecting the fusion of tightening security and heightened suspicion of the Islamic community in European countries. One cannot reject the obvious, these cells that have been convicted of plots in European nations did not meet with European military forces on the battlefield. In fact, they entirely bypassed the "preemptive war" meant for them, along with a load of empty interventionist rhetoric. If only stubborn overlords and appointed bureaucrats elected officials would make some sense of it all, and heed common sense, along with the outcry of the citizenry. The solution is simply this: There are people thousands of miles away, infuriated with Western Imperialism. Give them nothing to be upset about, and in the period of time that the Western nations should consider a period of humble diplomacy, the military would not be deployed abroad, but at home for security. Deal?

Aquino, continued

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

4

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

“General Difficulties” via secure video teleconference. During a brief meeting with Obama on June 23, two days before the article was released to newsstands, McChrystal tendered his resignation, which the president accepted. Shortly thereafter, Obama nominated General David Petraeus to replace McChrystal in his role as top commander in Afghanistan. Obama's statement on the topic began as follows:

Ryan Bell

In an article written by freelance journalist Michael Hastings, "The Runaway General", appearing in issue no. 1108/1109 of Rolling Stone magazine (July 8–22 2010), McChrystal and his staff mocked civilian government officials, including Joe Biden, National Security Advi"Today I accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignasor James L. Jones, US Ambassador to Aftion as commander of the International Security Assisghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, and Special tance Force in Afghanistan. I did so with considerRepresentative for Afghanistan and Pakiable regret, but also with certainty that it is the stan Richard Holbrooke. McChrystal was right thing for our mission in Afghaninot quoted as being directly critistan, for our military and for our cal of the president or the country." president's policies, but several comments from his Later that day aides in the article reMcChrystal released the flected their perception of following statement: McChrystal's disappoint- General Stanley A. McChrystal received heavy flak from Washington after being interment with Obama on the viewed for a controversial article published by Rolling Stone Magazine. ―This morning the presifirst two occasions of their meeting. McChrystal's staff was dent accepted my resignation as Commander of U.S. and contacted prior to release of the article and did not deny the NATO Coalition Forces in Afghanistan. I strongly support validity of the article, though senior members of his staff the president's strategy in Afghanistan and am deeply dispute this, and have accused Hastings of exaggerating the committed to our coalition forces, our partner nations, seniority of aides quoted and breaking the "off the record" and the Afghan people. It was out of respect for this comtrust of private conversations. mitment—and a desire to see the mission succeed—that I The statements attributed to McChrystal and members tendered my resignation. It has been my privilege and of his staff drew the attention of the White House when honor to lead our nation's finest.” McChrystal called Biden to apologize. McChrystal issued a written statement, saying: Shortly after his removal from command in Afghanistan, McChrystal announced that he would retire from ―I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a the Army. The day after the announcement, the White mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the prinHouse announced that he would retain his four-star ciples of personal honor and professional integrity. What rank in retirement, although law generally requires a genis reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I eral officer to hold their rank for three years in order to rehave enormous respect and admiration for President tain it in retirement. His retirement ceremony was held on Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian July 23, 2010 at Fort McNair in Washington D.C. During leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.” this ceremony, McChrystal was awarded the Distinguished by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Biden's call to tell him of the apology prompted the Defense Distinguished Service Medal by Gates. Obama to request a copy of the profile and then to summon You can find the original Rolling Stone article here: McChrystal to attend in person the president's monthly sehttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236 curity team meeting at the White House in lieu of attending Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

5

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 Photo courtesy of Kevin Lamarque, Reuters

Washington vs. McChrystal Bell, continued

tors have suggested that this was a near treasonous (and equally unprofessional) act committed by this four-star general and that such discontent would have been better relayed in private to the President and those in other relevant positions. We must not forget however that this is something that would be deemed unnecessary, and can be seen, a choice with potential for the tarnishing of his reputation and that of the war itself Richard Holbrooke, special representative to when publicized in this Afghanistan and Pakistan, was highly disfashion. We must ask if liked by Gen. McChrystal. General McChrystal would have ever considered such an option as valid unless his views were not being ignored or otherwise completely disregarding in those very same private sessions. Just as the famed MacArthur ultimately lost his battle with President Truman and his war policy of appeasement; which averted a confrontation with China, but also set the stage for the prolonged carnage of Vietnam, General McChrystal will lose his battle with President Obama. The recalling of General McChrystal was not just for a fireside chat with President Obama; nor is it for a typical chewing session by the Commander-in-Chief. General

Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House. By all means, question McChrystal’s judgment in making derisive comments about his boss, the Commander in Chief. In fact, McChrystal was right to challenge the president. General McChrystal’s main mistake was to apologize for the remarks he made in Rolling Stone. As you will observe, this isn’t the first occasion that General McChrystal has used interview commentary or the press, in one fashion or another, to force the hand of a Commander-In-Chief to do what is best for the troops that serve under him. Every time General McChrystal has taken such an action, he has done so knowing that both his command and his career were at risk. Yet, like a true leader; General McChrystal took that risk after thoughtful introspection on what course was most proper for the good of the nations and his troops. So, although I wish he’d stand firm and not waiver in the slightest on his commentary, I forgive him for a minor tremble during such a major event in his life. Some commenta-

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

6

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 command of their troops, who often went far above any expectations in performance of their duties. General McChrystal, like Patton and MacArthur, is a warrior and a visionary leader who wants to win; not capitulated, and certainly does not wish to leave the job unfinished.

www.Interest Of The State.com

among the populace. After all, the wars in the Middle East create enough derogatory headlines all on their own. This is not the Until now, “We have reached a point in key issue, yet it further he has been illustrates the reality relatively history where if we are to that we should not unknown. engage in warfare it must be However, engage in wars we are not willwe will hear of necessity to win.” ing to fight to the and learn end, with the fullest more about extent of resources him as time our nation has to offer, to passes. In my view, General McChrystal limit the number of Amerihas not only taken on the President and can deaths as much as is the wimps in Washington such as Senator plausible, and to do John Kerry; but he’s also sent a message what must be done to his fellow generals that a war strategy to accomplish our of shedding American blood and treasure mission as quickly with the goal of hand-tied warfare and and as effectively as appeasement can no longer be tolerated. possible...and We have reached a point in history then leave. where if we are to engage in warfare it Unfortumust be of necessity to win. Our new enenately these mies are of the ideological nature of the wars have Japanese in World War 2. If we wish to been a mire of wage war against them we must be able deception, nato outlast them, being firm in our belief tion building, that we hold moral superiority in our efresource exforts or we will have sealed our own fate. ploitation, conAs in Korea and Vietnam where troversial weapguerilla fighters often disguised themons and drug selves to fit in among the locals to both deals, unconstitutional provisions, politikill and gain sympathy from a gullible cal scapegoats and a particupress and shake weak, panicked politilarly grandiose highlight of the widespread problems within our civilian government, our intelligence agencies, and particularly within our own military establishment. One can hardly blame the Democratcontrolled Whitehouse for taking a hardened stance against this outburst, especially when its voters, as well as our own President have run the field unabashed with laying all of the ills of these wars at the feet of our previous administration. They have been hard pressed to accept the responsibility for our current failures on the front as being derivative of the current administrative troupe. General McChrystal knows all of this. He is acutely aware of Generals such as George C. Patton and Douglas MacArthur. As American warriors of distinction he holds a deep admiration and respect for their standards of excellence and for Gen. McChrystal was a big advocate for their accomplishments in battles fought nation-building. He wanted his troops to all over the world. He understands how assimilate with the population by living with these two men in particular were rethe population. Photo: John Moore / AP spected, loved and at all times in full

Redefining the National Interest

McChrystal was recalled to be fired from his position. General McChrystal has taken from the President the political voice in the execution of warfare and dared, whether it was intentional or not, for the President to confront him in debate by expressing his opinion in this publicized manner. This was not something Obama, or any President, could simply ignore. Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, but also understandably, the President will not give him that debate; nor should he out of respect for the long standing principle of civilian rule over the military. Albeit I believe that, given some necessary prerequisites, we should let the military do its job to the best of its ability with as little political and bureaucratic red-tape as possible. What this really comes down to is that it would not be appropriate for the President to redress these criticisms on the American stage in some off-color grandstand which would eventually do nothing but add more media headlines and likely create further consequences for our troops abroad in the form of mishandled policy in an effort to suppress suspicions

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

7

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

cians and Presidents, we need to show greater strength, determination and courage to face down those who would end democracy and our way of life and punish them with impunity no matter how the rest of the world views us (this does not mean killing hundreds of civilians with CIApiloted military predator drones). But isn’t it past time to question the propriety of an Afghan strategy that both parties endorse? As was the case in Korea, the United States military did most of the fighting and took most of the losses as our allies wrung their hands on the sidelines. If we are to bear the bulk and the burden of fighting just wars alone or with minimal support from our allies or the United Nations, then our opinion is the only one that matters. When they are willing to put action to their rhetoric then and only then, would I suggest they’ve earned the right to speak and give advice. Until then, we either need to fight to win or not fight at all and protect the valuable lives and health of our young sons and daughters.

General McChrystal may have lost the faith of the President and other politicians in Washington that he can perform his duties well, but I guarantee you that the most important group of people looking to General McChrystal for direction and strength have not. That group is the junior officers and enlisted members of United States combat forces. They may not admit it, but I suspect the vast majority are ecstatic to see a senior officer finally speak out for Washington to do the right thing and either fight or leave. I simply hope that General McChrystal’s personal and professional sacrifice does not fall on deaf ears throughout the upper ranks of the United States military and that the Chairman and other members of the Joint Chiefs heed the warning as a rancher would heed the sound of coiled snakes’ rattle.

Predator Drones Creating new terrorists everyday.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

8

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Afghanistan: Forever a Pawn wishes to secure a presence in Afghanistan in order to encircle Pakistan in an attempt to exert regional dominance. Pakistan, on the other hand, desires to play a pivotal role in Afghanistan in order to prevent Indian encirclement. This same kind of game was played before from the late 1990’s to as recent as 2002. India provided funding and arms to the Northern Alliance, a ―military-political umbrella organization‖ opposed to Taliban rule. Pakistan’s powerful intelligence agency, the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), gave the Taliban money, arms, and training so as to prevent the Indian backed Northern Alliance from gaining a foothold. The Taliban were promptly ousted by US and other foreign forces during the initial invasion of Afghanistan. India was victori-

Brian Beyer July 2011 marks the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. However, as President Obama has said, ―We didn't say we'd be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us." As the war in Afghanistan will undoubtedly rage on through the remainder of Obama’s term, the American public will grow increasingly skeptical of, if not downright against, the operation. War weariness in Europe has caused governments to collapse (the Netherlands) and prompted NATO to declare an end date (albeit nonbinding) of 2014. Eventually, just as Europe is planning to do, America will have to cease major combat operations. This leaves Afghanistan in an interesting situation that the country has not known for years: it will have to govern and police itself with minimal, if no, international assistance. Pakistan, a regional powerhouse, has high hopes of forging an unbreakable alliance with Afghanistan. However, India could prove to be a remarkably difficult hurdle to clear. Sadly, Afghanistan is a pawn in the great Pakistan-India rivalry. India

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

ous bitter

9

and Pakistan was secretly with defeat.

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Afghanistan’s new police force, funded by your tax dollars.

Today, Pakistan generally continues to rely on hard power, although covertly, while India is winning over the Afghan people through foreign aid and economic development. As a result, Pakistan is now, more than ever, desperate for a say in Afghan politics. Despite official denial, it is well known that the ISI retains close links with Taliban linked groups. This bond is very strategic and clever nonetheless. The ISI’s thought process is this: Pakistan must continue to provide aid of all sorts to these groups in order to prevent the US, Afghanistan, and its allies from defeating them. Once it is recognized that they are a force that cannot be defeated, Pakistan can broker power deals between them and the Afghan government. This gives Pakistan an incredible say in Afghan policy, and would make Indian encirclement impossible. It appears that Pakistan is becoming somewhat frantic in trying

to find the right group to mediate with. Recently, Pakistan has made it well known that they would be interested in facilitating talks between the Haqqani network and the Afghan government. The Haqqani network was started during the Soviet Occupation of Af-

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

10

ghanistan during the 1980’s by the infamous mujahedeen Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani. During the bloody occupation, which is presciently parallel to the current war in Afghanistan, Haqqani received financial and material assistance from Pakistan’s ISI and America’s CIA in order to prevent Soviet incursion into South Asia. Haqqani and his fighters were often considered some of the most ruthless and effective ―destroyers of the occupiers.‖ However, whom Charlie Wilson once considered ―goodness personified,‖ Jalaluddin Haqqani, his son Sirajuddin, and their group of loyal fighters are

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldier. Many ISAF troops (NATO’s security force) are stationed in Afghanistan in a prolonged, no-win war.

now considered one of the gravest threats to American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Haqqani network has claimed responsibility for a slew of attacks in Afghanistan, most notably an assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai in 2008. Why would an insurgent group that is so hostile to both the United States and the Afghan government, and is based in Pakistan be able to have a say in the future of Afghanistan? The reason is becoming quite clear: both Afghanistan and the US realize that the Haqqani network cannot be defeated, and the only other option is a political solution. This is due largely to the fact that they’re headquartered in the lawless North Waziristan region of Pakistan. Due to their strategic location, they are immune from an

attack by American ground forces out of respect for Pakistani sovereignty. Also, since the network is deemed an ―asset‖ by Pakistani intelligence, there has been little intention to tackle this radical Islamist group by the Pakistani army. Luckily for Pakistan, it appears that the plan is slowly working, although with some bumps on the way. Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of Julaladdin, reportedly met with President Karzai to discuss reconciliation efforts. However, Karzai vehemently denied the allegations, which shows that he is not quite ready to go public with the policy shift. It is also widely believed that Karzai forced Amrullah Saleh, director of Afghan intelligence, and Hanif Atmar, interior minister, to resign over their opposition to

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

11

talks with people like the Haqqanis. Such actions by Karzai demonstrate that reconciliation is possible but distant. Opposition to reconciliation efforts can be heard loud and clear in the United States. Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee demanded that the Haqqani network be put on them terrorist blacklist. CIA director Leon Panetta said that, ―I think It’s very difficult to proceed with a reconciliation [between Afghanistan and the Haqqani network] that’s going to be meaningful.‖ Despite American criticism, it appears that as Pakistani influence on Afghan politics is waxing, and American influence is waning.

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Pakistan Leaked Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

United States and Pakistan relations have not been the best in recent years, which was the point of Mrs. Clintons return to the country. However, Pakistan has continued to resist in helping the United States strike Taliban sanctuaries. It seems for the Pakistani government their goal is an increased and prolonged war in Afghanistan for several reasons. For one, Pakistan wants to establish itself as a regional key player and to do so they need to have some sort of influence with the Taliban, a legitimate and recognizable force in the same region. To gain this position it needs a group like the Taliban to extend its power. Not only do they need the Taliban but they also need the United States hand in its economic interests. The Pakistani government knows that if it continues to show a ―strong face‖ towards terrorism it can continue to funnel tons of American aid into their country while at the same time aiding the Taliban. So what side is Pakistan ultimately on? Well that’s easy: Pakistan is on Pakistan’s side just

Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton recently told the Pakistan government that the United States would send an additional $500 million in aid to the country. The aid includes American taxpayer money on initiatives to help improve public health, water distribution, and agriculture. Among these initiatives are projects including building a 60-bed hospital in Karachi and helping farmers export mangos. In an attempt by Mrs. Clinton to bridge the tension gap between the two countries, Pakistan has now been able to secure $500 million additional extra cash to its economy, at the same time progressing its national interests. What is even more alarming is the recent news about Pakistan’s aid to the Taliban. The classified military documents released by WikiLeaks details that the country’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) has been securing the Taliban along the AfghanPakistan border. Senior Taliban officials told Newsweek that, ―they [Pakistan] feed us with one hand and arrest and kill us with another.‖ Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

12

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

propping up regimes and continuing their power for our own interests. Instead of directly affecting the people of that country, aid flows through corrupt governments and individuals who use that aid in their benefit.

Julian Assange at a news conference. A former hacker, Julian runs the WikiLeaks website, which hosts leaked government documents which were otherwise hidden from the public. He has received heavy flak from Washington. Source: urbanchristiannews.com

as America is on America’s side. Pakistan’s battle against terrorism has been lackluster. Suicide bombers have killed many innocent civilians in the country and public sentiment is turning against the American war to the North. Many Pakistani’s now blame the United States for its own terrorism inside its borders. Thus, the Pakistani government now faces a direct challenge from its citizenry to not align itself to closely with the United States for fear of intensified terrorism. Pakistan has also planned to buy nuclear reactors from China, a move that has alarmed the United States. The deal goes beyond international norms of the non-

proliferation regime. Mrs. Clinton did not seem to raise the issue during her meeting with the Pakistani government. But, not only does this raise questions in our role in Operation Enduring Freedom and the legitimacy of aid to Pakistan, but it also raises economic questions. Our country is still facing an alarming unemployment rate with a recession still continuing. For Mrs. Clinton, $500 million does not seem like a large sum; however this is still money that could’ve been used by the American taxpayer for saving and investment that ultimately turns into production (a real stimulus). The United States needs to reevaluate its position not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan but also in its position in handing out economic aid. In most situations, US aid only helps in

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

13

In this case, Pakistan is taking some of that aid in aiding the enemy for their own interests. Pakistan is doubling timing our country. They, like the United States, have their own reasons for their wellbeing. Prolonging the war, aligning with other regional powers (the Taliban) and increasing their own influence are their goals just as any

other nation. The United States should recognize this and stop giving Pakistan among with other nations taxpayer money.

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Chalmers Johnson’s Nemesis falls in North America. A few people on board have begun to pick up a slight The humble and respectable republic that was hiss in the background, once America is long gone. In its place is an empire bent to observe a faint haze of on forging the world into its military playground. mist in the air or on their In his book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American glasses, to note that the Republic, Chalmers Johnson spells out the chilling realiriver current seems to be ties of the what’s become America’s empire. running slightly faster. ―The United States today is like a cruise ship on the But no one yet seems to Niagara River upstream of the most spectacular water have realized that it is almost too late to head for shore.‖ Johnson’s somber warning is perhaps one of An Estonian soldier in Baghdad. Amerithe most damag- can foreign policy often drags other ing critiques of a countries into unnecessary wars. misguided foreign policy ever put to print. The neo-conservatives who gleefully steer America’s interventionist foreign policy are directing a once sturdy republic turned authoritarian empire to the edge of collapse. Since the conclusion of World War II and the rise of America as sole ―super power‖, the foreign policy of the United States has been fueled American militarism has reached the shores of virtually every continent on earth. All at by a culture of persistent militarism. This has in taxpayer expense. turn corrupted our constitutional system of gov-

Jeremy Davis

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

14

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 ernment, the American republic, and democracy in general. This has also brought us numerous scandals of torture, illegal spying on U.S. citizens, fudging facts in order to justify needless undeclared wars, and an acceptance of America as the world’s policeman. In terms as to who reigns supreme in government war making, one of Uncle Sam’s favorite pastimes; Congress has been consistent in abdicating its constitutional authority to declare war. It has instead chosen to empower an increasingly unitary president with the ability to initiate war via his own determination. Congress’ lack of willingness to provide the necessary check on the executive has enabled the president to initiate countless invasions such as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. This ―breakdown of constitutional government‖ as Johnson frames it has resulted in an international U.S. hegemony that spans to the corners of the entire earth. The extent to which America’s global network of military bases

spans is quite startling. According to the Department of Defense’s Base Structural Report as cited by Johnson, the United States currently operates and maintains approximately 737 military bases in over 130 countries. He also reveals that the Pentagon estimates that all overseas U.S. military structures collectively hold the worth of nearly $127 billion. Aside from the massive economic distortion they prop up domestically, a perhaps equally negative impact fermented by these bases is reflected in the resentment they create in their host nations. The hatred and opposition generated by the presence of U.S. forces in these countries and the local corruption that tends to accompany them get nourished because many large segments of the citizen population typically view American troops as an unjustified occupational force standing in their backyard. The picture painted by these bases of America

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

15

around the world actually serve us greater harm and have a hand in creating the very thing they claim to be protecting us from. Johnson notes that America does not need colonies in the traditional and historical sense to be understood as an empire. ―Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America’s version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial ―footprint‖ and the militarism that grows with it.‖ An entire chapter is also devoted in comparing the American empire to those of Britain and Rome and presents a choice in determining which path the United States will follow. Johnson puts it this way: America can either go the way of the British empire and essentially abandon its imperial aspirations in search of a more democratic system of government (although Johnson himself admits this transition wasn’t carried out in the most effective manner) or the way of Rome and lose all attachments to a republic in favor of an authoritarian dictatorship. In his final chapter titled The

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 Crisis of the American Republic, Johnson outlines America’s devotion to Keynesianism and its destruction economically as well as the governments’ ever present quest for secrecy and less accountability to the American public. This chapter also brings Johnson’s final warning. ―In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent.‖ He also warns of the damage done to the founders’ vision of America. ―The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continual wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency.‖ From cover to cover, never once does Chalmers Johnson let up in his assault on exposing the faults of rampant militarism, the regime toppling CIA as the president’s private army, the military industrial complex, or erosion of constitutional government.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

How long has it been in Afghanistan?

16

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Foreign Aid Horror Files

Brendon DeMeo

This is the first entry in what I would like to call the “foreign aid horror files.” Each issue I will pick two or three countries which receive aid from the U.S. government, aka: the American taxpayer, and detail some of the fiascos involved. We will hear grim tales of theft, extortion, shocking immorality, murder, corruption, greed and much more, all fueled by the hard-earned cash of the American worker.

Subject: China Style of Government: Good ol’ fashioned, soulrending Communism President: A brutal, godless dictator named Hu Jintao According to the Foreign Policy magazine website, China has received nearly $1 billion dollars in grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, as of July of this year. This is a fund that China has donated $16 million to over the past eight years. It is a fund that the American taxpayer has donated $5.5 billion to over the past eight years. China has received 60 times what they have donated to the fund. Yes, this is the same China that owns hundreds of billions of U.S. debt. It is the same China that has a massive army and seems to make almost everything you own. Yet, the American government pours $5.5 billion of your money into a fund that China can draw about a billion from. I am sure that the money helps some people in China, but is it right to force, say, a struggling American single mother to pay for the AIDS medication of some disease-ridden Chinese hookers? Isn’t the ―utopia‖ that is communist China supposed to take care of its people with the money they have exacted from their own citizens? But that is only the beginning. According to an Associated Press article published on the CNBC website, entitled ―Foreign Nations Offer Gulf Spill Aid to US - for a Price,‖ The U.S. spends roughly $30 million per year altogether on foreign aid to China. Think of that next time you drive on a shoddily paved road, or consider the state of some inner city schools, or consider the astronomically high U.S. debt. Consider that the next time you read a story of some family being brutally murdered by Chinese government officials for practicing their religion, or think of all the babies forcibly aborted due to the Chinese government’s rather barbaric ―breeding policies.‖

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

Subject: Pakistan Style of Government: A ―federal republic,‖ but in the eyes of the scrutinizing observer, it is some kind of mafia made up of Islamists and dictators President: Asif Ali Zadari - They also have a prime minister named Yousaf Raza Gillani The nation of Pakistan is ravaged by war in the mountains on its shared border with Pakistan, and the people of Pakistan continue to suffer under draconian laws which lead to such things as the stoning of rape victims. Pakistan is perpetually hostile towards its neighbor, and our ally, India, and it’s continuing to make deals with China which scare the wits out of every Sean Hannity-worshipping neocon. Yet, President Obama signed a bill in October of last year which will send a whopping $7.5 billion to Pakistan over the next 5 years, according to an article on the Newsweek website entitled ―A Timeline of U.S. Aid to Pakistan.‖ Since 9/11, the U.S. government has given even more than that. In August of 2009 the Foreign Policy magazine website pointed out that the bulk of U.S. aid sent to Pakistan ends up going to the corruption-ravaged Pakistani army and intelligence services. In an article penned by Azeem Ibrahim, titled ―How America is Funding Corruption in Pakistan,‖ Ibrahim goes on to mention that both the army and intelligence services are scarcely controlled by the civilian government, and that the money often winds up in the hands of individuals. If you thought the idea of being forced to pay for the medical care of Chinese citizens was bad enough, the idea of sending your money to kleptocrats in Pakistan, a nation still plagued by the idea of ―honor killings,‖ must be even more troubling. We have enough parasites masquerading as useful workers employed by our own government to pay for. Now, you may be burdened for AIDS victims no matter where they are. So helping people in China with AIDS is not a bad idea at all to you. Or, you may like the idea of funding the needy in Pakistan. Don’t misunderstand me, I too wish to alleviate the suffering, and I strongly believe in voluntarily helping the poor and needy. But, the key operative in all of this is the word ―force.‖ You are forced against your will to pay for AIDS victims in China. You are forced against your will to fund a corrupt group of military leaders who are hardly accountable to the people they supposedly serve. You have no choice in the matter. You may find spending your money on such causes ludicrous or immoral, yet you cannot ―opt out‖ if you pay taxes to the federal government.

17

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Terrorists or Insurgents? Soviet and British invasions. Insurgents don't have require uniforms and have guerrilla tactics.

Jihan Huq On many occasions, we have heard of what the Taliban is. Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the American media has constantly shown it's audience of who and what the Taliban are. Often many times, there are misconceptions and misinformation. In the beginning of the invasion, many called the Taliban terrorists who protected their sacred leader Osama bin Laden. However, are the Taliban terrorists or insurgents? Who are they really? What funds them? Are they striving for a global jihad?

Who are the Taliban? Although there are many misconceptions about the Taliban, it is believed that they originated after the Soviet withdrew troops from Afghanistan in 1989. The literal meaning of taliban is ―students‖, or ―religious students‖. Many of the Taliban were former Afghan fighters of the Mujahadeen during the 1980s. A majority of the Taliban members are Pashtun [which a large, significant population of Afghans are]. It is widely believed that the founder of the Taliban is Mullah Mohammed Hasan Rehmani, a peg legged former fighter against the Soviets during the early days of Russia's occupation of Afghanistan. The current leader is Mullah Mohammed Omar.

What is a terrorist? First off, in order to fully understand and consider a group [or an individual] a terrorist is to decipher the definition of a terrorist. According to dictionary.com, a terrorist is someone [or a group] who advocates the use of terrorism. The definition of a terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate for political purposes. Also, the Taliban are not Al Qaeda [ a terrorist group].

According to Taliban and militant Central Asian Islamic groups expert Ahmed Rashid, the Taliban did provide some sort of stability after a devastating 20 years of war in Afghanistan. Before the Taliban were an official group, the country was in devastating condition. It was mostly divided by many local warlords. The whole country was basically disintegrated. For example, the country's capital Kabul was controlled mostly by the Tajik government of Burhanuddin Rabbani before 1994 [the emergence of the Taliban].

So in essence, by deciphering the definition of terrorist and terrorism, we immediately can cross it out when it comes to the Taliban. The Taliban are not a global terrorist institution. Rather, they existed in Afghanistan pre 9/11 and for several years as well. They not only existed, but governed Afghanistan. Terrorists are usually rogue groups or individuals, each having a local problem to deal with. Terrorists also do not have armies and often do not have a flag to represent [especially in case of Muslim terrorists]. A couple examples are Somalia's Al Shabab and the most obvious of all, Al Qaeda.

Before 1994,the country was in such a terrible shape that even international aide workers feared working in Afghanistan, especially rough regions like Kandahar. Corruption also prevailed among local warlords. Many of them sold everything to Pakistani traders, including items of local civilians. Most of those items were also stolen. At often times, the local warlords would seize peoples homes and give them off to their political supporters. Sometimes, they would also kidnap children and use them for their sick pleasures. A number of these activities were committed by the once glorified Mujahadeen.

What is an insurgent? The definition of insurgent is different, however. According to dictionary.com, an insurgent is ―a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.‖ In today's case, the Taliban can qualify as a rebel/insurgent group, especially after the fact that they are no longer officially in power. The Taliban's political and military fight against the Afghan Karzai government is also what qualifies them as an insurgent group. The Taliban also carry some elements of nationalism, just as they have during the earlier Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

This was the prevalent situation in Afghanistan, before the 1994 emergence of the Taliban. According to the Taliban, since they vehemently opposed these local atrocities, they set an agenda of their own—restoring peace, disarming the population and restore the Islamic integrity in Afghanistan.

18

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 Thus, since the Taliban were in political power, they provided some sort of stability for the country.

Taliban and the Mujahadeen have a strong history of rejecting secularism. Their faith in God is also another contributing factor to resisting the occupying forces. Tribalism and maybe xenaphbia can play that as well. Since many Afghans are located with a certain tribe, tribalism is very crucial to afghan life. Fear or distrust of anyone who isn't Afghan can be a psychological thing, since the British, the Soviets and Americans are all the non Afghan/Muslim occupiers.

Taliban Funds Most experts agree that a majority of Taliban contributions come from the selling of opium. In fact, a large portion of Afghanistan's economy is also based on opium/heroin goods. Often times, they will sell opium to purchase weapons and sometimes even buy it's support [a very tactical move, might I add].

Conclusion

Historically speaking, the Taliban have a good record of pro opium policy. Previously, they have provided Muslim farmers to grow opium for their personal economy. However, after they first captured Kandahar, they decided to legalize all drugs for economic gain. They even began to collect the Zakat [charity] on the dealers of opium to give to the poor. Many locals were actually grateful because the Taliban allowed them to grow their own opium in peace. Of course, the policy was done for mostly economic and political reasons.

While reading this article, one may conclude that this is pro Taliban regime, which is not. The Taliban are local resistance forces dedicated to defeat the Americans and Westerners due to their rejection of imperialism, occupation and secularism. If we are to win in Afghanistan, we must decipher who we are fighting. Initially, it was Al Qaeda. However, now it is the Taliban. It is my opinion that we should not fight the local resistance [since they represent a significant amount of the Afghan population]. Since Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan, we should use our intelligence to dismantle them and withdraw troops from Afghanistan. It is nonsensical to pick a new battle [the Taliban], when we came in for another [al Qaeda]. Though they are the largest resistance force, there are still minor ones [Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and Haqqani Network]. The Taliban are obviously the best funded and influential.

Global Jihad? What Strives Them to do What they do? Historically speaking, the Taliban have only engaged in conflicts in Afghanistan and in the border region of Pakistan [although the Pakistani Taliban are different from Afghan Taliban in certain ways]. Taliban resistance began after the U.S invasion of Afghanistan and practically dismantling the Taliban government. Here is where the problem lies.

History has revealed that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. Whether it be the Mujahadeen or the Taliban, Afghanistan is no place to nation build, or pick the wrong fight with. We should always take heed of what the Founders have said about nation building and imperialism. Too bad Washington is reluctant to listen.

Ever since the fall of Kabul, the Taliban have been a massive resistance force against the pro Western government [or Karzai to be exact]. This is what they are using to gain more popular ground. During 2003-2004, more Taliban resistance increased. Funny thing, because a lot of neocon ―experts‖ previously claimed that the fall of Kabul would cease all insurgent activity [Max Boot, for one]. What drove the very same people against Communism and the Soviets is what is driving the same issues right now—imperialism/nation building. Back when the Soviets were their enemies, the Afghan Mujahadeen despised them not merely for nationalism, but rather for their hatred of Communism and godlessness. This is why the Taliban is our Mujahadeen fighters. They see the American troops as occupiers. The Afghans [including Taliban] believe that the Americans are there for oil and to forcibly ―democratize‖ or liberalize them. The Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

19

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Leaving the Graveyard Elliot Engstrom Now that coalition forces have just recently suffered their deadliest month yet in the conflict in Afghanistan, it now it has become more crucial than ever to rethink the strategy of the United States and its allies in the region. Currently, the cornerstone of this strategy rests upon two key factors – winning over the local peoples of the region, and training local forces to carry the burden when, and if, coalition forces leave the region. At least on the exterior, these goals in Afghanistan do make some sense. The only possible way to succeed via a continued military occupation of Afghanistan is to attain and bank on the support of the local peoples. Also, if western powers are ever to withdraw from the region, local forces will have

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

20

to be able to maintain whatever structure these forces leave in their wake. However, while this strategy is not completely outlandish and does show some merit on the part of military strategists in that they are leaning more towards localized models that entail comprehension of diverse local factors, the question still must be asked – is this strategy actually possible to carry out and have the sought after effects in the region? Can the United States and its allies actually win over the peoples of Afghanistan and western Pakistan, and can these same powers possibly train forces that will remain peacekeepers in the years to come? Despite the fact that I admire the intentions of the military’s current strategy in this region, I do not think that their plan is in fact possible. It seems to me that rather we are fighting an unwinnable war to win over a people that we do not and can-

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 not understand, and that by funding the Afghani security forces of today, we are inevitably funding our enemy of tomorrow, just as our nation has mistakenly done so many times in the past in this very region. I cannot foretell the future. Nor can anyone else. However, I can comment on what is likely to occur. And, in constructing such a model, two of the most important subjects to understand are history and praxeology, or human behavior. An attempt by the United States to make Afghanistan a stable, western-friendly state is by no means a new happening. The date of the beginnings of our intervention in the region could be debated, but a decent starting point is the late 1970’s when President Carter put forth the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would defend its interests in the Middle East. This doctrine just barely preceded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and it was this invasion that saw the beginnings of American forces, at this point being mostly

CIA and other such agencies, which were attempting to hamper the Soviet forces by funding the Afghani resistance. Now, there is no room here for a history of American involvement in Afghanistan. However, what must be noted is that during the 1980’s and 1990’s, a pattern developed in the Middle East – the United States would fund a group in the hope of combating some common enemy, and then in later years the group funded with American taxpayer money would inevitably end up

turning against the United States. A few prominent examples of this are Al Qaeda, who received $6 billion from the United States from 1989 to 1992, the Afghani Taliban, who was receiving US foreign aid up to the very minute American forces entered their country (and continues to receive US foreign aid through Pakistani backchannels) and Saddam Hussein, who received chemical weapons from the US during the Iraq-Iran War of the 1980’s, weapons he later used to kill American soldiers.

way that a westerner possibly can look at the Middle East. On top of this extremely problematic misunderstanding of the Middle East by Western peoples then comes another layer of problems, these being the base problems of intervention in any context, amplified by the extreme foreignness and instability of the Middle East as a whole. The consequences of intervention in any scenario are so unpredictable, so many, and so far-reaching that no one can possibly intervene and successfully fulfill their objectives without in the process creating a dozen new problems. This is seen with the federal government intervening in states in their own country – how

much greater then are the problems when intervening in a region like the Middle East? All this now brings us back to the point on considering the future. As I mentioned previously, I cannot say what the future holds. However, I can make an educated guess. And, based on analyses of both history and human behavior, it is safe to say that by both indirectly and directly funding the training of a new military force in Afghanistan, we very likely are creating our enemy of tomorrow. For when these people that we are now training realize that the United States is not leaving, that they are not in fact a free state, that they have become a part of the

Soviet troops roaming around Afghanistan during the height of the Cold War. The Soviets were forced to withdraw after fighting heavy resistance from the Mujahedeen.

This, though briefly put, is the history, or the ―what.‖ So now must come an examination of the ―why,‖ or the element of praxeology. For obviously, our attempts to forge friendships in the region in the past have failed. Our friends have become our enemies, in fact our worst enemies. There are several possible explanations for why this occurs. However, mine is quite simple – we do not understand these people, we do not understand this region, we do not understand Islamic culture, and, to be quite blunt, we never will. It is not a wrongdoing by the West to look at the Middle East through Western eyes. Rather, it is the only

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

21

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 American empire, and that if they want to live culturally independent of western influence they will have to forcibly remove Western elements within their borders, it seems extremely probable that they will do exactly that. To say that we are creating a force that will do what we expect it to do in the future is a wish at best. The reality is that we do not and cannot understand what is truly a foreign mindset, and our best course of action would be to distance ourselves from what is and will be for many years of region of perpetual conflict.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

Uganda Bombings Daniel Suraci On July 11, 2010, twin bombings occurred in Kampala, Uganda, killing 76 people. The bombers are believed to be linked to al Qaeda, through a Somalian group Al-Shabaab. Al-Shabaab is a 'militant group' which controls most of southern and central Somalia. Somalia itself is split into multiple factions, despite the typical Western view that there is in fact a solidified government in Somalia that has a president, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed. In response to the attacks, the African Union has taken action and compiled a response team to attack the threat, under the orders of one Somali faction under Sharif Ahmed. This should come as no surprise after a cursory review of Somalian history, which shows that the country has been a plaything of Western forces for the past century. Should America be supporting the African Union's initiative to combat al-Shabaab? The answer is a resounding no. Somalia has been in a state of nearly perpetual war and puppet governments since 1920, beginning with invasions from the British, control by the Italians as a protectorate, World War II, and British and Italian control until 1960. By 1969, a successful coup overthrew the President, leading to a dictatorship in 1976, and the Ogaden war between Somalia and Ethiopia. Somalia was, of course, was part of the Cold war. Originally an ally of the Soviet Union, the Soviets betrayed them during the Ogaden war, and so Somalia allied with the United States. Holding a key geographical position, Somalia was flooded with US dollars, but when the Cold War came to an end, the country's political factions became divided. Constant militant uprisings throughout the 1980s eventually turned to civil war. The Somali Civil War was influenced by a failed 'peacekeeping' mission by the United Nations, leading to a United States intervention. Clinton's failure to achieve 'peace' through war in Somalia lead to a second United Nations peacekeeping mission, leading to the creation of a ―Transitional Federal Government‖ (TFG), which Sheikh Sharif Ahmed now runs, known as the single most corrupt government in the world. This mess was compounded on by both the Bush

22

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010 administration. Al-Shabaab had very little support until Bush back violent warlords against the group. As a direct result, alShabaab gained favor in the eyes of Somalians. So the Bush reaction? Fund the Ethiopians, the Somalians' most hated enemy, to kill them. The result? More support for al-Shabaab by the Somalians. When this invasion failed, al-Shabaab was in a position of such strong popularity as to be a threat to the transitional government, which were now being given funding and massive amounts of weapons by the Bush administration. Al-Shabaab's popularity relies entirely on their appearance of fending off foreign

invaders. Again, even with it happening before their eyes, American leaders failed to see blowback occur. This cursory review of history shows the question is not whether or the not the United States should interfere in Somalia now after the Uganda bombings, but whether America should continue its support of a regime put into place by international interests. At least, unlike Yemen, the United States is not bringing its own troops into Somalia. The country of Somalia has been facing unrest due in large part to the interests of foreign governments, and secondly to

domestic religious and clan conflicts. The only question worth asking is what will the ramifications be for further United States involvement? First, the United States cannot 'promote the democratic practice' as is its so-called missioned in nation building by installing a government through funding. It sends the message of ―Democracy is fine, as long as you democratically vote to agree with us.‖ The Somalian people are obviously sick of foreign invaders telling them how to live, so much so that a very traditionally moderate Muslim population gave way to al-Shabaab. When an international force tells people

how to live, their natural reaction is to reject the foreign invaders. This has been the case throughout almost all of history, and will remain so. The second issue is if this greater international government does in fact represent even the desires of the Somali people or is capable of fulfilling their mission. Since the bombings, the African Union has increased its troop force in Somalia to 8,000, funded thus far with over $176 million United States taxpayer dollars. A reoccurring problem throughout the occupation (which it is) of AU troops in Somalia is that the Somalian people and troops do not trust them. The Washington Times reports that Somali troops and AU troops do not trust each other and have been unable to coordinate or accomplish much. Last, it should be obvious that further involvement in Somalia accomplishes nothing but further helping al Qaeda and al-Shabaab remain entrenched, and in fact strengthen their stature in the area. That leaves America with two alternatives: kill them all or leave. The first strategy has been shown to be impossible, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq. Even where it has been tried, more militant groups fending off the foreign invader have popped up. War crimes have been committed. Massive amounts of dollars have been hemorrhaged. And defeat still seems inevitable to everyone but pundits. The second strategy remains untried in modern times. Perhaps, it is finally the time for America to simply try leaving.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

23

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue V | August 2010

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | Aug 2010

24

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Foreign Policy Handbook “Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.� - Otto von Bismarck


Foreign Policy Handbook Issue 5