Foreign Policy Handbook Issue 1

“When you want to fool the world, tell the truth”

YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY

The Young Americans for Liberty Foreign Policy

Handbook

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH

Issue I | April 2010

Foreign Policy

Handbook: The Young Americans for Liberty

Foreign Policy Handbook

April 2010

Young Americans for Liberty | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 | http://www.yaliberty.org | [email protected] | April 2010 1

Contents

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 con-

duct. 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.

Executive Director

Jeff Frazee

Editor in Chief

Roy Antoun

Layout Editor

Bonnie Kristian

Art Director

Nicholas Leavens

Contributors

Wesley Messamore

Nelson Chase

Brandon Cestrone

Jeremy Davis

Daniel Suraci

Brandon DeMeo

How to Solve the Middle East Problem

By Roy Antoun

Is Russia an Economic Powerhouse?

By Daniel Suraci

POINT/ COUNTERPOINT: Where the Tea Parties and the Liberty Movement Diverge

By Nelson Chase & Roy Antoun

Afghanistan: The Graveyard of Empires

By Jeremy Davis

Is Iran Really a “Threat”?

By Brandon Cestrone

Obama’s Nuclear Policy is Just More Hyped Up “Change”

By Wesley Messamore

What Can America Learn From European Imperialism in the Middle East?

By Brandon Cestrone

OPINION: Speak Their Own Language if You Want to Change Their Minds

By Brendon DeMeo

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

Letter From the Editor


Dear Reader,

As the United States continues its prolonged foreign policy of inter-

vention and wasteful “humanitarian” spending, it is safe to say that

whatever diplomatic actions the U.S. has taken through the past

century were, for the most part, flawed and basic violations of how

a Realist leadership should act. Niccolo Machiavelli once wrote in

The Prince that “putting on one side imaginary things concerning a

prince, and discussing those which are real… are remarkable for

some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise.” It

seems to be that American foreign policy has taken the imaginary

thoughts of empire and applied it to an impossible and improbable

global scale.

Neoconservatives often believe “that history can be pushed along

with the right application of power and will,” to quote ex-

neoconservative Francis Fukuyama. Mr. Fukuyama’s distaste for

the Leninist and interventionist structure of neoconservatism can be matched over a century prior

to his aversion. Otto von Bismarck, once stated that, “the river of history flows as it will, and if I

put my hand in it, this is because I regard it as my duty, not because I think I can change its

course.” Alas, neoconservatism serves as the antithesis to Bismarck’s wisdom and American for-

eign policy serves as the antithesis to common sense and reason.

House Members, Senators, and State Department staff from both isles of the American political

spectrum have twisted the Republic into a hegemonic Western Democracy. Socialism and excess

taxes have funded and fueled a “compassionate” government to transform agencies such as

USAID into nation-building schemes that have crafted the American economy into an artificial

wave of Keynesian illusory markets. As Realists continue to say that our foreign policy is driven

by “national interest”, we must reevaluate what the national interest is and for once place a cost-

benefit analysis on our foreign policy that includes taxation and, most importantly, human lives .

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem

[one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought

to shape its administration." – Thomas Jefferson

Roy M. Antoun

Want to write for Foreign Policy 101? Contact [email protected]

Find us on the web:

http://yaliberty.org

Find us on Facebook

http://facebook.com/yaliberty

Follow us on Twitter

http://twitter.com/yaliberty

About the Foreign Policy Handbook

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 interven-

tionism. 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.

http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

How to Solve the Middle East Problem

By Roy Antoun

“How fortunate for governments that the people they administer

don't think.” – Adolf Hitler

For the United States, the Middle East has become a hotbed

of misconstrued politics and regional power struggles that have

created an undesired status quo in contemporary foreign af-

fairs. The colloquial quagmire that we (the United States) have

gotten ourselves into is not new and nor does it require a new

theory on foreign policy to solve. What neoconservatives and

many think tanks such as the Project for a New American Cen-

tury have established was the continuation of status quo in

which the United States would remain to be the forerunner of

democracy. The theory of ‘perpetual peace’ has long been dis-

proven and now American foreign policy must find its way out

of entangling alliances and back to an era of peace and prosper-

ity.

“We make war that we may live in peace.” – Aristotle

Basic international relations theories dictate that the objec-

tive of war is to find peace and the objective of peace is to main-

tain peace by preparing for war. States will always act upon

their best interests, regardless of domestic popular opinion.

What I am arguing, however, is that the course of action that

the United States has been taking in regards to Middle East pol-

icy is not in the national interest and has actually devalued

American global power as a result.

What policymakers in Washington must first come to real-

ize is that the meddling in internal state affairs, or nation build-

ing, always results in a large deficit and aggressive nature that

an international arena views as a threat. It was the threat of

empires expanding that helped toss Europe into war in World

War I. French colonies in North Africa, German colonies in

South Africa, British colonies in India and Egypt, as well as the

threat of a rising American power through Cuba and the Philip-

pines brought an aggressive atmosphere that smothered Europe

in 1914.

The mistakes of the past, however, have been forgotten.

American induced nation building in the Philippines led to

a drastic loss of American troops to guerrilla style warfare after

occupation. The propped up Weimar government by the victors

of World War I brought high grades of inflation and radical

civil society in Germany, one of which went by the acronym of

“NSDAP”. The sovereignty of colonized territories in the Middle

East was not sovereign at all, but was instead propped up by

European crafted mandates during the 1920’s. In other words,

natives to the land did not style their own governments or

boundaries, but rather, bureaucrats from Europe did instead.

The times of the early 1900s are no different from the times

we live in today. Just as the turn of the 20th century shifted a

unipolar world (England being the sole power) to a multipolar

world (Germany, the US, and France as emerging powers), the

turn of the 21st century did the same. We have shifted from the

unipolar era of American world policing to Fareed Zakaria’s

“Rise of the Rest”.

In regards to Congressional Hearings dealing with civil so-

cieties in ‘failing’ states such as Yemen, the U.S. or Western so-

lution to the problem hasn’t changed. Assistant Secretary

Feltman’s solution to Yemen emerging from its economic insta-

bility was for the United States to “throw money” into develop-

ing the emergence of civil societies in Yemen. The common

misconception of civil societies equating to successful democra-

cies has never been clarified to the State Department. The

NSDAP, or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, was

in fact, at one point, a ‘civil society’ that gained electoral votes

in Weimar parliament, essentially dismantling its political in-

frastructure from within. This was the birth of the Nazi Party; a

civil society, grassroots movement. Simply verifying whether

Yemen has civil societies emerging is not enough, but rather,

the types of civil societies should be of most importance. Then

again, is this truly the business of the United States, especially if

the State Department will be funding the growth of said civil

societies?

Barbara Tuchman, author of The Guns of August, argued

that the entirety of World War I could have been avoided if

Kaiser Wilhelm had reversed Moltke’s decision to mobilize

troops into Belgium. The same can be said about an aggressive

United States. American politicians need to realize that con-

tinuously placing sanctions on an angered Iran can lead to dis-



aster. The Iranian government’s actions have all been responses

to flawed American foreign policy. With thirty years of silence

from the US Department of State and an influx of sanctions on

behalf of the US, in addition to the placement of an American

war fleet in the Persian Gulf overlooking Iran’s Abadan oil field,

it is no wonder why Iran has been acting defensively against the

United States. Iran, with both Eastern and Western borders

threatened by a US military presence, is only acting in its own

best interest and the American people need to accept that.

Regarding the Green Revolution, Congressmen on the For-

eign Affairs Committee came to the conclusion that it was im-

perative for American funds be sent to aid the Green Move-

ment. Academics such as Dr. Geneive Abdo from the Century

Foundation testified that keeping the Green Movement alive

meant sending financial aid to ensuring that anti-government

websites stay up as well as maintaining Twitter and YouTube

accessibility on behalf of the protesters. Although this ‘solution’

may provide for temporary fixes, the sheer thought of interven-

ing in the domestic affairs of Iran is flawed within itself.

Looking at history we can conclude that every moment

America arbitrated the domestic affairs of another country, any-

thing but progress was the result. The United States choosing

human rights issues in Cuba as an excuse to go to war with

Spain in 1898 resulted in the creation of protectorates in Cuba

and the Philippines. Today, Cuba remains communist and we

have ceased any trade with the little island country. The pres-

ence of US troops occupying the Philippines caused the Philip-

pine-American War and continuous guerilla warfare for almost

13 years after the war had ‘ended’. Today, the southern Philip-

pines contains several anti-West, Muslim radical groups.

Our vehement desire to assure Immanuel Kant’s theory of

‘Perpetual Peace’ only led to our meddling in Korean affairs in

the 1950’s. However, the conflict has deeper roots leading back

to 1945 when the Allies split Korea in half (North & South)

without the consent of the Korean people. In doing this, the

Soviet Union and the United States both had influence over the

Korean territories thus leading to the Korean War and an esca-

lation in the Cold War conflict. Today, North Korea is a US en-

emy and has continuously threatened the United States with its

nuclear capabilities.

The same can be said about Vietnam, the removal of the

Shah in Iran, the divide of Germany (in both World Wars), na-

tion-building in Iraq, and now the third attempt at changing

the Iranian government.

The clear solution to this problem is to end the meddling of

internal state affairs in other countries.

When will our leaders learn?

Is Russia an Economic Powerhouse?

By Daniel Suraci

An aphorism attributed to Sun Tzu states, “Appear weak

when you are strong, and strong when you are weak”. Today, as

Russia postures itself as an economic giant, one must question

if this saying is in play. As a country steeped in nationalism and

imperial history, many Russians, including many high ranking

officials, view Russia as incomplete without an empire.

Since the financial collapse of 1998, the Russian economy

has been lost in the limbo of free markets and socialism. While

in theory, many government-run services became private, in

fact, they were and still are subject to heavy government inter-

ference. This interference with the private sector has left Russia

with a stagnant economy. Out of 133 countries, Russia came in

51st in their innovation score from last year as measured by the

World Economic Forum. This problem is well acknowledged in

Russia, as Mr. Medvedev himself recently wrote, “Should we

drag a primitive economy based on raw materials and endemic

corruption into the future?” As Mr. Medvedev states, Russia's

corrupt bureaucracy has plagued any economic growth in the

country. Transparency International ranked Russia has being

the 146th most corrupt nation in the world. In comparison, the

United States was ranked 19th.

Not surprisingly for a country still seeped in socialist tradi-

tion, Russia does not protect its citizens’ property rights, a criti-

cism which has been the topic of great political debate. On the

property rights index, Russia scored a 30 of a possible 100. Only

Bosnia ranks lower on the European continent. Russia's poor

score comes not only from a lack of laws protecting property

rights, but an inability to enforce the laws that do exist due to

corruption, geographic, and struggling with central planning.

While Russia has many problems preventing economic


Point/ Counterpoint | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

growth, the country also possesses a great amount of natural

resources. Russia is the third largest exporter of steel in the

world, and the largest exporter of oil and natural gas. These

commodities give Russia not only wealth, but bargaining power

throughout much of the world. Furthermore, steel and oil are

the key ingredients to create a war machine.

Russia, like the United States, had a bail-out of its big busi-

nesses in reaction to the most recent financial meltdown. Also,

arguably like the United States, Russia has a state owned

“bailout bank” named Vnesheconombank (roughly translated,

“Outward Development Bank”). Since 1997, Russia's M2 money

supply has increased from 295.2 billion rubles to 15,565.9 billion

rubles, a 52 fold increase. Since the crisis took hold, Russia has

been inflating its money supply like many other Western coun-

tries. Since 2007, Russia's money has been inflated from

8,995.8 billion rubles to 15,565.9 billion rubles, nearly doubling.

An Austrian analysis would obviously state that any economic

growth with this much monetary inflation over such a short

period of time is not sustainable.

In 1992, Russians experienced hyperinflation after increas-

ing its money supply dramatically over a short period of time, a

typical result of large government. Perhaps fearful of facing

hyperinflation again, Russia has been demanding a return to an

international gold standard. Russia is rich in gold, and claims

to have large stores of bullion. With the United States dollar

possibly losing its reserve status as result of the latest financial

crisis, Russia is in a good position with its commodities and

gold to take advantage of the failings of other countries. More-

over, the return to a gold standard would stabilize Russia's own

money supply, allowing for a revival of business. One has to

wonder if Russia sees this advantage in light of their own infla-

tion or as posturing against a United States based reserve for

political reasons.

Russia's symbol, the bear, has expressed two different at-

tributes throughout history: ferocity and lethargy. The dichot-

omy of the bear between the vicious predator, and the sleeping

hibernator is applicable here as well. Russia's economy cur-

rently struggles with government corruption, and massive infla-

tion of its money supply, but is propped up by its rich wealth of

commodities. Russia is currently a sleeping bear with great po-

tential, but a bear nonetheless.

POINT/ COUNTERPOINT

Where the Tea Parties

and the Liberty Movement Diverge:

Ending Economic Insanity and the

Unconstitutional War in Afghanistan

By Nelson Chase

POINT: There is a rising movement within the United States to re-

turn to a limited constitutional based government. They cry for

a return to the founding principles of our great Republic and

that only this can save us from big government. This is of

course the Tea Party movement and it has brought together

various outraged citizens and has gained high power endorse-

ments from established neoconservative Republican leadership,

while claiming to be separate from the Republican Party. The

Tea Party is a movement with tremendous potential but I find

in it one glaring contradiction. This glaring contradiction is in

regards to foreign policy. How many times have you heard a

major Tea Party leader, besides Congressman Ron Paul, come

out and speak against the unconstitutional war in Afghanistan?

If we are to return to constitutional principles we need to stop

unconstitutional wars. You can’t pick and choose to support

one part of the constitution and then disregard another. This is

what people in the Tea Party are doing. Health care is unconsti-

tutional they say but so is not declaring war since World War II.

Somehow these neoconservatives justify fighting wars without

following the clear process set forth in the constitution and

claim to be for the constitution. How “Realistic” is that? The

Liberty Movement is in danger if the neoconservatives take over

the Tea Party movement and the GOP establishment wants to

do just that.

Any movement towards a Constitutional based limited gov-

ernment must include a movement towards a foreign policy

that returns to the principles of America’s founding fathers.

This is where the neoconservative Tea Party activists, supported

by established Republican leadership, and true Liberty groups

like Young Americans for Liberty & Campaign for Liberty di-

verge. We are told that we should agree to disagree on this


Point/ Counterpoint | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

topic since it is not as important as other challenges facing lib-

erty- healthcare reform, out of control spending, and expansion

of government. Yet true supporters of Liberty must disagree. If

Americans realistically want to return to fiscal sanity and a lim-

ited constitutional government then our interventionist foreign

policy has to change since it is unconstitutional. Economic re-

sponsibility and Afghanistan are interwoven and this message

must be put forth. When you examine the constitutionality of

the war in Afghanistan and the economic cost of the war it be-

comes clear how interwoven these issues are to freedom and a

limited government.

Many people will argue that the war in Afghanistan and

fiscal responsibility are not related. We should cut spending

else were and that Afghanistan is one small issues in a larger sea

of issues. In reality this is not the case. In October 2009 the De-

partment of Defense reported to the House of Representatives

that it would require an additional $33 Billion to escalate com-

bat operations in Afghanistan. This is on top of the $65 billion

Congress authorized for 2010. That’s $98 billion for this year

alone for just the war in Afghanistan. Malou Innocent of the

Cato Institute reported that since 2001 the U.S. Agency for In-

ternational Development has spent more than $7.8 billion on

Afghanistan reconstruction. This year alone USAID will spend

$6 to $7 billion on Afghanistan. Add the $98 Billion and this $7

billion and we get over $100 billion spent this fiscal year alone.

Our national deficit was $1.4 Trillion in 2009. Imagine if we

would have taken the funds for our “war” in Afghanistan and

used it to pay down the deficit? Would that not help return us

to fiscal responsibility? Or what if we used it to pay down the

$12 trillion national debt? It would instantly reduce our national

debt this year alone by $105 billion. The reality of the situation

is that the war in Afghanistan and fiscal responsibility are inter-

related and can’t be separated.

A return to a government that obeys and follows the Con-

stitution must require following all the provisions. The Foun-

ders had a noninterventionist foreign policy- one radically dif-

ferent than the past century of American foreign relations. For

the Tea Party to be truly based on Liberty it must return to the

Founders’ original foreign policy. Their foreign policy was sim-

ple, eloquent and above all else, peaceful. Thomas Jefferson said

in his first inaugural address that America wanted “peace, com-

merce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alli-

ances with none.” George Washington said “The great rule of

conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our

commercial relations, to have with them as little political con-

nection as possible.” The founding fathers were for peace, free

trade, and diplomacy not nation-building and war. Thus far, the

war in Afghanistan does not follow this ideal.

In Article I Section VIII of the constitution the Founders

gave the power to declare war to the United States Congress as

part of the checks and balance system that helped curve indi-

vidual presidents from having too much power and entangling

America in foreign ventures without the consent of the people.

The elected officials in the Congress represent the people. Not

since the Second World War has the United States declared

war. All of the conflicts since have not followed the constitution

and both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. On this

basis alone the “war” in Afghanistan is unconstitutional since a

declaration of war, as required by the constitution, has not been

issued. It will save lives, money and start us on the path to lib-

erty. We can finally start to confidently say that the Constitu-

tion means something and that we follow the rule of law. We

can also help our prestige in the world by saying it is not our

job to say “We do it this way; so should you.”

To be truly a liberty movement the Tea Parties must advo-

cate for an end to unconstitutional wars and curb national

spending and debt. These two issues can’t be separated. All un-

constitutional policies must be suspended and liberty restored;

that’s the true Tea Party message. The GOP establishment

doesn’t want this because it supports the unconstitutional war

in Afghanistan. True sons and daughters of Liberty realize that

by ending the war in Afghanistan our nation will cut spending

and debt by billions each year and return to a sound constitu-

tional platform for government without hypocrisy. A movement

for limited constitutional government means no support for

policies and actions that are unconstitutional, which the war in

Afghanistan is. Tea Party advocates need to tell the GOP to fol-

low this or get out of our movement.

COUNTERPOINT:

By Roy Antoun

While ending unconstitutional wars should be a priority for

any elected official who promises to uphold the bearings of the

Constitution, we cannot ignore the fact that the United States

still has enemies abroad that show discontent to our foreign



policy structure. Consequently, we must establish what the

threat is, where it has come from, and how to deal with it in a

Constitutional, legal, and pragmatic manner.

If the threat is Al-Qaeda, then the Taliban is not. The De-

partment of State often forgets that the friends of our past usu-

ally turn into our enemies of today for a particular reason that I

will delve into later in this counter-point. The Taliban operates

as a type of national defense. Those who consist of the Taliban

are individuals who are protecting their homes and are not des-

tined to destroy the West as many neoconservatives believe.

Nevertheless, Al-Qaeda, separate from the Taliban, must still be

dealt with and punished for the crimes committed on Septem-

ber 11, 2001.

The threat of Al-Qaeda has erected from a flawed foreign

policy. The 9-11 Commission Report officially stated that “there

was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin

Laden on unconventional weapons.” Being that there were no

ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, the war waged in Iraq was a

blunder, only angering more locals to reacting on an enlarged

American presence in the Middle East. Hence, not only was

American foreign policy mission creeping, but it offered no vi-

able solution to finding those responsible for the criminal acts

of September 11th.

Since Al-Qaeda is more of an international organization

rather than a militant group operating through national bor-

ders and boundaries, it’s somewhat difficult to declare war on

an organization or group of people versus a country. If we allow

the Federal Government to declare wars on organizations, this

only expands the role of government, giving Congress and the

Executive a legally infinite venue to spread Americans troops

around the world (and what stops Government from then de-

claring war on the Young Americans for Liberty?). Therefore,

when our Presidents warn us of the “War in Afghanistan,” we

must establish that a war on a country is illegal unless declared.

Perhaps the “War on Al-Qaeda” would be more appropriate.

A solution to dealing with the threat Al-Qaeda poses is two-

fold. Primarily, we must begin to lessen the amount of military

bases we have around the world. The thought of an American

Empire only incites more intervention in more countries. It is-

n’t by coincidence that for every country we choose to “aid”

domestically, those same people grow hatred and dissent to us

in the future. Thus is the case with Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, and

Korea. As a result, retracting American troops from our global

empire will show the world that we are willing to trade and do

business, not divide and conquer.

There are many advantages to lessening the amount of mili-

tary bases around the world. Lest we forget how much money

wars and bases cost at the expense of the American taxpayer. If

Congress doesn’t want to buy into the argument that “Empire”

is bad, then perhaps they will realize that our foreign policy is

driving us to bankruptcy.

The second solution would be to utilize Special Operations

forces that do not require hefty military bases or a large occupa-

tion of U.S. troops. Intelligence Operations and clean “get-in-

get-out” operations are much more viable and cost-effective.

They will target those responsible rather than interfering in

civilian populations via nation building.

Afghanistan:

The Graveyard of Empires

By Jeremy Davis

“Afghanistan has not been and never will be conquered, and will

never surrender to anyone.” – Czar Babur

As the United States’ eight year war in Afghanistan contin-

ues on, America seems to be chiseling its own headstone in the

so-called “graveyard of empires.”

From Alexander the Great and Genghis Kahn to the British

and Soviet Empires, numerous great powers have fought to

conquer the lands of Afghanistan only to be equally repelled by

a resistance put forth by the Afghan people.

And now the American Empire is on the fast track in join-

ing the ranks of the fallen empires who strived to impose their

imperialistic will on a quite resilient nation.

Although the sun may never have set on the British Empire

during its height in power, the sun never truly rose for the Brit-

ish’s aspirations for an occupied Afghanistan. Three times the

British invaded Afghanistan and three times they were forced to

withdrawal during what is known as the Anglo-Afghan wars.

From 1838 to 1842, the British Empire first tried to secure

Afghanistan under British influence when it invaded with the

intent of installing a ruler who would act favorably toward Brit-



ish interests. But before the British could really get comfortable,

resistance was mounting in response to the rule of the pro-

British king Shah Shuja al-Mulk and eventually developed into

a full fledged uprising. The British forces were devastated as

they withdrew from Kabul and eventually all of Afghanistan.

The second Anglo-Afghan war that took place from 1878 to

1880 ultimately resulted in the same outcome as in the first ex-

cursion.

In their third go around in 1919, the British Empire’s even-

tual withdrawal allowed for Afghani leaders to finally secure the

country’s independence from Great Britain.

Of course more recently, it was the Soviet Empire’s mis-

guided invasion of Afghanistan that lead to its eventual col-

lapse.

In 1979, the Soviet Empire began what would turn out to be

an utterly ruinous campaign when it invaded the Afghani capi-

tol of Kabul. The Russians battled the U.S. backed Mujahideen

with a number of heavy handed tactics, although they were not

enough to combat the ambitious dedication of the Afghan in-

surgents or the rugged terrain of which the Afghans knew so

well.

After a decade of battling a losing war against the Afghani

insurgents, the Soviets were forced to withdrawal from the bor-

ders of Afghanistan in a disastrous and bloody defeat. As the

world’s second most powerful military at the time, the Russians

could not outlast the Afghani people fighting on their own turf.

This conflict contributed to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union

and the soon after collapse of their empire.

And now the American Empire is bogged down in what has

become its longest war since the invasion in 2001. The death

count for both U.S. soldiers and Afghani civilians climbs as

President Obama commits 30,000 more troops to continue an

unwarranted occupation. The United States currently finds it-

self in an almost mirror position as many of the past empires

who stepped foot inside the Afghani borders.

But perhaps the most underlying key element in all of these

examples is the ability of a small guerilla style fighting force to

give some of the world’s greatest powers ever known a run for

their money. The facts just stand that this region simply cannot

be conquered militarily. Just by the mere act of being there, in

their lands, provokes a fervent spirit of resistance in the Afghani

people that apparently cannot be broken despite the military

might forced upon them.

The American Empire is destined to meet a similar fate to

those of past empires whom thought to expand their imperialis-

tic clutches over the seemingly unconquerable lands of Af-

ghanistan.

Is Iran Really a “Threat”?

By Brandon Cestrone

Most Americans can recall the day the U.S. first launched

its war against Saddam Hussein with the intent of finding

“weapons of mass destruction”. Today, evidence reveals that

there were no WMDs, and Iraq posed no threat to America’s

national security. Yet, our soldiers are still stationed in Iraq,

uncertain why America invaded a sovereign country. Dissi-

dence allows many to view oil as a leading factor in the decision

to go to war with Iraq. Others view Iraq as a developing democ-

ratic state, with the U.S. nurturing it into a mature, future ally.

Democratic Peace Theory, of course, has not worked and only

compounded the Middle East problem. The theory fragmented

the Iraqi state and served as a catalyst of Pan-Arabism working

against American imperialism.

Did we learn anything from Iraq? Nation building costs

both money and precious human lives. Entangling a state in

foreign wars can lead to bankruptcy, we have seen with the for-

mer Soviet Union. Occupation on foreign land fuels disdain and

animosity. Although there has been talk and chatter of an inva-

sion of Iran, the thought is unrealistic and impractical. A med-

dling in Iran’s affairs will only perplex and expand our current

hegemonic problems.

The Middle East has a complex history compiled with Euro-

pean and American intervention. In 1951 the Iranian govern-

ment nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC] only,

after the company was nationalized by the British. In 1950, the

AIOC earned annual profits of about 200 million pounds, but

Iran only received about eight percent in royalties. So small an

amount, it did not balance the taxes and dues paid to Britain.

Britain, along with the United States, overthrew the democrati-

cally elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 as a strate-

gic move to protect their interests in the region. These Western

states then installed the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to rule

Iran in absolute power. The Shah of Iran would repress his own

people, and later hold 53 Americans hostage for 444 days in

1973.

Recently, we have seen a defensive Iran test missiles in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Pahlavi



hopes to gain regional legitimacy. Now, propaganda has galva-

nized public support against Iran for supposed nuclear weap-

ons, but again without any evidence. Iran has exaggerated its

enriched supply of uranium; it has yet to reach a fully capable

enrichment of 20% uranium stock, let alone the 90% it needs to

create a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. has threatened to place additional sanctions on

Iran, cutting off the oil supply into the country. Sanctions are

an act of aggression and have the potential of uniting the Ira-

nian people against U.S. Rather, diplomatic relations should be

conducted through free trade and negotiations, not provocative

naval maneuvers along the Persian Gulf, threatening Iran’s

Abadan oil fields.

It is easy to see that Iran poses an exaggerated threat to

America. Although Iran is an oppressive state that obstructs

liberty, its revolution must come from within – and it has. This

is a chance for America to avoid past mistakes. Invading foreign

countries does not pacify regimes; it creates them. Imperialism

is no stranger to the Middle East.

Obama’s Nuclear Policy

Is Just More Hyped Up “Change”

By Wesley Messamore

There was a lot of fanfare on both sides of the partisan di-

vide when President Obama announced a “substantially” re-

vamped American nuclear strategy earlier this month. Accord-

ing to The New York Times, “Mr. Obama described his policy as

part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nu-

clear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to

give up any nuclear ambitions.”

Critics are unhappy with a policy that they believe makes

America less safe and perfectly exemplifies their image of

Barack Obama as a weak head of state, hell-bent on apologizing

for American greatness and making unnecessary concessions to

the world. Meanwhile supporters are predictably fawning over

the president for making bold changes in the direction of nu-

clear non-proliferation and disarmament.

What critics and supporters have in common, is that they

are both blowing these changes way out of proportion, giving

Obama either more credit or more blame than he is due. Take

Matt Drudge for instance, who dramatically overstated the ad-

ministration’s changes with a bright red, all-caps headline at

The Drudge Report that said: “NO NUKES – EVEN IN SELF-

DEFENSE!”

Obama's nuclear policy does not completely restrict the use

of nuclear weapons, no matter what, even in self defense. What

it does is modestly narrow potential U.S. nuclear targets. The

Wall Street Journal wrote a more accurate summary: “The

Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-

weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to

U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat

to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.”

So critics can relax, and die-hard opponents of nuclear

weapons don’t have much to thank the president for. The new

policy hardly leaves America vulnerable, causes us to look weak,

or even makes a truly substantial change to American nuclear

policy at all.

It’s just like seemingly everything else this administration

has done from renaming the Global War on Terror (officially

changing it to “Overseas Contingency Operation”) to closing

Guantanamo (while reserving the right to outsource torture to

other countries and detain “suspected terrorists” without

charges indefinitely)- it’s just more window-dressing for the

same old Bush-Era, Cold War-Era, imperialist policies of the

status quo.

Not to mention, that this new policy does nary a thing

about our conventional foreign policy problems, which survive

intact from previous administrations. If America is committed

to a more peaceful world free of nuclear weapons, why does it

continue to provoke other nations with the long arm of its mili-

tary-industrial complex?

Why does Obama’s Secretary of State threaten sanctions

against Iran (when the cutting of economic ties is theoretically

and empirically proven to increase the likelihood of armed hos-

tilities)? Why does Obama garrison troops in over a hundred

countries? Why does it pick sides in ethnic civil wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan? Why does Obama continue all of these poli-

cies if he is for peace and non-proliferation?

Any true peace monger who’s paying attention should call

on the President to take bold action toward truly disarming our

nuclear arsenal and dismantling our bankrupt overseas empire.

If Bush’s doctrine of preemption by conventional warfare was



morally indefensible, how much worse is Obama’s willingness

to use nuclear preemption at his discretion against the people

of another country?

Nuclear weapons have no legitimate military purpose. They

are inherently weapons of mass murder. Because of their power

and blast radius, nuclear weapons can exist for no other pur-

pose than to indiscriminately wipe out large swaths of civilian

population. This is never, ever justified under any circum-

stances.

Indeed, deliberately targeting civilians for political or mili-

tary purposes is terrorism. America has no right to be a terrorist

nation. It’s morally embarrassing enough that our country

claims the right to police the world for nuclear weapons, when

ours is the only country that’s ever actually used, not just one,

but two.

What America Can Learn from

European Imperialism

in the Middle East?

By Brandon Cestrone

Up until the middle of the 18th century, the relation-

ship between Europe and the Ottoman Empire was of identical

strength. By the last quarter of the century this began to shift,

and a fissure formed between Europe and The Ottoman Em-

pire’s technological skills. By the 19th century, Europe domi-

nated the world through their unmatched military, communi-

cation, and economic systems. The Napoleonic Wars brought

Europe into the heart of the Muslim world. Once the Napole-

onic wars ended, European influence and power spread

throughout the Ottoman world. Britain, Russia, and France

would slowly begin their imperial expansion, starting from the

outskirts of the Ottoman Empire inwards. Peasant life suffered

from the new world market exploitation by the Great Powers.

The declining Ottoman Empire sought western style

reform, often from rising European pressure. A dislocated econ-

omy, diminished power and influence, and loss of territory con-

tributed to a burst of violent movements against the invading

occupiers. The Ottomans experienced drastic change as in-

creasing external reform pressure led to the Ottoman Land Law

of 1858, resulting in the displacement of peasant land. The poli-

cies of the world powers also influenced relationships between

the Ottoman Empire and their minorities, mainly the Armeni-

ans. The external influence of the Great Powers, along with in-

ternal conflict, led to a horrific Armenian massacre from 1914-

1916, resulting in upwards of one million deaths.

By 1914 the error of choosing the Central Powers

brought an end to Ottoman sovereignty. The League of Nations

in 1922 sealed the political fate of the countries. For Britain and

France, control of the Arab countries was important because of

interests in the region, mainly political power. The British

Mandate facilitated the creation of a Jewish national homeland,

which led to the Palestinian revolt of 1936 -1939. The establish-

ment of Israel by Britain would lead to violence and instability

still occurring today. By the 1950’s, anti-imperialism was at an

apex as Gamal Abdel Nasser attempted to unite the Arab world

against the foreign invaders. Eventually, the Arab nationalism

movement faded but kept anti-imperialism alive in the memory

of Arabs.

What can America learn from Europe’s foreign policy in the

Middle East? Since their first contact in the 18th century, the

Great Powers have forced western reform onto a culture and

people they did not understand. Anti-imperialism would later

unite the Arab world to clash against foreign occupation. This

was not about religion. This was about foreign powers occupy-

ing Arab land. When interpreting history, it is important to em-

pathize with the subject and look through the eyes of the peo-

ple affected. How would Americans feel if foreign invaders oc-

cupied their land and established rule over their people? There

are lessons to be learned from interpreting the history of impe-

rialism. It causes violence, suffering, and hatred, not prosperity

and peace.

OPINION


Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

Speak Their Own Language

if You Want to Change

Their Minds

By Brendon DeMeo

When trying to explain a noninterventionist foreign policy

to Liberals or Conservatives, it is usually most effective to en-

gage them with their political angle in mind. If you recruit for

Young Americans for Liberty, or any other liberty-oriented

group, on a college campus, you are likely to come across peo-

ple who want to know your foreign policy. For neoconserva-

tives, this is usually their number one issue, which is why

they’re willing to vote for candidates like John McCain, Rudy

Giuliani, or Mitt Romney, who promulgate a foreign policy they

agree with, as well as Big Government on the home front, and

not for small government Republicans such as Ron Paul or Gary

Johnson. For Liberals, well, love for President Obama and the

Democratic Party runs deeper than love of principle for many of

them; so as Obama and the Democrats embrace intervention-

ism, many are going along with them.

Liberals are generally easy to debate foreign policy with.

Sometimes, when they see you around Gadsden flags, handing

out pocket Constitutions, they will assume you have a neocon-

servative foreign policy. This is one reason you should be very

upfront about your foreign policy when recruiting, it may draw

many liberals and others in because they like what they hear

about foreign policy, but it’s often not readily apparent. Regret-

tably, as I mentioned, many are more dedicated to President

Obama than their principles, just as many Republicans were

more dedicated to George W. Bush and the Republican Party

than their principles.

These Liberals, while they support interventionism now

that the Democrats are in charge, are swayable. Their main

counterargument to assertions that the President is breaking

campaign promises on Iraq is that Obama is getting the US out

of Iraq, but is doing it responsibly. However, few know that

Obama actually plans on leaving 50,000 troops in the war-

ravaged nation, indefinitely (Ditz 2009). That is clearly not a

pullout. As Obama breaks more and more promises, and the

health care bill is exposed as a corporatist sham, expect them to

grow more receptive to Libertarian arguments.

All in all, you want to keep in mind people and language

that will appeal to those on the left. The term “antiwar” is safe

to use with most Liberals, but it’s better to be positive, so con-

sider the term “pro-peace.” Using quotes from people Liberals

traditionally admire, such as Mahatma Gandhi, also works. One

of my favorites is “what difference does it make to the dead, the

orphans and the homeless whether the mad destruction is

wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of

liberty or democracy (Goodman 2008)?” With the Left, focusing

on the peace and humanitarian aspects of noninterventionism

is key.

Neoconservatives are much different. They may be at-

tracted to your Gadsden flags and pocket Constitutions, but

when they find out you’re a noninterventionist, well, their dis-

position can change. They view a noninterventionist stance as

weak, naïve and “isolationist.” You will probably hear the term

“isolationist” a lot, so learn how to refute it. We noninterven-

tionists are not isolationists. Isolationists want to isolate their

country from the outside world; we are in favor of free and

open trade. We agree with John Quincy Adams who said that

America should not go around the world, searching for mon-

sters to destroy.

Focus on quotes from the Founding Fathers, as neoconser-

vatives still respect these men. George Washington once said,

“peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; en-

tangling alliances with none.” That perfectly summarizes the

noninterventionist position in one quote. Emphasize that non-

interventionism is conservative, and that no matter what the

reasons were for entering Iraq and Afghanistan, they have be-

come nation building exercises. Remember that our alliance

with Israel is rather entangling. However, many libertarians,

such as I, greatly respect Israel. As a Christian, I also trust God

to protect Israel – the United States does not have to do it.

Americans enlisted in the military to defend the United States,

not Israel, the United Kingdom or nations like Georgia. If they

want to die for those countries, or others, they are free to join

their military. I would not recommend the use of the term

“antiwar” to describe yourself to a neoconservative. Always use

the term noninterventionist, or say that you share the Founders

views on foreign policy.

There’s a lot more to debating foreign policy than that, of

course. Naturally, the more you study foreign policy, the easier

debating it becomes. But remember to approach people with


Opinion | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

their political perspective in mind – speak their language. That

is your best hope for changing their minds. Ron Paul spoke my

language. I was once a neoconservative, and became a libertar-

ian because men like Paul were able to convey the fact that lib-

ertarianism is true conservatism, and a noninterventionist for-

eign policy is a truly conservative, and more sensible, foreign

policy.

Young Americans for Liberty | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 | http://www.yaliberty.org | [email protected] | April 2010

Article Sources | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

13

Article Sources:

Roy Antoun

Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August. Random House Publishing. New York, NY (1962)

Eland, Ivan. The Empire Has No Clothes. The Independent Institute. Oakland, CA (2008)

Daniel Suraci

The Economist: Another Great Leap Forward? (March 2010) http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15661865

The Economist: Another Great Leap Forward? (March 2010) http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15661865

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Russia/property-rights-index

http://www.cbr.ru/eng/statistics/credit_statistics/MS.asp?Year=2010

Hyperinflation, Money Demand, and the Crack-Up Boom, Thorsten Polleit, Mises.org, http://mises.org/daily/4016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5072484/Russia-backs-return-to-Gold-Standard-to-solve-financial-crisis.html

Nelson Chase

Samples, John. "Tea Partiers Shouldn't Date the GOP." February 4, 2010. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11198 (accessed April

8, 2010).

Innocent, Malou. “Leaving Afghanistan Moves Beyond Left vs. Right.” March 10,2010. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11437

(accessed April 8, 2010).

Jefferson and Washington are quotes from Ron Paul, The Revolution (Grand Central Publishing) 2009, p. 9

I am paraphrasing George W. Bush from a speech in 2000. I find this quote to be very ironic. The Full quote is, “I am not so sure the role of the

United States is to go around the world and say, „This is the way it‟s got to be.‟…I think one way one way for us to end up being viewed as „the

ugly American‟ is for us to go around the world saying, „We do it this way; so should you.” President Bush said this in a debate with Al Gore in

2000. It is quoted in Ron Paul‟s, The Revolution (Grand Central Publishing) 2009, p. 11

Brandon Cestrone

Hourani, Albert. A History Of The Arab People ( New York: Warner, 1991)

Bloxham, Donald. The Great Game Of Genocide (New York: Oxford, 2005)

Dawisha, Adeed. Arab Nationalism In The Twentieth Century (New Jersey: Princeton, 2003)

Dowty, Alan. Israel/Palestine (Cambridge: Polity, 2008)

Brendon DeMeo

Ditz, Jason. Antiwar.com. February 26, 2009. http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/26/obama-to-leave-50000-troops-in-iraq-indefinitely/ (accessed

April 15, 2010).

Goodman, Amy. Democracy Now. January 30, 2008. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/1/30/

western_civilization_an_idea_whose_time_has_come (accessed April 15, 2010).


About the Writers | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

About the Writers Roy Antoun | Editor in Chief

Roy is an active Rutgers University undergraduate double majoring in History and Political Science. In his hometown of Brooklyn, NY he ran for County Committee in his district and won in Sept. 2009. Active with YAL both on and off campus for the past two years, he has advocated classic liberal ideals by writing for several different media outlets, including The Centu-rion. Concentrating his studies on international relations, Roy hopes to one day make international politics his career after law school. You can learn more about Roy on his website at http://www.royantoun.com.

Brandon Cestrone | Contributor Brandon Cestrone is a writer, entrepreneur, and historian. Brandon is currently enrolled in Slippery Rock University for his Master of Arts in History degree. He is working his way through college as a salesman in hopes of one day becoming a writer for a political magazine. Brandon supports eating a raw organic diet and homeopathic treatment for many illnesses. He be-lieves in free market principles, limited government, and above all else, individual liberty.

Nelson Chase | Contributor

Nelson Chase is a native of San Diego, California. He did his undergraduate at the University of San Diego (USD) receiving a B.A in History and was an ac-tive member of the Zeta Omega chapter of Beta Theta Pi fraternity and a member of the Men’s Rowing Team. Currently he is finishing a Masters Degree in History form USD. Nelson is a veteran of the Iraqi war having served in the United States Army from 2001-2004. He first heard of Congressman Ron Paul from a friend and read The Revolution soon after. Ever since Nelson has become a believer in freedom and liberty as espoused by the Constitution, Dr. Paul, Campaign for Liberty, and Young Adults for Liberty. Limited government, ending the unconstitutional wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, restoring fiscal sanity, and pro-life activism are among Nelson’s political interests. Nelson works for the San Diego Air and Space Museum as a research assistant in the Library & Archives. In his free time Nelson enjoys running, photography, and reading.

Jeremy Davis | Contributor

Jeremy is a writer and college student from Cincinnati, Ohio. He is a student at the University of Cincinnati where he is majoring in political science and is an active member of the university’s Young Americans for Liberty chapter. Jeremy writes his own weekly column for his college newspaper The News Record where he typically writes about various political issues and is a frequent contributor to the official Young Ameri-cans for Liberty blog. He is an alumnus of The Leadership Institute’s Youth Leadership School and is currently enrolled at the Mises Academy. He also participated in the 2008 Revolution March in Washington, D.C. and in 2010, he was present at a live taping of Freedom Watch with Andrew Napolitano in Columbus, Ohio. Aside from politics, Jeremy’s interests include studying history, libertarianism, and Austrian econom-ics.

Brandon DeMeo | Contributor

Brendon DeMeo is a student of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Lowell where he is the President of a Young Americans for Liberty chapter he helped create in the fall of 2009. In addition, he is a Campaign for Liberty coordina-tor for the Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional District and campaigns for liberty-oriented candidates in Massachusetts. He en-joys studying Austrian economics, history and politics, in addition to philosophy and the teachings of the Bible. He also likes baseball, camping, writing, helping Keynesians see the light, drinking too much coffee, debating, and recently took up body-building.

Daniel Suraci | Contributor

Daniel Suraci is a first year student at Boston University School of Law. He graduated from New York University with a de-gree in Philosophy. At Boston University, he started a libertarian group entitled Liberty. He has worked in website design and the real estate industry. His blog and more information can be found at http://danielsuraci.com.

Wesley Messamore | Contributor Wesley Messamore, a recent graduate of Belmont University with a degree in Entrepreneurship, is the founder, owner, and editor of http://HumbleLibertarian.com, where he advocates tirelessly for peace, love, and liberty. He is currently accept-ing submissions and even looking for regular contributors, so if you write well or have a sharp eye for good news, stop by and drop him an e-mail ([email protected]). Wes also loves philosophy (with a particular interest in Aristotelian meta-physics and virtue ethics), religion (while he only adheres to one, he more or less loves them all), and the exquisite rush of being alive and human. He's an intransigent libertarian, not merely because liberty is moral and enlightened; not only be-cause liberty produces explosive material prosperity; but mainly because it's just so unbelievably cool!

Young Americans for Liberty | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 | http://www.yaliberty.org | [email protected] | April 2010

Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue I | April 2010

12

Documents

Foreign Policy Handbook Issue 1