Exploring the principles guiding U.S. foreign policy

Here’s an antidote for the brainless foreign relations output from our candidates for president. There are three principles that every American should realize govern U.S. foreign relations. I ask readers to look into real events for whether this statement and its consequences are true.

1) “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

Over time, this first principle has made the US team up with most of the despicable tyrants and dictators of recent history, as well as being midwife to radical Islam and other whackos that have “served our interests” of the moment. It’s self-evident how it’s easier and cheaper to manipulate strong-man government than it is to manipulate types of decentralized government. In other words it’s easier to bribe or bully dictators than it is to coerce groups of elective government officials to do what’s wanted. It’s also self-evident how whackos will appear to serve our interests in order to have their existence supported and funded. In other words, it’s easier to covertly finance and militarily support whackos in return for their mercenary efforts on US behalf, than it is gain true support and cooperation from a population through fairly serving their interests.

Use of this first principle also explains the contradiction of why the U.S. — the supposed leading example of governments of, by and for the People — doesn’t use American political heritage to gain cooperation internationally. This even extends to rejecting the secularly-useful methodology of conflict resolution provided by the ministry of Jesus Christ. He isn’t called the Prince of Peace for nothing!

2) “Divide and rule”

This second principle explains why the U.S. is happy with conflict and upheaval in countries that don’t cater to our interests. The selfishness of this attitude is necessarily papered over with suitable propaganda on why such countries deserve or self-created such misery. This especially shows up in our recent efforts to export “democracy” or self-determination of government (e.g. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Ukraine, Syria, and Venezuela). Study of the post WWII nation-building of Germany, Japan and Italy shows a striking absence of this phenomenon, and thus shows current U.S. government insincerity towards the people it says it’s trying to help. It has been known for most of human history that a divided people are too weak to stand up to covert or overt conquest or control by others. It should scare you to consider evidence of domestic use of this principle.

3) “The end justifies the means”

This third principle is the scariest. For it has founded the supreme justification for doing evil—that good will result. It is the use of this principle that underlies all conspiracies. This principle is thus the driving rationale behind all war, terrorism, and crime.

Supposedly, an ethical person can judge truly whether the cost of the means employed — however hurtful or destructive — is worth what comes as a result of it. But an ethical person wouldn’t think it is ethical to make such a judgment without the participation of others affected or involved. Thus juries and forms of representative government developed. The keynote here is openness and organized group evaluation to counter individual irrationality. Secrecy employed in unilaterally judging whether the end justifies the means, then, would be a supreme symptom of lack of ethics. So who or what has demonstrated extreme and jealous addiction to secrecy about foreign relations decisions involving whether the end justifies the means? The U.S. government — as currently organized and empowered — that’s who.

And how rational are these government officials — commanding our country’s power in secret in the name of national security? As oversight of them is blocked by the excuse of national security secrecy, we can’t know — regardless who gets elected. But we citizens and military personnel certainly can taste the allegorical excrement our leaders force us to eat from those secret decisions, can’t we?

In conclusion, Lord Acton stated: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There are two ways power gets acquired. Collectively, people willingly grant it — with stipulations to guard against corruption (i.e. our Constitution). Or collectively, people unwillingly grant it — out of fear and desire for protection whatever the cost. The first way is limited power — which correspondingly limits possible corruption. The second way is usually absolute power — which doesn’t limit corruption at all. So, tell me. How much do you really mean your pledge of allegiance or military oath of enlistment?

Stuart Thompson lives, thinks and writes in Wasilla.