2001-10-15 04:55:00
I publicly apologize if I offended you Larry. I have always appreciated your service, and all your posts, and look forward to many years of good will between us.
Interesting comments on freedom today.
The key to understanding the continual drift toward totalitarianism is to realize that this is the line of least resistance.
The path that leads to greater freedom is the path of high resistance (discussed in earlier posts).
Every step humanity has made toward greater freedom has came through great struggle and sacrifice. Then when this step is attained, people tend to settle into complacency and shift attention to the benefits of freedom rather than the preservation of freedom itself. In this state of mind the line of least resistance is to allow those who desire to limit freedom (for the common good) to have their way. This creates a drift that can only be turned around by a focused will treading the path of high resistance.
There are exceptions to all things and in times of crisis sometimes a more centralized power needs to be assumed as was the case with Abraham Lincoln and FDR. Even though such a move, which can limit freedom, can also help save it, a great danger is posed. Our nation, for example does not realize how fortunate it is that Abraham Lincoln willingly relinquished his powers after the war or, for that matter, that George Washington refused to let admirers anoint him king rather than elect him President.
Because we cannot always depend on having leaders who have the common good in their crosshairs, any emergency measure giving the government greater powers over the people should have an expiration date, of around two years, that can only be renewed by a vote from Congress.
In the end we must realize that no law, no act of Congress and no one person can guarantee the preservation of freedom. Only the awareness and vigilance of an entire nation can do this.
That said, let us continue with our series.
While it may be true that much of the criticism against the United States for supporting the bad guys only paints one side of the picture and it may be true that we often pick the lesser of two evils to support, it is also true that our interference often creates more harm than good.
Did our efforts to topple the government of Allende create more harm than good? Critics say the answer is a no-brainer because of the abuses of the Pinochet regime, but when the whole picture is seen, one can see how things could have been even worse if the socialists maintained control.
Was the United States correct in encouraging Saddam Hussein to war with Iran to keep them both out of our hair for a decade? The answer to this also seems like a no-brainer to critics. But if Iran was not distracted by such a war then it may have had more reserves to put into nuclear weapons and perhaps we would have had an even worse Gulf War.
What I have been attempting to point out is that good and evil, as it works out in the affairs of humankind, is not so black and white and that we need to examine all the facts and conditions before we condemn any nation in its actions of self interest.
Taking this into consideration, I think there is nothing wrong with the United States or any other nation in acting in self interest and using its influence to steer other nations toward what it considers as "the good."
What is wrong is the methods that are often used.
These methods need to be defined and enforced by Congress and be out in the open for all to see.
Approved methods of influence would be:
(A) Statements by leaders approving of condemning various actions or governments. This should reflect the opinion of the majority of the people.
(B) The giving of the withdrawing of financial support.
(C) The use of good will organizations such as the Peace Corps and various religious organizations attempting to do good.
(D) Business investments beneficial to both sides.
(E) Consultants that advise various governments or groups.
Methods to be avoided:
(A) Unless there is a declared war or the nation is openly proclaimed by Congress as a hostile state, we should not have a military presence where one is not invited or welcome.
(B) Training dissidents of objectionable nations in terrorism creates more problems than it solves and should be avoided. This should only be done in a declared war.
(C) Training or encouraging friendly third world governments to use terror, torture or persecution to maintain control. This is to be avoided at all costs.
(D) Secret assignations to overthrow governments or influence policies.
We have seen time after time that our support of one tyrannical regime over another will lead to disaster. Instead of enhancing freedom we often wind up with a ruthless dictator who becomes our enemy.
What criteria then should we use as a basis for support in order to avoid such peril?
The temptation always exists to throw our support behind a person of known character flaws or a regime that has no respect for freedom because this may seem to thwart an enemy of greater importance. Even though this support of a lesser of two evils seems to work part of the time, it should be avoided as a general rule.
Not only does the support of a known terrorist often backfire upon us, but it also creates a tremendous amount of ill-will which is difficult to overcome.
Therefore, when we have a situation of one tyrant fighting another tyrant we should support neither.
In the case of a civil war we can use outside influence, but not intervene with the military. Excepting rare cases we should just let whoever wins win and make the best of it. This attitude would have saved us much grief in Vietnam for the consciousness of the people of the South was not prepared for democracy anyway (as evidenced by the leaders they had).
On the other hand, there are cases where every possible support should be given. Our support for Europe after Hitler attacked Poland was more than just.
The actions taken to free Kuwait after an Iraqi invasion was just as well as necessary.
Our support of Afghanistan after it was invaded by the Soviet Union was just. Unfortunately we gave the most aid to the most radical elements. The fact that they now view us an enemy has to do with other matters.
Overall it is a just cause to defend and innocent nation from the invasion of an aggressor. Not only is it just, but this action will help insure that we do not have another Hitler to deal with.
Interfering in a civil war is not so necessary because the goal of conquests outside of the nation involved is usually not present.
We need to live our national life above reproach so no just criticism can be made.
But it must be realized that no matter how wise and just are the decisions of a nation, or an individual, criticisms will arise, but they will be ignored by the wise.
Copyright 2001 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved