National Review published another attack on non-interventionism today, libeling its proponents as “isolationists” (this after the shabby treatment of non-interventionism in the Ron Paul interview). This one must have been a rush job – the authors (Alvin S. Felzenberg & Alexander B. Gray) wheel out every wheezing, decrepit canard and ancient boogey-monster in the imperialist handbook. Here’s a taste (my comments in brackets):
“The United States and the world paid a severe price for the ostrich-like behavior too many democratic nations exhibited during the 1920s and 1930s [This one has more lives than Buddha's cat].”
“But the next decade will witness increasing competition among nation-states for control of valuable resources and the exertion of influence worldwide [Imagine that? Nation-states vying for resources and influence? Unprecedented!]”
“Russia, through its control of vital energy pipelines, seeks to draw Western Europe more closely into its orbit, thereby weakening the latter’s historical ties to the United States [Uh oh - Red Dawn II]”
“The alliance of these two anti-American and increasingly menacing states could pose a threat to the United States of a kind that would make us nostalgic for the Cuban Missile Crisis [The two "menacing states" in question are... Iran and Venezuela. I'm not kidding - go read it. Iran and Venezuela will make us "nostalgic" for close calls with nuclear armageddon, or for an authoritarian communist empire hostile to the West and armed with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles]”
By far my favorite sequence of thoughts, though, is this one:
“China… has proclaimed its sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, menaced neighbors from India to Vietnam, used its economic muscle to intimidate Japan, and increased its threats against Taiwan [Sounds sinister. Perhaps we do need an inconceivably massive military with such a menace abroad]”
“the Chinese are acting from a desire to defend their nation’s trade and access to world markets, with a focus on energy supplies [Ah! Here we see that China, that muscly menace, is trying to seize "control of valuable resources" and exert its influence - precisely the dread specter America needs its fully-funded military to confront!]
Then comes a brief history lesson explaining that it was the British Empire (specifically its navy) “that gave the Monroe Doctrine force”, which gave the U.S. the space to “develop internally” and, as we all know, eventually achieve global military supremacy.
Then comes this bit of salesmanship:
“If appropriately funded, the United States Navy has the capacity to play a similar role in China’s rise.”
Count me in! Of course we need to sacrifice blood and treasure to help midwife the Communist Chinese Century. That way, according to Felzenberg and Gray, it will be the right kind of Communist Chinese Century. The good kind. Not the nasty kind.
There’s quite a bit more, and I haven’t the time to address all of it, but the closer is in my opinion particularly remarkable:
“A world in which the United States willingly ceded power and influence would both be more dangerous and prove less receptive to values that most Americans share, such as respect for human rights [Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Black sites, Blackwater], the need to restrain governments [This entire argument is against restraining the most dangerous government power, remember] through the rule of law [The Congress shall have Power To... Declare War], and the sanctity of contracts [Amendment X].”
Please do read the article, and let them know what you think – comments are open (must join to post – it’s free).