Osler's Razor

Depends upon how you define "policing." I'd like us to spend MORE money on helping developing and undeveloped countries build water treatment plants, schools, and local industry. We could also help fight disease, illiteracy and more.
 

IPLG--

What about things like invading Iraq?
 

Prof.,

That wasn't the question you posed.

I don't think we should invade Iraq now, however.
 

Well, I don't think we can spend less money policing the world if we are going to do things like our last invasion of Iraq-- the question is, are willing to restrain ourselves from such actions in the future, in the absence of much more compelling circumstances?
 

At the time, I thought invading Iraq was a good idea. If it had been done in conjunction with the investment in infrastructure I mentioned at first and with a sensible military strategy and political strategy based upon reality, the results might have been better faster.

So, yes, I agree invading countries in the manner it was done in Iraq in 2003 is a bad idea and should not be repeated. And I doubt it will be for quite some time.

The hotspot now is the AF-PAK border. Perhaps the question should be what to do there now.
 

I'm mostly with IPLG. But come on, we all know Obama's speech was lip service. Sure Iraq is wrapping up, but we also know O's probably going to send more troops to Afghanistan. And do we seriously think he's going to pull the Seventh Fleet away from Taiwan, or stop patrols in the Persian Gulf? And if something did go down in one of those places, exactly how is O going to avoid getting involved?

The point is, we became the world police because it has been in our best interest. Not the invasions, etc., but our ability to guarantee our allies and trade partners that we'll be there to back them up. Whether the potential threat was the USSR, China, or Iran, it's been good for us to watch over our friends. That's why I was so disappointed to see O back down on the missle bases in Eastern Europe (even though when the Wall came down we promised Russia we'd stay out of their backyard). I've got a chapter on this in a forthcoming book, Reinventing the Right: Conservative Voices for the New Millennium.

Also, don't forget that unlike much of our other spending, a huge proportion of our military dollars come right back home. Defense spending = jobs, jobs, jobs. Could we be more efficient? Sure. But wholesale cutbacks? Not a good idea.
 

Jesse--

So, taxpayer dollars are best used for a massive jobs program?

And... how is that conservative, exactly?
 

If the ultimate end of conservatism is to have low taxes and limited government, then yes Prof. Osler, defense spending is not conservative. But, in my view they are not. Limited government and low taxes are a product or a result of conservatism whose ultimate, bottom-line is the sovereignty of the individual (or in a word, liberty).

I’m conservative because I view it to be the most pro-liberty political philosophy (I’m respectful of others who disagree so let’s avoid that tangent). I see no contradiction to say I am pro-liberty at home—which means opposing most forms of nanny-state, government largess, and I am pro-liberty abroad—which means supporting Iranian dissidents, starving North Korean citizens, oppressed Saudi women, a free press in Venezuela, etc. Unfortunately, actually supporting liberty abroad often involves massive amounts of money, such as for military action or the perceived threat of it, or intelligence, or for diplomatic efforts. And of course, there is often too much waste in this type of spending which both parties are guilty of.

So yes, this does involve a lot of spending, but the ultimate goals of preserving liberty at home, and where prudent (and that’s where discussions of Iraq and other such policy come in), supporting liberty abroad are worthwhile in spite of the spending (coincidentally, if federal bureaucracies ran with the efficiency of the military, I would likely support more social programs).

Here’s a crude analogy (not to be taken out of context)—many limited-government conservatives oppose abortion. If the goal of conservatism were to have the leanest, least-expensive federal government possible, than those pro-life conservatives might support abortion on the grounds that it would lessen spending on things like welfare, children’s healthcare, food stamps, and so forth (read: I’m merely making an analogy, do not take me as saying only poor women have abortions or anything like that). But for pro-life conservatives, that fetus is a child, a sovereign individual with rights. So protecting that child’s liberty outweighs whatever federal monies may be spent on that child down the line.

All that to say that when media outlets are shut down, when homosexuals are executed, when citizens are exposed to state-imposed internet firewalls, when Iranian dissidents are beaten in the street, or when Afghani girls are gunned down for going to school, the instinct of most conservatives I’m aware of isn’t to say “Gee, that’s too bad, but I’m just so rigidly opposed to federal spending” rather it is to say “If it’s doable, let’s get their backs.” And that might mean aiding on any number of levels ranging from issuing harsh words to sanctioning military action. Like Jesse says, it’s good for us to back up our friends, and for those who desire to be free. We must strive to be just, prudent, and efficient when we do these types of things, but there is no philosophical contradiction for conservatives to support us “projecting power”. -K
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I found the most interesting subject of Obama's presence at the G20 summit was the US support of Israel; specifically, whether or not Obama will sanction everything Israel does. I'd like to know whether or not the US will shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran preemptively, or what the US response will be if Israel becomes an aggressor.
 

Anon 4:00

I'm wondering about this conservative impulse to fix problems abroad-- does it extend to problems in the U.S.? So,
when homosexuals are killed in Wyoming, when children in Detroit are denied any kind of meaningful education, when working mothers in Kansas are bankrupted by medical bills, or when children are malnourished in Atlanta because of the poverty or ignorance of their parents, it seems like the instinct of most conservatives IS to say “Gee, that’s too bad, but I’m just so rigidly opposed to federal spending we can't do anything” rather than “If it’s doable, let’s get their backs.”

Do you love those foreigners more than these Americans? Or does your conservative ideology just stop at the border?
 

Anon. 4:42,

I reject most of the premise because it implies federal spending is the best course of action in each of those situations. Whereas, foreign policy requires federal spending.

But to address the issues quickly:
1. I know of no mainstream conservative who sanctions killing homosexuals.
2. I would support charter schools and school vouchers (though Detroit is a curious example to use as it is a city run by liberals in a state governed by liberals)
3. The addresses the very healthcare debate the country is currently having-- both sides are pretty well established there, I don't think this is the place to rehash all that
4. Tax breaks for Wal-Marts and other places that carry real groceries and produce to open in inner cities... also, let's not discount charitable giving.

I know that's quick, but again I reject your premise. And I also reject the implication that helping those less fortunate has to come from spending on federal programs -K
 

Like the IPLawguy, I supported the war in Iraq. Unlike IPLG perhaps, I continue to believe the reasons behind our action in Iraq were well-founded and worth the cost in human lives and national treasure. In the long term, I think it is quite likely that most folks will come to see the future Iraq as an improvement over the past.

Having said that, all these individual forays into nation building and regional security may make sense on a case-by-case basis, but, in the aggregate, however, they add up to an unsustainable burden.

Two other issues: because we have done such a good job of keeping bad actors in their place, with no real threats out there, we now have a generation of citizens of the world who see us as the malefactor. Right now we have the ability to be the helicopter parent of the world. However, this retards the natural development of international relations and offers a distorted picture of the world as a peaceful place--and, ironically, creates a avalanche of resentment toward the US.

Side Note: if we abandoned the Middle East to the Russians and Chinese, Osama and company would be planning terrorists attacks on Moscow and Beijing fairly quickly--which would solve part of our national security problem.

The other great problem with our current world hegemony is that our policies are not consistent. That is, any US initiative is subject to a quadrennial referendum. Our system is not compatible with good imperial policy.

Example: AQI caught a bad break with the reelection of George Bush in 2004, as he was determined to stay on until he killed all the bad guys. They made the smart bet--but just got unlucky. However, the real truth is that most locals can outlast the US.

I am increasingly convinced that the future of conservatism can be found in its past: humility, restraint, and a tight focus on our vital national interests in foreign affairs.
 

Waco Farmer:

"if we abandoned the Middle East to the Russians and Chinese, Osama and company would be planning terrorists attacks on Moscow and Beijing fairly quickly--which would solve part of our national security problem."

They already have attacked Moscow and other Russian areas, except they are Chechens who happen to be both Muslim extremists and Chechen separatists (nice mix). Their ties to al-Qaeda are well documented. Secondly, your statement would hold true is our presence there was the only grievance of al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, it is but one on a long list of grievances. -K
 

Anon 4:00--

So you are saying that a conservative addresses domestic issues through tax breaks or policy initiatives, and foreign issues through spending lots of taxpayer money and direct government involvement, as in Iraq?

So, the US should be conservative here with our citizens and profligate abroad?

As for conservatives advocating the killing of homosexuals, that is not the issue-- the question is what conservatives are willing to have government do to stop that from happening.

And how, exactly, does using our taxes to build build a hospital for a socialist health care system in Iraq somehow better than doing so in Newark?

Your argument about liberty is pretty strained. Burgeoning government under GW Bush, in the form of the TSA, did more to restrain liberty than anything someone in Iraq did. Seriously, how did Saddam Hussein threaten my liberties? That makes no sense. He might have indirectly threatened my safety, but that is something different.

Conservatives love to talk about freedom, but I have trouble spotting many places in the US where they have actually defended a freedom, since they are usually for restriction of libery. Don't smoke pot! Don't allow assisted suicide! Don't allow gay marriage! So many "don'ts" for the party of liberty.

But, maybe liberty is really just for the people you pour tax money out over across the ocean.
 

Anon 4:42

My main point was just to say that conservatives often have no problem with spending on a large scale when it comes to a prudent and just show of American power abroad. They aren’t simply opposed to any federal spending as the original post seemed to imply.
Of course we shouldn’t spend just to spend abroad, but a grand strategy to defeat the forces of terror (I’m not saying we have one, just that I’d support it if we did) is something most conservatives can get behind just as conservatives were fiercely anti-communist.
As for liberty at home, I’m with you on a lot of those. I think conservatives (among which I do not count GW Bush, btw) often get too hung up on social issues at the national level. If Vermont wants to have gay marriage, Oregon wants to have assisted suicide, and California was to legalize marijuana for medicinal uses, fine by me. I’m more inclined to defer to federalist on many of these issues. There is no “party” of liberty. I usually vote Republican because it is the more conservative of the two parties, but I do vote libertarian as well.
We have pretty differing views on government which we won’t settle in Prof. Osler’s comment section. But thanks for engaging!-K
 

Tough to respond to everything raised here -- lots of fascinating forays into political philosophy and contemporary politics.

In a general sense, I would agree with ILPG's first statement. It would serve our national interest, and the global interests, if we established a more consistent policy of basic, infrastructural development for those who want it.

My essential problem with "K"'s strategy is that it assumes a single ideology (ours) is the right and just one, the path towards sovereignty of the subject. I'm not going to endorse wholesale relativism (it's ok if a culture collectively decides to kill homosexuals), but I want to complicate that stance, to demand a high degree of rigour and debate, before to "get their backs."
 

Prof-

No, I don't support a massive jobs program. I support a strong national defense, and its ancillary economic benefits.

My original point was, O's going to do with foreign policy what he's done with everything else so far--talk a big game, and then either continue the Bush policies with slight nuances, or fail to achieve the change he's looking for.

As to what some of the other commenters have said: I don't think that carrying the banner of freedom everywhere it needs to go is our job alone. Liberating the oppressed is a moral imperative, but that doesn't mean that, as a rule, we need to sacrifice our lives and treasure to preserve someone else's. But if our interests are implicated, and if we can do some good by projecting our influence directly or indirectly, then we should go for it. For the most part, that has been our foreign policy throughout our nation's history, and it's worked.
 

As the resident radical Republican in this group, I thought I would chime in:

1. I don't support the US acting as global police.

2. I don't think the US was acting as global police in Iraq. That was was justified as responding to a particular threat posed to the US (WMD). I'm not saying that was a real threat, or that it was a particularly realistic one, but that was how it was justified to the US public. As a response to a particularized threat to the US. Whether you think the war was a bad idea or not, this wasn't sold as a war for democracy, it was sold as a war to stop a crazed tyrant from bombing us or our allies. That is core realism. Protect yourself and your allies. And I think realism is a strain of foreign policy thought that is closely aligned with traditional conservatism.

3. I think an example of a police action would be something like the US intervening in the Rwandan genocide or the genocide in Darfur. There is no interest in those conflicts for the US other than stopping atrocity. Liberals, at least traditionally, have thought that would be a perfectly good use for the military. Over the last 20-30 years, a strain of neo-conservatives also began to think this would be a good use of US military power.

4. So, the question is should the US intervene in situations that in no way affect US military, economic, or geopolitical interests in order to bring liberty and freedom to others? Or simply to stop tyranny? Or simply to stop horrible atrocities from continuing?

If you think the answer is yes then you think the US should serve as global police. I happen to think we shouldn't.

5. I do believe in a strong military. I believe in a highly technologically advanced fighting force. I believe in national missile defense. I believe in protecting our allies (Israel among them). And I believe that force can be an appropriate response in certain circumstances.

Just some random thoughts from a crazy person...
 

Oh, and I hate the UN as well.
 

RRL--

So, it doesn't matter that Iraq never posed a threat to us? That was still ok, to spend billions of dollars first to invade, and then to use American tax dollars to build highways and hospitals and schools and power plants there instead of here?

That is crazy.
 

Republicans believe that government earmarks for defense spending are OK because it's the kind of "bailout" of the heavy industries that they can support, mostly because they take kickbacks or sit on boards for these companies. War is business, and our business is war.

Small government conservatives never seem to worry too much about an expanding military; "respect for the military" and nationalism are the bread and butter of these people.

"A strong national defense" is the catchy phrase people use to justify this spending, just like I'd use "a moral imperative" to justify a national healthcare system. Except whenever I do it, I get called a "dreamer" or a thief wanting to take people's tax dollars for something with many times the tangible benefit to every American than a costly and expensive foreign war that will get my fellow youth killed.

On the other hand, I realize that the good thing about a democratic government is that sometimes the government gets to spend money in ways I don't agree with because other people were elected that decided money needed to be spent that way. What you don't see me doing is claiming that this is thievery or walking around with a sandwich board proclaiming that the government is takin' my money and I'm going to hole up in a bunker and resist.

I guess that's the difference between pansy liberals and manly conservatives, eh?
 

I think the US invasion of Iraq was wrong. I re-read point 2 by RRL and think he said the US people were sold a bill of goods on Iraq. I would not call Iraq an example of policing. Don't get me wrong - the world is a better place without Suddam Hussein and family terrorizing their fellow Iraqi's.

I think the UN and NATO forces do more of the policing and humanitarian aid work and are better equipped to do so.

The US tries to protect it's interests and a side effect of this is that we feel we should impose some level of democracy and choice in such countries. In doing so we (appear to) neglect to consider hundred or thousands of years of evolved social systems in these areas. You can't get real change by shoving it down people's throats.

I feel it is appropriate to help rebuild infa-structure to a country after bombing the daylights out of it. But I think there needs to be reasonable expectations of what that means. Each situation is unique. Iraq did not have a clean water and electricity flowing throughout the country so we should not feel it is our responsibility to make it so. If we destroy the power plant and the water treatment plant then we should pay to repair them and help insure that the funds are spent to make the repairs. We should supervise the repair/rebuild but allow the local people to do the owrk and earn the wages. If 'we' destroy the local hospital, then 'we' should ensure an equal facility is re-built. A bold 'Marshall' plan is not called for in every instance and isn't always appropriate.

Afghanistan is an entirely different animal. A country at war with itself and neighbors for well over 30 years. Not only do we face cultural and religous differences that we struggle to understand but we face multiple generations of people who no nothing but war and fear. Yes we have interest in Afghanistan, a desire to build a cross continent oil pipeline and the Afg/Pak border where Osama bin Laden and company are still holed up and training terrorists. Each problem requiring different approaches.
 

Not that this is of any particular interest to anyone on this thread--but here is the essence of one of my posts from a few years back when things in Iraq were fairly dreadful.

RRL should read this and memorize it.

November 2006

Just for the record, one more time, here are the reasons that going into Iraq made sense at the time:

1. Saddam was bad. He deserved ouster, capture, trial and execution. Twenty-five million Iraqis deserved an opportunity to take control of their lives free of Saddam's oppressive regime.

2. Saddam was at war with the United States and a threat to regional security. For more than a decade, we flew combat missions over Iraq and drew anti-aircraft fire everyday. Our forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia to neutralize the threat Saddam posed to the region. Our presence in Saudi (part of our essential commitment to preserving the peace) irritated the international Muslim community. In fact, Osama bin Laden cited our presence in Saudi Arabia as the casus belli for war against America in general and 9-11 specifically.

3. Saddam was contained--but only as a result of the costly military commitments cited above. In addition, Saddam was contained as a result of a United Nations sanctions regime. Before the war, several human rights organizations charged that the heartless US-driven sanctions policy had killed upwards of 500,000 Iraqis through malnutrition and lack of adequate medical attention. Later, we learned of massive corruption on the part of the UN in administering the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq. Moreover, by 2002, the flagging resolve of the French and other European powers threatened the entire sanctions program. Containment was a leaky policy taking on more water every day.

4. Saddam unbound meant a return to the status quo ante bellum in which he had threatened his neighbors and worked assiduously to manufacture and deploy weapons of mass destruction.

5. All of that seemed no longer tenable in a post-9-11 world. Why? Saddam was connected to 9-11 in that the insecurity he created in the region contributed to the greater instability and discontent, which facilitated terrorism. If Saddam could be deposed, many of us believed that a new Iraq would emerge, which would begin a process that might lead to an era of reform in the Middle East, which might ultimately make Islamic terrorists as rare and irrelevant as Ku Klux Klan terrorists.

All that to say, Iraq was a war of choice--but it was not a frivolous choice. Granted, now we face potential crises in the region of our own making that dwarf the old inconveniences. However, while it is tempting to view the past through the knowledge of the present, we must remember that the Iraq policy emerged from a long list of terrible choices. Doing nothing was an extremely unattractive option in the post-9-11 world.

The Bottom Line: all of that is unalterable history. Now What?
 

Great question, Prof.

It really shows how fictional a strict division between "conservatives" and "liberals" is.
 

I know nobody is reading this, but Osler, I didn't say, and certainly didn't mean to imply that it doesn't matter that Iraq ACTUALLY WASN'T a threat to us. I was simply saying that the way the war was sold, as an action to stop a hostile country from getting WMD that could threaten US global strategic interests and safety, isn't a police function. That is the way that realism works. You go after threats to your country.

I'm not saying the war was right or wrong. Or that it was a war we should've fought, I'm simply saying that using Iraq as an example of where the US is acting as global police is I think a poor example.

And, this was hilarious from Lane:

"What you don't see me doing is claiming that this is thievery or walking around with a sandwich board proclaiming that the government is takin' my money and I'm going to hole up in a bunker and resist.

I guess that's the difference between pansy liberals and manly conservatives, eh?"

Ummmm, yes, the liberals NEVER protest the way conservative governments spend their money. I can't think of SINGLE EXAMPLE of that. EVER. Liberals just sit back and say, "oh well, they won, guess we better get on board because we live in a democracy."
 

LIBERALS START MOST OF THE WARS AND WILL START THE NEXT SOCIALIST WAR WITH THE AMERICANS. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN LIBERTY, YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT IT IS LIKE IN EUROPE OR THE IRAQ. GLENN BECK SAID IT BEST: "I CAN'T BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CAN BE THAT STUPID TO VOTE FOR THIS!"
 

Anon 4:28

I have relatives in Europe and they seem to be pretty happy.

As for Glen Beck's comment - the other 50% said the same thing about the people who voted for 'W'.

Life is a highway enjoy the ride....
 

RRL, I speak only for myself. I claim no political allegiance with nor spokesperson status for American liberals.