Skip to main content

The US and our militarized foreign policy

The US has now added Jordan as the latest place that we have deployed troops, which--although White House officials talk about it--is still a secret according to the Pentagon, which won't talk about it.

Meanwhile, while rabid military interventionist are using the dog whistle of Al Qaeda creating a new base in northern Mali to encourage continued American military interventions in Africa . . . .

. . . France is organizing an internal diplomatic and military effort from the ECOWAS allies in Africa to intervene.

Let's point out a couple details here for the uninformed:

1.  France, with the world's 8th most powerful military, has far fewer logistical difficulties operating in this area, far more diplomatic and economic ties to the area, and much more influence with most African nations.

2.  The government of Mali accepted the offer to deploy ECOWAS forces in the northern provinces in September, just three days before the US attempted to stall the deployment until that government (the people fighting AGAINST the fundamentalist revolutionaries in the north) agreed to new elections.

So here is a prime example of where a Libertarian foreign policy would come in handy and make far more sense than our current muddling through:

1.  We should not be contemplating an expansion of our military operations in Africa when one of our allies, France, which has fully adequate military and diplomatic capabilities in the region, is both willing and capable of doing so.  If France needs financial or diplomatic support, fine.  But there is no reason for American lives to be placed on the line in the remote hellhole.

2.  Likewise, we should not be telling the government of Mali that the cost of keeping fundamentalist terrorists from a reign of terror in the northern part of the country that the cost of an intervention which the French are arranging and the African states are conducting is new elections.

Comments

delacrat said…
Al Qaeda, Shmal Qaeda...

Obomba's deploying US troops in Mali and Jordan because there aren't any US troops deployed there now.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...