Business, Government Legal News from throughout WVContinual War Should Not Be a Conservative Position

Continual War Should Not Be a Conservative Position

This past May, I had the pleasure of attending my little brother's graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy. During the commencement ceremony in Annapolis, the primary guest speaker was then- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. He delivered an exceptional speech, and toward the end, he began to choke up a bit about the number of young men and women in our armed forces who had given the ultimate sacrifice under his tenure. In an interview with the media shortly thereafter, the outgoing Secretary of Defense — a Bush appointee — said, "Anyone that thinks we need another war right now needs to get their head examined." Gates, a guy who hardly can be labeled as a "leftist hippy," realized the toll all of these undeclared wars take on our nation's health. 

Yet when you watch Republican Presidential debates, nearly all of the candidates on the stage tout this dangerous rhetoric over and over. During a recent debate, I listened to six of the eight candidates (minus Ron Paul and John Huntsman) say the United States needs "further involvement" within the internal affairs of numerous Middle Eastern countries. Rick Perry said we should declare a no-fly zone over Syria. Herman Cain and Rick Santorum both outright implied that we should initiate an attack on Iran. Newt Gingrich said we should covertly overthrow the regimes of both of these countries. For Michele Bachman, nothing is off the table, especially military action. And Mitt Romney sounds like he would like to do all of the above. These candidates also have indicated that American forces should stay almost endlessly in Afghanistan and Iraq to "see the mission accomplished." What mission? And most of them again unilaterally endorsed "crippling" economic sanctions on these same foreign nations, which of course, is another way of saying blockade — or an act of war. 

Our country is currently involved in many overseas conflicts, and it has been for some time. But most disturbing is that ever since this pattern began, whereby our country goes to war when it feels like it — without a proper declaration from Congress as mandated by Article I Section 8 — our nation's government has practically been engaged in one long continual state of war for more than 60 years. And this is seen today as nothing unusual.

Only a mistaken understanding of American history provides this wide-spread acceptance by the public that all of these endless wars are "good" and "just." Much of this propaganda has been rooted in fear and emotion, not logic. These wars have been sold to the public with warnings about the need to stop the world's next Hitler. The sales pitch runs something like this: "Well, there's a boogey man out there, and you have to give us the power to stop him. Don't believe us? Well, just take my word for it." The latest boogey man is the "Islamic fascist," the "terrorist" or the Iranian "radical."

And thus, a major question exists: When did the conservative position become the endorsement of war and fear mongering? If you look back in history, waging war used to be the radical, liberal position. Although the ideas of foreign intervention and empire had already begun to foment, Woodrow Wilson became the champion of the tag line, "Make the World Safe for Democracy." Wilson was one of the more significant leaders of the "Progressive Era" — a radical shift in American history that helped place the final nails in the coffin of the American Republic. 

Wilson's foreign policy ideas of more intervention coincided directly with massive domestic intervention into the market economy. Wilson presided over the establishment of the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve banking system, which centralized power in Washington, permitting bureaucratic authorities to directly confiscate personal income, and gave the power to the federal government to debase and counterfeit our currency. Wilson also championed the change in how U.S. Senators were chosen, shifting the process from one of appointment by the various state legislatures to a direct popular vote from the public at large — ending one of the last true checks the individual state governments had over federal power and mob rule. Simultaneously, the Wilson administration played national nanny, banning alcohol across the entire continent after its use was deemed by bureaucrats to be "immoral for the public" (giving rise to the organized cartels of the Prohibition Age). It's safe to say, these ideas are not conservative.

This domestic intervention, and the erosion of private property rights, gave Wilson and others like him increased and ever-heightened power. The Wilson administration went on to ignore the advice of our country's founders — who eerily warned of the entangling political alliances of Europe — and by 1917, the United States fell into the blood-soaked trenches of Europe. Over the course of just one year, 100,000 Americans lost their lives during World War I. And for what?

If we look back on the prevailing thoughts of point-in-time, the conservative opinion was to stay out of the war. Show discretion and restraint. Show wisdom. After all, war is bad for the economy. Only peace, trade and commerce brings prosperity. War can only bring the destruction of lives and resources. What's more is that the entrance of the United States onto the battlefields of Europe ended the teetering back-and-forth stalemate, and provided a one-way victory for the British Empire. 

It's important to note at that time, it was never a foregone conclusion that the United States would ever "side" with the British or French in any war. In fact, many Americans had just as much in common with the Germans. By the end of the 19th century, a huge influx of immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe had poured into the United States. In addition, a significant portion of the American population was of Irish descent and looked upon the English Parliament as despotic tyrants. And up until this time, the United States was still very wary about the British Empire — just as Germany was (after all, we had already fought two wars against it).

It is very likely that in the absence of American intervention, the European powers would have had to deal with a cease-fire and the end of hostilities in their own way. Resources and lives had depleted on both sides so severely, that neither was in a position to dictate any terms of surrender, and certainly not an unconditional one. But this was not to be.

The "Woodrow Wilson-plunge" pushed one side clearly over the top — but all of the European powers lay in utter bankruptcy after the war. Out of hatred and frustration, the Allies forced inconceivable war reparations onto the Germans, who were perhaps the most bankrupt of all. Those reparations were from the get-go conceptually impossible for the Germans to actually pay back. In fact, a mere five years after these impossible payments were forced upon Germany, hyperinflation began to run its course through the nation's economy. That's because the government turned to the printing press to finance its deficits. The end result was Germany's paper currency became utterly worthless and complex exchange came to a grinding halt. Inflation destroyed what was left of German commerce and trade and laid the foundation for the Third Reich. 

But oh, how history has been perverted. You won't find this interpretation of events in a school book today — and most college professors probably still lecture that World War I was America's first step toward glory and taking our rightful place in the world, or something along those lines (though the real result was sacrificing our sovereignty at the altar of the soon-to-be United Nations). And those who dissent from these flawed policies of today are quickly scorned as "unpatriotic" — or perhaps a naive "isolationist." But what truly isolates our country is the continual military intervention throughout the globe. Trade and commerce never isolates — sticking our nose in someone else's business does. And our financial well-being depends on how quickly we can re-learn this lesson.

It is certainly true today that one's comprehension of our country's history will likely determine one's present view on foreign affairs. So look at the results of nations from the past that started down the path we have already long followed; the consequences are not pretty. We cannot have a sane fiscal policy discussion without realizing that our foreign policy is unsustainable and that the unintended blowback from our continual meddling in foreign affairs has manifested a strong resentment toward the American policy of intervention and dictation. 

The American people still can choose a different ending, but it will take a shift in attitude and popular culture, along with a firm grasp of economics, to voluntarily correct our course toward peace and prosperity. And make no mistake about it, West Virginians can play a major part in shifting our future back toward sanity. As James Madison wrote, "The loss of liberty at home will always be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad."

Pat McGeehan served in the West Virginia House of Delegates from 2008-2010, and is currently chairman of the Republican Party in Hancock County. He is employed by Frontier Communications in Wheeling. He resides in Chester.