The Anti-Nationalism of Warhawkism

            NATIONAL identity, national security, and national spirit. These are values that are very integral to the conservative. They recognize the legitimacy, the superiority, and the preeminence of the nation-state and its unadulterated sovereignty. We vote, as all humans do, according to our values, and as such it would be expected that our nation’s legislature – especially its conservative bloc – would be composed of similarly-valued politicians. However, instead, what I have noticed – what many have noticed – in recent years is that the ideological trend of conservatives and their chosen representatives has been…disappointing and incongruent. There has been a suspicious rise in a specific faction, one which has been responsible for millions of deaths and trillions of wasted dollars, one which do not represent – beyond label only – any national values: the neoconservatives.

            The beginning of the modern neoconservative trend has its basis in the Reagan-Bush era of the the 1980s. At this time, we had the Iran-Iraq War which made foreign politicians across the globe upset and displeased with the Iraqi government, leading to the 1988 UN-brokered peace deal. In the 1990s, we had the Gulf War, which culminated in a Western coalition pushing back Iraqi forces from Kuwait and restoring the small country’s sovereignty. While the factors leading up to these war were dubious (read more here), the fact that a country’s sovereignty was indeed violated made the wars valid.

A nation’s affairs are a nation’s affairs, and so whatever occurs internally is of no concern to foreign powers; yes, we may be concerned, but we cannot act. However, when a nation attempts to impose its affairs on another nation, like Iraq’s invasions, the international community has every right to impose in defense of the imposed-upon’s sovereignty (when asked). So, yes, the interventionism of the 1990s was a justified action, however it would lead to unjustified actions.

            Imposing authority on another populace, expanding political capital beyond the limitations of one’s own body politic, is a euphoria that many politicians have a guilty fetish of. This was the guilty fetish of politicians in the late-1990s to early-2000s, the guilty fetish of interventionism. Most noted by the Republican Party’s 2000 platform that called for the “full implementation” of the Iraq Liberation Act (itself an early manifestation of the interventionist resurgence) this push for interventionism swept the nation and was likely the deciding factor of the 2000 elections.

The nation was primed for war. Well, more so its Congress was, but the greatest deciding factor would be the "sovereign" people: in June of 1993 Gallup reported 70% of Americans would support military intervention in Iraq, but by 2001 that had dropped to only 52%. But then came the interventionists’ lifesaver: 9/11. Just two months after the tragedy, up to three-quarters of Americans supported invading Iraq.

            The damage wrought to our national spirit and national sovereignty was spent in trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. America would truly never be the same, especially when the war hawks laid their hands on the enraged American spirit. Fear and anger are among the greatest motivators in the World, and by God did 9/11 prove that.

The Bush administration, the 108th United States Congress, and the public were now unified in their interests after years of conniving to acquire the green-light for the interventionist cabal’s master plan, the Iraq War. To be brief about the topic, the Iraq War was an absolute tragedy and a quickly forgotten testament (among many) to how interventionist foreign policy will always turn out tragically.

From the Vietnam War (which was launched by an earlier generation of interventionists huffing the fumes of the noble Second World War) that devastated and alienated a nation that could have been our ally, to the Iraq War (which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and thousands of Coalition deaths along with a massive humanitarian crisis and over a trillion wasted dollars) our country has seen the costs of interventionism. All Americans realize it now, tristesse having set in on over 70% of us, but despite this collective regret, the wheels have begun turning towards another era of interventionist euphoria.

In 2016, 2018, and 2020 war hawks were elected and re-elected across the country, and by both parties. Lindsey Graham, Martha McSally, Tammy Duckworth, Dan Crenshaw, Kamala Harris, and numerous other names joined or repeated themselves on the congressional roster. This issue, this article, however, is not focusing on a bipartisan trend; in fact, the trend I want to highlight is separate from the Democrats, and solely focuses on conservatives, who I expected to be more conscientious than how they have performed lately.

Despite electing a non-interventionist populist in 2016, conservatives sure have not manifested their Trumpian values on their ballots, electing the likes of Crenshaw and re-electing the likes of Graham. While Democrats can be just as culpable, the rising trend I am calling out today finds cause in the ideological bloc I expected to be better than this, I am calling out the right-wing for being culpable in the rise of neoconservatism.

A Twitter exchange from November 18 between Dan Crenshaw and a few non-interventionist voices showed the true colors of the neoconservative insurgency. Crenshaw, a military veteran who uses emotional manipulation from his service to our country and lost eye, spat with libertarian Cassandra Fairbanks over the topic of foreign policy (well, it was a bit more uncivil than a spat over foreign policy, but…) which led to Crenshaw’s response that Fairbanks was “....too afraid to do what is necessary to protect America’s flank from our enemies.” This response just shows everything Crenshaw is about, namely disingenuity and misinformation: the argument stemmed from Crenshaw, for some reason, criticizing President Trump’s decision to withdrawal troops from the Middle East, taking back thousands of our loved ones from a bloody hellhole to live peaceful lives on U.S. soil.

This is what the neoconservative believes, that America has an obligation to be in every country at once, to dictate to foreign governments what to do, to impose our will upon others; neoconservatism is neocolonialism, simply put. Crenshaw drew the ire of many people on Twitter, and rightfully so, because it was beyond clear what Crenshaw was calling for: for the extension of military interventions that were doing nothing but feeding immoral foreign interests in subjugated countries and forcing thousands of Americans to sacrifice their lives per year due to the anger of local insurgents.

As much as we dislike it, an insurgency in another country is another country’s problem, solely. You do not hear Crenshaw and the neoconservative faction calling for UN intervention in Seattle to deal with Antifa, do you?

Additionally, just like Antifa, the Taliban and Islamist insurgencies of the Middle East only came about because of US interventionism! We created the mujahideen in the 1980s by funding them through Operation Cyclone, which lead to an empowered jihadist coalition establishing the Taliban-lead Islamic State of Afghanistan in the 1990s, which is what has kept the poor country destabilized since then. Cyclone was, of course, supported by neoconservative elements in the Carter and Reagan administrations, and – seeing how little these elements have changed in priority since the 80s – we should very much expect another cycle of unnecessary violence should we keep electing these fiends. Foreign intervention almost always leads to worse results when it involves the manipulation of sour figures for our goals (Operation Cyclone) or sees us imposing our values and goals upon another populace (the Iraq War).

On a similar note, as much as we dislike it, a dictator in another country is another country’s problem, too. This is where much impetus for interventionist and neoconservative agendas come from: a belief that we must overthrow regimes worldwide, even if we created those regimes (China, Iran). But this is almost always a stupid cause and bears a stupid result. With the exception of Hitler, who was actively invading other countries at the time of his deposition, and partially of Hussein, who had launched two consecutive invasions, lest a dictator or authoritarian figure be violating the sovereignty of a country, a dictator or authoritarian figure should not be overthrown by force, perhaps even by coercion.

Take for example Iran: guess why the Iranian Revolution occurred? Because Western neocolonialism, spearheaded by the U.S., led the powerful Islamic clergy to detest the monarchy as a puppet of the West’s [oil] interests. We all know how Iran has turned out since then.

Take Syria for example: before its Civil War started in 2011, Syria was a stable country only marred by a socialist Ba’athist government (allegations of human rights violations are dubious). Bashar al-Assad enjoyed, and still enjoys, considerable popularity from his population. Yet, the whole wide World jumped on the Syrian Civil War bandwagon, making use of weakened governance and opened holes in order to be marionettists of a regime change operation against the awful tyrant al-Assad (in the West’s case), or to advance the geopolitical stature of one’s country through Mediterranean access (in Russia’s case).

As a result of a decade of foreign powers fanning the flames of the Civil War to make sure it does not end before their goals are satisfied (which, due to their multilaterally contradictory natures, will make the conflict prolong indefinitely) the country is now rubble in many areas, it is tired and aggravated from the humanitarian toll of the conflict, and over a third of hospitals have been rendered inoperative. Did we really want this?

I must make something clear. I am far from endorsing or supporting the regimes of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other nations. However, because most of these regimes were created through a complicated network of politicking and subversion imposed on the Arab World since the 1970s, it is our fault they exist. Foreign intervention created these evils and making up catchphrases such as “regime change”, “liberation”, and “democracy promotion” are just attempts to cover up our culpability.

Before we drove the Syrian Civil War out of control, government-caused deaths due to authoritarianism (if any) was a trickle, spotted and stretched across the course of a year, but now civilian deaths surge in at hundreds or thousands per month. Did we really want this? Instead of defending regimes, I am lambasting interventionism – and the role neoconservatism has to play in it – and making this principle of mine clear: it is better, for all sides, to stay out rather than go in; just like a bruise, an ache, or an ulcer, a cold bag and patience will make it go away. Just like a regime, international pressure is the most we can do, and it is the cold bag we can apply to enact an effective regime change.

We can take the earlier mentioned example of Vietnam, and the new example of North Korea to back this principle. Vietnam, in the wake of our disastrous war there, has become more friendly to us and even supports the capitalist system that they fought so hard against for almost two decades! Imagine how much bloodshed, how much pain, how much anti-imperialist squealing from the Left could have been avoided if we were more pragmatic, and less gung-ho.

North Korea has been a thorn in our back for decades now, and its angry dynasty has been squealing at us with nuclear ferocity for over forty years. Fortunately (and mostly because of China’s shadow) we have not invaded it yet, but we still have made impressive strides with the pariah state since 2016, since we elected a non-hawkish populist to office. Trump’s coercive but non-interventionist policy of unpredictability and rashness has been overwhelmingly successful, resulting in the historic peace talks of 2018, which evenAdam Schiff had to give Trump kudos for.

Trump’s policy, after three flimsily executed policies for North Korea (Clinton to Obama), proves the efficacy of the purest foreign policy doctrine, and biblical adage: “And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you will be perfect and complete, not deficient in anything” (James 1:4).

In conclusion, the general idea of interventionism is beyond pragmatism and beyond realism; it is a dream of war hawks and would-be tyrants who seek to expand their power by imposing themselves needlessly on other countries. If a society shows symptoms of interventionist ideation, that is a bad sign for that society, and whoever is targeted by it. The loss of America’s respect on the global theater, the use of imperialist epithets to further degrade national identity by radical leftists, and other consequences have made a clear case for the American people of how worthless of an investment interventionism is. It is anti-nationalist inherently, rejecting the legitimacy and sanctity of borders and nationalities and approving imposition of foreign powers upon foreign powers.

Among conservatives, these are usually detested acts, the conservative being a nationalist and anti-globalist, but yet the rise of various politicians and bureaucrats who are neoconservative – right-wing globalists, better put – make one question what exactly the Right is doing. The cost of this ideology is evident, and our society is acclimating toward it again, which is something we must end.