The Sea of Troubles we are in as seen from the Founding Generation

The following is a party outlook paper of The Jacksonian Party.


The idea that the federal government is the backstop of rights for the citizenry is a prime consideration for the generation that fought the Revolution and then saw the Confederation crumble under the weight of debt from that war. A war won to secure liberties was eroding them, by imprisoning the poor land owner, confiscating lands and concentrating power in the population centers of the States. The concept of a Republic to replace the Confederation was seen as a possible solution, but even then its track record in history was not a good one. The ideal of a Republic from the time of Plato onwards was just that: an ideal. While Atlantis may have had one, the remains of that civilization on Crete and the island of Santorini point out that it left no record of its prosperous form of government. Word of mouth kept it alive to be written down centuries later as an ideal government form, that somehow worked before it was extinguished from this earth by a volcanic eruption.

From that time onwards various forms of Republic had been tried by those at wits end as what to do so as to get accountable government. That failed time and again, and the Founders were seen treading into waters where the explosive mix of democracy and Republic would spell ill times for the future. To combat that the drafters of the Constitution did their best to ensure that some of the ills of past Republics and democracies were addressed. In the modern era we assume that this argument was superior as the unstable form of government created has lasted for over two centuries. That is, however, meager time to actually test this form of government and many pointed out the long-term ills seen from previous attempts:

Republics are divided into democratics, and aristocratics. The establishment of an order of nobles, in whom should reside all the power of the state, would be an aristocratic republic. Such has been for five centuries the government of Venice, in which all the energies of government, as well as of individuals, have been cramped by a distressing jealousy that the rulers have of each other. There is nothing of that generous, manly confidence that we see in the democratic republics of our own country. It is a government of force. attended with perpetual fear of that force. In Great-Britain, since the lengthening of parliaments, all our accounts agree, that their elections are a continued scene of bribery, riot and tumult; often a scene of murder. These are the consequences of choosing seldom, and for extensive districts. When the term is short, nobody will give an high price for a seat. It is an insufficient answer to these objections to say, that there is no power of government but may sometimes be applied to bad purposes. Such a power is of no value unless it is applied to a bad purpose. It ought always to remain with the people. The framers of our state constitution were so jealous of this right, that they fixed the days for election, meeting and dissolving of the legislature, and of the other officers of government.

That from Agrippa No. 15, by Agrippa on 22 JAN 1788. Republics, apparently, were known to have problems especially when the right to decide when to set elections was set by the government itself. Do note that the problems seen by previous Republics include such things as rule by force from the government in aristocracies and the outright corruption, bribery and mayhem that results from large districts in which voting is rare. The Constitution does, as Agrippa points out, try to address these problems, but is seen deficient in the actual powers given to the government:

I know it is a common complaint, that Congress want more power. But where is the limited government that does not want it? Ambition is in a governour what money is to a misar—he can never accumulate enough. But it is as true in politicks as in morals, he that is unfaithful in little, will be unfaithful also in much. He who will not exercise the powers he has, will never property use more extensive powers. The framing entirely new systems, is a work that requires vast attention; and it is much easier to guard an old one. It is infinitely better to reject one that is unfriendly to liberty, and rest for a while satisfied with a system that is in some measure defective, than to set up a government unfriendly to the rights of states, and to the rights of individuals—one that is undefined in its powers and operations. Such is the government proposed by the federal convention, and such, we trust, you will have the wisdom and firmness to reject.

Yes, this is the ringing endorsement of the Jeffersonian concept of suffering the ills of government until they are no longer tolerable showing up again 12 years after being put down in the Declaration of Independence. And the reason for that is a weak government between the States was seen preferable to a strong one that would seek to secure more power for itself over time. That concept of Ambition being to Governors as money is to misers - never having enough - rings true today as it did then. Those who seek ambitious ends for themselves seek to place ever more power in government and remove it from the People, who are the source of such power and legitimacy of government.

When that ambition is given into, and more power is vested in the government, it tends, as seen by Agrippa, to not be able to actually exercise nor utilize its powers well. Adding more power to government actually is seen as making it worse, not better and that major complaint shows up now, over 200 years later, with a Federal system that is decaying from the ambitions of those in the House of Representatives and the Senate to actually sequester power from the Executive and Judicial and place it in the Legislative.

The concept of 'representative democracy' is to have those elected actually known to those doing the voting for them. An ability to have a representative that does, indeed, represent your ideas and ideals and be held accountable for such are paramount. Brutus, in Brutus No. 4 on 29 NOV 1787, looks at this problem as it pertains to government:

In order for the people safely to repose themselves on their rulers, they should not only be of their own choice. But it is requisite they should be acquainted with their abilities to manage the public concerns with wisdom. They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service; but it is impossible the people of the United States should have sufficient knowledge of their representatives, when the numbers are so few, to acquire any rational satisfaction on either of these points. The people of this state will have very little acquaintance with those who may be chosen to represent them; a great part of them will, probably, not know the characters of their own members, much less that of a majority of those who will compose the foederal assembly; they will consist of men, whose names they have never heard, and whose talents and regard for the public good, they are total strangers to; and they will have no persons so immediately of their choice so near them, of their neighbours and of their own rank in life, that they can feel themselves secure in trusting their interests in their hands. The representatives of the people cannot, as they now do, after they have passed laws, mix with the people, and explain to them the motives which induced the adoption of any measure, point out its utility, and remove objections or silence unreasonable clamours against it. — The number will be so small that but a very few of the most sensible and respectable yeomanry of the country can ever have any knowledge of them: being so far removed from the people, their station will be elevated and important, and they will be considered as ambitious and designing. They will not be viewed by the people as part of themselves, but as a body distinct from them, and having separate interests to pursue; the consequence will be, that a perpetual jealousy will exist in the minds of the people against them; their conduct will be narrowly watched; their measures scrutinized; and their laws opposed, evaded, or reluctantly obeyed. This is natural, and exactly corresponds with the conduct of individuals towards those in whose hands they intrust important concerns. If the person confided in, be a neighbour with whom his employer is intimately acquainted, whose talents, he knows, are sufficient to manage the business with which he is charged, his honesty and fidelity unsuspected, and his friendship and zeal for the service of this principal unquestionable, he will commit his affairs into his hands with unreserved confidence, and feel himself secure; all the transactions of the agent will meet with the most favorable construction, and the measures he takes will give satisfaction. But, if the person employed be a stranger, whom he has never seen, and whose character for ability or fidelity he cannot fully learn — If he is constrained to choose him, because it was not in his power to procure one more agreeable to his wishes, he will trust him with caution, and be suspicious of all his conduct.

In this view representative democracy that becomes distant from the individual voter and citizen is seen as less representative for those doing the voting. Complex ideas and ideals are not well represented with those that have huge voting population base, and their ability to actually speak out in a meaningful way for any majority of voters is hindered due to differences between the individual representative and the individuals they are representing. In the modern day House of Representatives the members represent, on average, 550,000 individuals and the ability of such representatives to be known for their wisdom and good deeds in their community is lessened and the ability for ambition to grow for any individual representative is high: by means of utilizing public goods and funds for their own purposes, members of the House have the ability to assure that their meager 'base' is funded. Laws passed from which Congress, additionally, exempts itself puts further distance from those that actually are the subjects of the laws involved, such as the labor laws instituted for the rest of the Nation or not putting forth the idea that 'freedom of information' should extend to the Legislative branch, also.

What is garnered from that are laws that the People will not obey in substance and often not in form. Taxation is rife for 'cheating' and seeing the unfairness of the tax code weighted, in theory, to have rich individuals pay more while companies and many of these rich individuals pay nothing. They are, even with that, the greatest source of income for the Federal government, but the idea of special tax law for one class over another distances the individuals, as a whole, from the common government. That devolves to the point where the power vested in the Federal government is not utilized to actually uphold its duties, say on immigration and naturalization or properly scoping out the size and needs of the Armed Forces of the Union, that the population loses confidence in these distant legislators who, apparently, now only legislate for themselves, their cronies and their vested 'special interests' that support the with kick-backs from Federal grants and contracts. Actual, simple things like identifying deficient bridges and repairing or replacing them are put secondary to funding such things as bike paths, State roads and even gardens for private institutions. The result, as stated by Brutus is painfully clear:

If then this government should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty.

Such government as this destroys liberty. If force be used it is a direct change from rule via the People to rule via the Strong. And if neglected the Laws of the Land fall into disrepute and the society and Nation slide into disunion, disharmony and destruction. Either is the death of Liberty which depends upon the structure of government and its acceptance and adherence by the People in a representative democracy. When that factor of personal knowledge and accountability is put at risk, Liberty is put at risk over time by the distancing of those that govern from those being governed.

That power of taxation and the influence of the wealthy and distant is seen as a major contributing factor to the destruction of representative democracy. In Cato No. 6 by Cato on 13 DEC 1787, the following passage is seen after speaking on the ills that taxation will not be able to address:

In what manner then will you be eased, if the expences of government are to be raised solely out of the commerce of this country; do you not readily apprehend the fallacy of this argument. But government will find, that to press so heavily on commerce will not do, and therefore must have recourse to other objects; these will be a capitation or poll-tax, window lights, &c. &c. And a long train of impositions which their ingenuity will suggest; but will you submit to be numbered like the slaves of an arbitrary despot; and what will be your reflections when the tax-master thunders at your door for the duty on that light which is the bounty of heaven. It will be the policy of the great landholders who will chiefly compose this senate, and perhaps a majority of this house of representatives, to keep their lands free from taxes; and this is confirmed by the failure of every attempt to lay a land-tax in this state; hence recourse must and will be had to the sources I mentioned before. The burdens on you will be insupportable—your complaints will be inefficacious—this will beget public disturbances, and I will venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that you and the government, if it is adopted, will one day be at issue on this point. The force of government will be exerted, this will call for an increase of revenue, and will add fuel to the fire. The result will be, that either you will revolve to some other form, or that government will give peace to the country, by destroying the opposition. If government therefore can, notwithstanding every opposition, raise a revenue on such things as are odious and burdensome to you, they can do any thing.

Those that control the ability to tax will not know the bounds of restraint only of their ambitions, and those lead from the lightest of overall taxation to increased taxation on anything to raise revenue. Yes, the Federal government has gone much, much further than tariffs to: income taxation, tax on alcoholic beverages, tax on gasoline, tax on cigarettes. Any Federal government that can tax cigarettes can tax anything it wishes. By being able to win extensions of the 'interstate commerce clause' to have say over purely intra-state (within a single State) as seen in the recent Gonzolez v. Raich decision, then anything can be considered as 'having an impact on interstate commerce' be it legal or illegal, as the Raich decision was on ILLEGAL sales tracked by NO ONE. That is a bit of that folks not complying with laws bit seen by Brutus.

Purely this is abuse of power and seeking its extension by the Legislative branch and being agreed to by the Judicial branch and enacted due to the Executive prosecuting such laws. In theory the stated ability of Congress is de-limited to interstate commerce ONLY as no other power is granted to it by the People. The Executive by carrying out such law is complicit in agreeing to it and enforcing it and the Judicial is putting its seal of approval on breaking with the stated authority given to Congress and adding to it in a way strictly against the Congressional mandate from the People. Any government that can use any activity, legal or illegal, as an excuse to make law down to the lowest level within States due to 'commerce based activity' can legislate on anything it desires under that concept. That is a failing by all three branches in the modern era to actually just uphold the limits placed upon government by the People. I assume that yard sales will fall under the purview of this next. Or children swapping trading cards. All has value in commerce and, therefore, all can be taxed by the Federal government.

Now, not all of the Anti-Federalists were reasoned folks, and a few of them became quite immoderate and florid in their writing against the proposed Constitution and its backers. Yet, even in that floridness and vituperation, some sense of what can be lost and why can be garnered, as seen in Centinal No. 8 by Centinel on 29 DEC 1787:

But as it is by comparison only that men estimate the value of any good, they are not sensible of the worth of those blessings they enjoy, until they are deprived of them; hence from ignorance of the horrors of slavery, nations, that have been in possession of that rarest of blessings, liberty, have so easily parted with it: when groaning under the yoke of tyranny what perils would they not encounter, what consideration would they not give to regain the inestimable jewel they had lost; but the jealousy of despotism guards every avenue to freedom, and confirms its empire at the expence of the devoted people, whose property is made instrumental to their misery, for the rapacious hand of power seizes upon every thing; dispair presently succeeds, and every noble faculty of the mind being depressed, and all motive to industry and exertion being removed, the people are adapted to the nature of government, and drag out a listless existence.

If ever America should be enslaved it will be from this cause, that they are not sensible of their peculiar felicity, that they are not aware of the value of the heavenly boon, committed to their care and protection, and if the present conspiracy fails, as I have no doubt will be the case, it will be the triumph of reason and philosophy, as these United States have never felt the iron hand of power, or experienced the wretchedness of slavery.

That reads just like a modern day blog in its essence, although the command of the language is far, far higher than anyone in the modern era can, apparently, muster to express themselves. As one guesses the reason I concentrate on the Anti-Federalists is that they had some insights into how democracy and Republics can fail, and Centinal does point out that the blessings of liberty can become so commonplace that we forget it is special to us. We have seen historical examples of this in Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain... and many Nations of the 'third world' or lesser industrial powers in S. America, Africa and Asia. Rwanda, Somalia, Argentina, Panama, Laos, Cambodia, all attest to the failures of securing liberty against those that would seize power from a decaying system.

In Federal Farmer No. 8 put out on 03 JAN 1788, we get a view of the systemic problems of governmental systems that cannot adhere to common rule and the problems seen in Britain and Rome are compared and contrasted through the lens of historical analysis. Not bad for 1788! The piece concludes with this view of what happens when governmental systems decay in a representative democracy of free people:

De Lo[l]me well observes, that in societies, laws which were to be equal to all are soon warped to the private interests of the administrators, and made to defend the usurpations of a few. The English, who had tasted the sweets of equal laws, were aware of this, and though they restored their king, they carefully delegated to parliament the advocates of freedom.

I have often lately heard it observed, that it will do very well for a people to make a constitution, and ordain, that at stated periods they will chuse, in a certain manner, a first magistrate, a given number of senators and representatives, and let them have all power to do as they please. This doctrine, however it may do for a small republic, as Connecticut, for instance, where the people may chuse so many senators and representatives to assemble in the legislature, in an eminent degree, the interests, the views, feelings, and genuine sentiments of the people themselves, can never be admitted in an extensive country; and when this power is lodged in the hands of a few, not to limit the few, is but one step short of giving absolute power to one man — in a numerous representation the abuse of power is a common injury, and has no temptation — among the few, the abuse of power may often operate to the private emolument of those who abuse it.

When legitimacy is lost, either through outright corruption, usurpation of power or distancing of government from the People, then the government itself decays until conditions invite despotic rule. The concentration of power can happen not only by design but by neglect: the lack of oversight through incompetence or just not seeing something as a long-term problem. Thusly the concentration of power in the United States happens whenever fewer individuals represent more and more people. The President is chosen to lead the Nation in full, and the Senators to represent the interest of each State, but the House is the body meant to represent the will of the People and the neglect of actually having individuals that are respected and known in their communities by the majority of individuals creates a problem for representative democracy. By setting the size of the House by Public Law, the Nation has grown and each individual represents more and more individuals but has less and less accountability in the system. The Senate was created to give a stable outlook for all of the States and to quell the tumultuous view of the People with more reasoned guidance. Today that 'elder statesman' role is gone as the turnover in the House is so minuscule that there is no 'tumult' of opinion to quell. While the Nation changes to adjust to modern times as individuals, the tools of government lag worst in what should be the most representative body of the land: the House of Representatives.

When our most recent Congress came in with majority approval ratings after the election and has dropped month by month so that any approval is now near the margin of error of measurement for ZERO, one no longer has representative democracy with the consent of the governed. John Lansing, in his address to the New York Ratifying Convention on 24 JUN 1788, address the problem of what to do with unaccountable Senators and Representatives as he saw this as a prime concern when this National government:

Sir, it is true there have been no instances of the success of corruption under the old Confederation; and may not this be attributed to the power of recall, which has existed from its first formation? It has operated effectually, though silently. It has never been exercised, because no great occasion has offered. The power has by no means proved a discouragement to individuals, in serving their country. A seat in Congress has always been considered a distinguished honor, and a favorite object of ambition: I believe no public station has been sought with more avidity. If this power has existed for so many years, and through so many scenes of difficulty and danger, without being exerted, may it not be rationally presumed that it never will be put in execution, unless the indispensable interest of a state shall require it? I am perfectly convinced that, in many emergencies, mutual concessions are necessary and proper; and that, in some instances, the smaller interests of the states should be sacrificed to great national objects. But when a delegate makes such sacrifices as tend to political destruction, or to reduce sovereignty to subordination, his state ought to have the power of defeating his design, and reverting to the people. It is observed, that the appropriation of money is not in the power of the Senate alone; but, sir, the exercise of certain powers, which constitutionally and necessarily involve the disposal of money, belongs to the Senate: they have, therefore, a right of disposing of the property of the United States. If the Senate declare war, the lower house must furnish the supplies.

It is further objected to this amendment, that it will restrain the people from choosing those who are most deserving of their suffrages, and will thus be an abridgment of their rights. I cannot suppose this last inference naturally follows. The rights of the people will be best supported by checking, at a certain point, the current of popular favor, and preventing the establishment of an influence which may leave to elections little more than the form of freedom. The Constitution of this state says, that no man shall hold the office of sheriff or coroner beyond a certain period. Does any one imagine that the rights of the people are infringed by this provision? The gentlemen, in their reasoning on the subject of corruption, seem to set aside experience, and to consider the Americans as exempt from the common vices and frailties of human nature. It is unnecessary to particularize the numerous ways in which public bodies are accessible to corruption. The poison always finds a channel, and never wants an object. Scruples would be impertinent, arguments would be in vain, checks would be useless, if we were certain our rulers would be good men; but for the virtuous government is not instituted: its object is to restrain and punish vice; and all free constitutions are formed with two views——to deter the governed from crime, and the governors from tyranny.

That old concept of recall is embraced and enshrined as pertinent not only to the Confederation but to the Republic. The States would not agree to give up so fundamental a right as that so as to keep National government in check. Not *just* term limits for certain offices in the State Constitution are cited, but actual recall as a foundation not only for New York State but the Confederation. The seldom used right is one that indicates government is going far off track and the States under the Confederation had this power and its continuation via removing the legitimacy of the ballot by the State for its Senators and Representatives remains a primary right of the State as a negative right. It is asserted only to negate attempts by its elected officials to change the power structure in favor of the Federal government or just to the individuals involved. With the legitimacy withdrawn by the State, and the recall issued, such individuals are brought out of power by the State to ensure the Sovereignty of the States and the People within the Union.

No one person can catalog all possible ways a government can fail and revert to tyrannical rule, both Federalist and Anti-Federalist point out the ways it can fail. The Federalist side put safeguards into the Constitution via divided government, accountability of each branch to the other two and by putting in the ability of the States and the People to put the Federal government in check via the legitimacy of the vote and the power of the purse. Each of those pieces were designed, by the Federalists to answer the problems of the Anti-Federalists and to ensure that democracy in a representative form for the Republic would continue onwards. These were vital and necessary safeguards to protect against concentration of power, the distancing of those governing from the People and the ability to extract funds from anything that the Citizenry would do. Without those things government would trend, by action or neglect, to decay, disorder and then the rise of tyranny either by a single individual or by a group seeking to assert rulership over this disorderly system.

In a short span of 10 years these safeguards were all but removed from the Constitution by Amendment, with only the old right of recall still left in place. I looked at those years previously in a an article and looked at the social and societal repercussions of those actions taken to make government 'more active' and 'efficient' in the affairs of the Nation. That change in society because of those changes have moved away from the democratic ideals represented by the Constitution at the Founding. Direct election of Senators by the People removed the intermediary of State Sovereignty to keep the Federal system in check. Adding an Amendment so as to allow direct taxation of the People by the Federal government beyond mere commerce, but to go directly to individual wealth removed the distributed power of the purse held by the States previously, and, additionally, the Federal government passed into Public Law a set size for the House because it would be 'unmanageable' at 600 or so members by 1940.

Each of these basic and fundamental safeguards installed by the Founders into the Constitution so as to make it very, very difficult to undermine or corrode National governance has since led to a point in time where Congressional approval by the People of the United States has fallen to the level of noise in the polls. Congress has become so isolated that its support is no longer something that can be measured with accuracy, because that confidence in it has evaporated almost completely. The Federalist Hamiltonian solution of what to DO when you get to such a point is clear, and he wrote on that in Federalist No. 26 on 22 DEC 1787 about the abuses of Congress by action, but the same problem can be found by inaction as the Anti-Federalists point out in a section I do tend to cite quite often:

"The legislature of the United States will be obliged by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party in different degrees must be expected to infect all political bodies there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable that every man the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person."

This goes not *just* for the armed forces, but whenever Congress via its actions of inactions drifts from representative democracy and into authoritarian governing. A scheme to divert representative democracy need not be by armed force: neglect and self-serving politicians can achieve the removal of legitimacy by sheer inaction and unwillingness to keep an accountable system in place. By removing the power of the purse from the States the Federal system now enjoys separate Sovereignty to do as it pleases without regard to State input. Funds need no longer be spent in the State's interest and, instead, the interest of the few in the Legislative can corrode the accountability structure to have National funds serve private needs.

We as a People were convinced that removing these safeguards in that era of 1909-19 would get the Nation 'better government' that was 'more active' in our daily lives. The counter to that is that any government that can reach that far down from the National to the indivdual without accountability due to removing State input and diluting the power of individuals and communities is then unaccountable to the People. The United States has badly erred in the last century, and while great progress in technology and the arts and sciences have come about, government has become unaccountable and untrustworthy in the extreme. As a People we will suffer ills of government until they are no longer sustainable, and then the thoughts of Jefferson come to the forefront. This system *was* accountable at one time: messy, lethargic, poorly funded and not too active in the lives of the People.

That is something known as: limited government.

Let us work together to return to it and accountability of such government to the States and the People.

Our very Liberty depends upon in it.

A DIME does not pay the toll

From The Free Dictionary we can pull up a list of things with the DIME acronym, of which one is the most pertinent to modern conflicts: DIME- Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic.
These are cited time and again as the necessary underpinnings for creating a successful Counter Insurgency (COIN) plan for integrating local populations with the help of external forces to the population involved. These are, quintessentially, 20th century industrial views on what an integrated society *is* and what its underpinnings *are*. They are meant to be representative of a governmental effort to coordinate between external abilities of a government to create a stable societal environment so as to have a basis for successful COIN operations. Note that this is true not only for external, invading armies of a Nation, but internal to Nations as well, especially ones that have high levels of ethnic and social differences internal to the Nation. While the first is highly touted in post-war conflicts of external military ventures, the second is also indicative of internal conflicts against separatists or resentful peoples who have strong disagreement with their National government. For the first most would cite WW II, Philippine-American War, and similar Nation State to Nation State conflicts like the Napoleonic conflicts of the 19th century. Coming to a equitable agreement for a new accountable government that will uphold the Law of Nations between Nations is the litmus test of DIME operations for such conflicts. This does not ensure peace or stability, but does ensure the understanding of reciprocity between Nations is paramount in world affairs.

The second set, however, needs to be explored as it is no less of a need to bring accountability and responsibility to the forefront, but for the goal of stability and peace internal to the Nation involved. Here things are far from good and the list of conflicts gives one a feel for the direction of these internal accommodations: War of the Roses, US Civil War, Serbian independence movements pre-WWI, Spanish Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, Lebanese Civil War, Shining Path in Peru, FARC in Columbia, Bosnian-Serbian Conflict, Kosovar Conflict, Rwandan genocide, Eritrean independence movement, East Timor Conflict, Kasmir uprisings, Chechnya separatist movement, Moro insurgency and even such things as the Chiapas region of Mexico or the ethnic strife in Darfur. Each of these needs commitment on a scale for their governments no less than that of an external conflict, and yet some of these governments are so poor as to be unable to properly muster any ability to address such needs. One cannot utilize economic capability if there is very little of it to start with and any uprising or conflict puts *that* into doubt. Military means requires a relatively reliable and cohesive military system that has accountability to governmental authority, yet that is eroded by criminal activity, 'insurgent areas' and outright terrorist bribes to the fighters on the ground. To get reliable information one needs a reliable infrastructure for reporting, be it by telecommunications or pony express, and to have representatives of the government that will *not* be bribed and will act as intermediaries that can be trusted for their reliability. And that gets to the diplomatic realm of understanding that working agreements out without force is preferable to using force, but that diplomacy, of itself, cannot stop war if there is no ability to accommodate on disagreements by all parties.

DIME, then, has serious lacks when put on the stage in the actual, physical world that has individuals that are human, mortal and have the negatives of same. Further, these conflicts have moved from highly organized Civil Wars, with actual new governments and societal structures being instituted, to more and more dispersed and distributed affairs that no longer abide by the concepts of Nation State - accountability, responsibility to those in a region, and can, in places like Kasmir, Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon, Chechnya, represent the fomenting of war by organizations that seek only global disorder so that they may rule. DIME has some basis against those that hold society to be a basis of government, and are willing to work out equitable agreements after bloodshed as the cost of sacrificing civilians between belligerents is a losing proposition for both. Against those that are *not* part of the local society, however, THAT is not a problem, and continual foment and killing forever onwards until the collapse of the society is seen is the actual GOAL of it. These latter day affairs see more in common with that, as a concept, than in the previous era of the Nation State civil wars as the goal was to create a government accountable to a given part of society. And as these non-Nation State actors are more than willing to utilize ideology, ethnic tension, religious differences, sectarian differences within religions, and, in fact, things like criminal extortion and oppression as means to their ends, the legions of those that can be recruited are vast. Every society has disaffected social elements represented by individuals that feel that they are no longer part of the process of the Nation State and are being suppressed by it.

That leaves DIME in a dilemma as the basis of having common society, even in disagreement, must not only be in the majority, but it must reach near unanimity. Even .1% of any society may bring death, destruction and intimidation with it as a means to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with society and government and create a high death toll. Mere handfuls of anarchists in the 19th century assassinated Kings, Princes, and Presidents on a relatively random killing spree across decades and that would only burn itself out as the activity of anarchy was that to create disorder. Their means to organize on a larger than local or even National scale was limited. Anarchists burned themselves out as the pointlessness of their activities pointed out a pointlessness of the lives involved. Limited internal organization due to credo limited scope of destruction and the flames of anarchy burned hot and then to completion as they created nothing in their wake. Modern day creators of havoc, those called transnational terrorists, have a different goal and have means to achieve it. The goal is to overturn the order of Nation States so that their outlooks will be the supreme order amongst mankind. Their means to achieve this is provided by the very international global trade system which seeks to enforce the lowest cost of goods to individuals with no accountability attached to that trade beyond *payment*.

Those who have created this global internetwork of trade have also utilized DIME, but in a different form. The goal has been to achieve this thing known as 'open markets' and to have 'economic stability' and the global movement of capital as the means of production to those places that have the lowest wages for that production. These organizations have been part of Treaty negotiations on the diplomatic side and have utilized systems of pay-offs and buy-ins from repressive regimes so as to get their way. Their information capability piggy-backs not only on that of the Nation State, but via other actors that are either local, regional or global that already have a presence in markets. The military side was far more present in the 19th and early 20th century with the concept of having Nation States enforce treaties favorable to companies, which became known as 'Gunboat Diplomacy'. The economic power that was utilized would even keep one President from waging war against an enemy and used economic loss of companies as an excuse not to do so. The leverage of international and now transnational capitalism is used to benefit those organizations for means of production, distribution and sales, but have very little adherence to the concepts of liberty and freedom.

These two movements that are transnational in scope and diametrically opposed on the concepts of stability do, however, work hand-in-hand as neither has a view towards 'creating a better world' beyond sloganeering. Conceptually transnational terrorism seeks to utilize the cheapest means possible to disrupt Nation States and cause societies to decohere. These organizations are supplied by transnational capitalists more than willing to sell all the goods that are needed at a low price. As both sides of this have deep inroads to the criminal and black market sides of things, these transactions will take place no matter what the edict of any individual Nation State is or any group of Nation States due to the influence of the global trade community. Putting a *price* on dealing with those seeking to bring Nation States down is worked against by transnational capitalists which refuse to have any burden put upon trade nor accountability of trade to anyone in a responsible manner. Here the activities of individual companies and their outlook matters less than the global transport and transaction systems which operate on both the 'white' and 'black' side of trade. Attempts to make producers 'responsible' for where their goods end up has fallen flat on its face because the laws are such that only hard and fast ties to those that would bring down societies and Nations is required before any accountability can be had. And as the focus is upon the trade and not the manufacturing, the system of international trade, itself, is found to have no basis of accountability outside of treaty.

Treaties made to accommodate the movement of goods at the cheapest price to any paying customer.

On top of this comes a third conception of transnational affairs and that is transnational progressivism. This is a system of elitist viewpoint that puts forward that current liberal democracy or, indeed, any system that does not recognize differences between groups of people first is the cause of problems. To that end the elements supporting this put forward that the rights that one is to get is not based upon individuality but, instead, group affiliation. As this is an elitist outlook, any group designated as a 'victim' is then given more leeway and rights than 'oppressors', and 'victims' are not held accountable for their actions. Thus there is no advancement in society for the individual, what one has at birth in the way of groups, be they ethnic, religious, or societal minority, matter more than being a citizen of a Nation State. Individual rights are by association at birth and whatever the elite class determines can be handed out as a reward depending on whim and factional strife. This outlook has been utilized to actually foment discontent amongst ethnic populations that cross borders due to reasons of history and Nation State creation. A short listing of such illuminates this outlook: Kurds, muslims in Kasmir, native Americans across the Americas, North African muslims in France, and muslims, generally, across Europe, ethnic Chechens, ethnic Albanians, ethnic Serbs, ethnic Bosnians, latinos in the US, ethnic Malay, Timorese, Moros, and the muslims across North Africa. These groups by ethnicity and religion are further dissected downwards via sect and intermarriage until the plethora of groups means that one starts to find 'victimless' crimes being perpetrated by terrorists because they are of some designated 'victim' group. In the US this meme has been inculcated so that poor individuals who commit crime blame society for their upbringing, not their lack of character to make a responsible individual out of themselves as the motivation behind crime.

This system of outlook that is elitist and authoritarian in outlook utilizes the DIME concept to its advantage also. On the diplomatic fronts a number of associations in the West have created the 'Arabists' and other 'regionalists' that put forward that individuals, groups and Nations can't be held to a higher standard, such as adhering to treaties, because of the 'circumstances of their Nation' and the 'repressive nature' of their society. Poverty is put forward as the root cause of everything, because it is an insoluble problem short of socialism: in any achievement based economic system there will always be a bottom 10%. Socialism, luckily, makes everyone equally poor so there is no bottom 10% as no one can achieve anything. And the best way to make economic 'divides' WORSE is to get high capability capitalists in to put in transnational manufacturing sectors utilizing the lowest wages possible to 'exploit' the 'poor'. While many transnational progressivists take to the streets to decry the 'low wages' that this or that company gives to the workers there or decries the 'working conditions' because they do not meet Western standards, they never, not once, decry the overall poverty of such Nations nor that these 'bad jobs' are better than anything else to be had in that Nation. It is, instead, creating a 'impoverished class' of individuals who are being 'exploited', while those very same jobs create an 'economic divide' inside the Nation where the jobs are. Apparently one can be both too rich and too poor in this outlook: poor enough to be a victim, but rich enough to become affluent.

That is DIME working to near perfection as a way to erode the capacity of Nation States to have internal accountability without outside interference and gain any prosperity at all. And any attempt to use internal means to suppress riots, terrorism, etc. is decried as utilizing the military to 'suppress the victims'. To do this transnational progressivists use the media to their advantage as much of their elitism is held by the very same media organizations they decry these problems to. Thus a single side of any problem is put forward and the 'way forward' is always for the 'victim class' to 'gain power' and not be held accountable for their actions. The information gained via media outlets on diverse ethnic, cultural and religious populations then serves the transnational progressivists as a way to identify which will be the next 'victim class' to be uplifted above others. Western manufacturing plants in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Columbia, Argentina... indeed anywhere there is relatively cheap labor to fulfill manufacturing needs then serves as a place to foment divisions within society by putting forth that economic means cause inequality and that minorities are 'oppressed' by 'majorities'. Soon 'labor activists' show up, decrying things that, to Western eyes, look harsh, but to local eyes may seem otherwise. Yet the only thing that gets put up is the gold standard of 'inequality' and 'exploitation'. Never mind that folks making a good wage and a good life may be the upshot of such 'exploitation' as that is just another 'social divide' being caused by transnational capitalism.

With that these three transnational concepts come together as an interlocking whole. Expanding capitalism causes 'divides' as localized income increases, 'activists' arrive to help engender a feeling of being a 'victim', and those feeling the pressure of 'repression' be it real or imaginary, then fund organizations that further expand the 'problem'. Soon the concept of terrorism arrives from various groups, be they Nationalist, Communist, criminal or religious, and the killing starts which requires, perforce, National military action.... which is decried as suppression. In no time at all a factory or two suddenly gets a society in unrest, money flowing out from local affluent 'victims' to fund further agitation and then the killings begin, perhaps only one or two at start, but more as 'repression' is felt from those 'in power'. With the capitalists completing the cycle of making cheap and affordable arms available by white or black market means.

Each of these outlooks wants to ensure that strife remains in place for their own reasons. The transnational capitalists use this as a means to ensure that locals are kept on edge without having to increase pay to them and, if they leave to join 'insurgent' or terrorist groups, then they will need supplies provided by other parts of transnational capitalism and the local plant now has a low cost, entry level worker.

Transnational progressivists can utilize the 'exploitation' and the 'oppression' and not hold terrorists accountable as they are merely 'poor and exploited', ignoring that most of those doing the killing are actually well paid and have an education. By putting down a 'root cause' that cannot, ever, be addressed save by making everyone poor, exploitation is assured and any response by any government that does not meet the demands to turn more power over to smaller groups is met as an 'oppressive' response. As more 'repression' happens, upon designated minorities, foment is spread by 'activists' and the media to start larger scale 'solidarity' often across Nation State boundaries.

Having turned over the soil and added the fertilizer of actual jobs, then watering it with discontent and adding such seeds, is it any wonder the noxious plant of terrorism sprouts and grows from there? Terrorism is not done by the poor save for low level killings and such, but is actually guided by the affluent and college educated. Only the rich and well off can have time to make fine distinctions between texts, tracts, religious books, and other treatises and find cause to feel the 'will to power' via the sword. Would that it were only hand crafted swords and not mass produced weapons involved, as that would take a bit to establish. Instead any minor cash infusion to a terrorist organization creates the ready purchase of cheap small arms to be used in attacks to gain media attention and claim 'victimhood' while committing crimes. And when this is seen as an effective outlet either through lack of governmental response or by governments pressured to 'accommodate' problems, more local money flows into such 'successful' organizations.

Creating, of course, more 'repression' and more spreading of cheaper arms under the limelight of the media.

And the Nation State?

'Oppressive'.

'Obstacle to trade'.

'To be opposed for the purity of ethnicity/sect/class'.


DIME has a problem in that it serves equally well to set up the structures to collapse society as it does to uphold it. DIME is known as a set of 'vectors': pathways of major parts of society and systems that need to move in coordinated fashion to achieve ends. They are a set of 'means' not 'ends'. And, as such, can be used in any number of paradigms for how to have society, how to govern and, apparently, how *not* to do those things. As a method of COIN we must recognize that the opponents of Counter Insurgency, namely Insurgency, utilizes these exact same vectors in opposition to orderly society. That is because these vectors are neutral to ideology and only means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. If we treat DIME in isolation to the underpinnings of society, then we shall soon have no society in common as it fractures under the multiple forces of transnationalism which seek to gain by that destruction. To counter that the actual goals of what DIME is utilized for must be clearly and succinctly stated and all activities traced directly back to those goals. DIME utilized without such goals then can be utilized in opposition and that opposition will tear up any society upholding group that does not put forward the goals first. In the military parlance this is known as the 'Grand Strategy'. It is more than just 'victory' but the reasons why victory is worthwhile and the goals of that victory BEYOND mere victory. If these are not clearly upheld at entry into a conflict, then there is no way to trace any lesser level strategy or tactics (the implementation tools and locales for strategy) back to the larger goal. In the realm of business this is the Corporate Business Plan or Outlook document, to sort out the major goals to be achieved by said business, and hiring folks to work in a business unit is mere tactics. In this realm of thought, DIME is a way of implementing Grand Strategy and NOT Grand Strategy in, and of, itself.

The original Marshal Plan had a Grand Strategy outlook to rebuild Europe along democratic lines and equality of rights and make sure that Germany never posed a threat to the world again. That took nearly two decades to finally come to a conclusion and it did not succeed fully in that so many Nations fell under Communism. Yes it was not fully successful because the will to uphold it was not present and a counter-strategy was able to thwart it. Without the on-the-ground tactical will to support Eastern European democracies, those Nations did not GET democratic rule until they got it for themselves. The Marshal Plan FAILED them, and cannot be seen as a full success because the M part of DIME was no longer seen as viable after a World War. What we got was DIE, and many, many did under repressive regimes, re-education camps or just such simple things as low standards of living. By not meaning what we said about democracy and putting for Military support of our Grand Strategy, we were barely able to save Western Europe from Communism.

So, when folks try to propose a 'Marshal Plan for the Middle East' just *what* exactly are the goals of that and will you back that with US military might? If not, I suggest you go peddle such elsewhere, as any plan without that element of reciprocity tends to fail.

Finally this brings us to what is necessary to oppose the transnational use of DIME via its three major formats: capitalism, progressivism and terrorism. To do that requires a 'Grand Strategy' that will not utilize just DIME but also create a societal factor for stability, accommodation and reciprocity internally and externally to Nation States. These are not tactics, nor programs, nor ways to spend money, but this is the outlook of what those things are to work *towards*, not only in Iraq but globally. DIME, on its lonesome, supports anyone willing to utilize it for their own ends, be it in the use or degradation of any of its elements to support other goals. To change that, there must be one major factor as a goal: accountability.

The First Goal is: Accountable Government. That is not only to the people internal to the Nation but between Nations. To do this requires acknowledging that there are consequences to actions taken and that the best way to solve adverse consequences is via accountability and the concept of reciprocity to hold government accountable for its actions. And the laws internally must also be accountable and those within it must acknowledge that a law between those in the Nation is primary above all other things.

The Second Goal is: Rule of Law. Again this is not only internal to a Nation but between Nations via this thing known as 'Treaties'. Internally law is applied to sustain society and the order of society, and law must be a product of accountable government. Governments create and sustain laws via the activity of law enforcement, but that means can vary from Nation to Nation so long as law is upheld in an accountable fashion. One of the major goals of accountable law, internal to Nations and via Treaties is that they be comprehensible to the 'common man' in the Nation(s) involved. If a law or Treaty cannot be clearly stated and defined it opens up the opportunity for abuse and invites same by those trying to shift emphasis from the intent of the law to the wording of the law. If the intent of a law or treaty is not clear, then no fine verbiage can allow it to be adhered to. And laws and treaties with exacting goals will be lost in a sea of verbiage if the meaning of words trump the intent of laws or treaties. Laws and treaties differentiate between activities, but do not discriminate between those doing the actions. Treaties in their own class may have discrimination on single State-to-State affairs, but multi-Nation Treaties are non-discriminatory as to ethnicity, religion, or any other physical or societal factor.

The Third Goal is: Equality before the law. This means that all citizens of a Nation are treated equally before the law, and that those multi-Nation Treaties must adhere to non-discriminatory language so that actions are addressed not intent. This does not mean that all individuals in a Nation are free, by any means, and many forms of government offer very little in the way of rights to citizens and yet can sustain equality of all before the law without regard to placement, stature, income, race, or belief system. That system of accountable law is held by government which is accountable to its people. People can, indeed, have very few rights and repressive laws, so long as the highest leader and lowliest beggar are equal before that law and no means are present to prevent the intent of the law from being carried out. Amongst those in multi-Nation Treaties, all Nations are equal to them and they agree to the Treaty, in full or in part, and will be held accountable to those parts they sign up to. Here the accountability is by other Nation States.

The Fourth Goal is one of the oldest to the Nation State system: Religious worship is not to be dictated by the State. The Westphalian concept that Nations may adhere to religions, but they may not force religion upon all the individuals inside their Nation are upheld. All religions are allowable and individuals must be given leave to practice same without interference or discrimination by governments. Religions have proven singularly incapable of governing large, mutli-ethnic, multi-cultural Nations, and the dead from the religious wars in Europe that caused the Treaty of Westphalia to come about is a 'lesson learned' on that score. Governments can, indeed, have religious adherence, but the ability to force anyone to decide ONLY for the religion of that government should be anathema to the West and, indeed, to all Nations.

The Fifth Goal is one to counter transnationalism: The basis for diplomacy and the accountability by Nations to each other is Nation State based. No other actors may be put on that stage from individuals to NGOs. Charities are organizations that give aid and succor to the poor and help in disaster relief. They are not a permanent conduit of unaccountable cash, arms and goods to any region or people. That is the realm of Nation States who can agree to have such organizations or *not* between them. There is no legitimacy in warlike activities outside of the realm of the Nation State system. International corporations are not to be a party to any Treaty negotiations between Nation States and as legal entities are fully amenable to the laws and treaties involved between Nations and may not seek to sway them via any form of lobbying. Commerce between Nations is conducted by groups and individuals that have accountability to those laws and treaties and that activity of commerce is only afforded by the system of Nation States which allows it to operate. If Nations like the idea of 'free trade' they can offer it because it is seen as good for their Nation and those they offer it to, not because it will benefit businesses. And accountable governments may, indeed, place restriction upon trade in the form of ban, travel restrictions, tariff, or designating those breaking those laws as Pirates and seen as out only for the welfare of themselves, not the Nation they are part of in that doing. Nations make the basis for trade and create the framework in which it exists and individuals, companies or any other non-Nation actor has no business dictating what they want upon Nations and are Pirate and Outlaw if they break those agreements.


Goals create, classify and define objectives to be met: they are the stated objectives for which the basis of underlying program scope and activities can be done. Within such a common framework one can create and craft a wide array of Foreign Policy for a Nation and uphold that Nations are the representatives for the people that are contained within it. A hard and fast Foreign Policy that upholds these concepts allows for a common framework between Nations to be held, although it guarantees neither stability or peace it is one that allows such to be formed. And from those times when the framework breaks down or even reciprocity breaks down, a policy for National action across the spectrum can be made to protect the Nation, the people and the system of Nation States. Without such things the basis for creating a war strategy is very difficult as one has no basis for stating the objectives in warfare and the aftermath of such conflicts. And without that the basis of COIN work is damned near impossible as it requires the underpinnings of understanding what the civilized discourse between Nations is and what is and is not acceptable within that framework. DIME is only one set of vectors in COIN, and are amenable to any who would utilize them to their own ends, and they do not define the entire gamut of National interest, power or ability, just major sections of same.

Again, these 5 goals are *not* Foreign Policy but serve as the acceptable basis upon which Foreign Policy can be built. And it does, indeed, allow us to discriminate between Nations and decide which ones would be good to have Treaties with and which ones are not so good for that. It also puts forth what the National view is towards international outlaws, who threaten the discourse amongst Nations, seek to overturn Nations or just seek to profit by preying upon the commerce of Nations. In this actual world such are very hard to implement as this Nation called The United States of America has helped those that do not stand up for these basics of civilization held between Nations. Sticking to these things define what the Nation can support in the way of other Nations and activities, and realize that a price will be paid by the Nation and its Citizens in trying to bring other Nations to this outlook of civilization. But then, there has always been a cost in time, effort, money and blood in creating and upholding civilization. And quite some more in trying to bring it down. It appears to be a never ending task, and the only one worth the cost.

The cost of 'Realism' in Foreign Policy

The following is a foreign policy outlook paper of The Jacksonian Party.


Such great things have been accomplished by 'Realism' in Foreign Policy, right? How about a meandering around some of the recent part of the 'Realism' era of Foreign Policy.... time to slip back in time to when the War was Chilly, the Nukes were kept at the ready, and the rest of the world wondered just what it was that was going on between the US and USSR...

How about the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 in which Henry Kissinger worried that India had become a true client state of the USSR and so backed Pakistan in a bloody repression against West Pakistan... soon to become Bangladesh. And, it is reputed, truly bad-mouthing a leader of another Nation, that being India. That worked out so pleasantly, with the thousands dead and a region that would then have problems developing any stability for decades. Still, it kept the USSR out of things. Why Mr. Kissinger would *never* do anything to let something like *that* happen, would he?

The Paris Peace Accords birthed by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho in 1973. The North Vietnamese were to *stop fighting* when the US left... remember that? 'Peace with Honor'? Say, how IS South Vietnam doing with that 'Honorable Peace' the US brokered? Hmmm... seems that Communism actually spread because of this with quite some millions dead due to this 'Honorable Peace'. Well, at least the peaceniks got satisfied and went home! So they could prove the bravery of their 'peace' outlooks and do absolutely NOTHING to help build a just peace.

Then there was the Yom Kippur War, which saw Henry Kissinger which he did support the attacked Nation, Israel. He would then go on to establish this concept of Israel giving back captured territory for 'peace'. It has bought stability with Egypt and Jordan, but, somehow, Syria and Libya and a few other Nations just don't think much of this 'land for peace' concept. Never bought it, even with Jimmy Carter handing out billions of dollars to try and buy peace.

Chile would come in for special attention with the victory of Socialist Salvadore Allende, who would do his best to turn around Chile's failing markets, get inflation under control and put folks back to work. As a Socialist, mind you. But, after a good start, Socialist politics and running the printers day and night at the treasury soon made things worse, and threats to shift control of private companies out of the hands of their owners worried many of the US holders of those companies. Soon the concept was that of getting the CIA to start causing trouble... which would lead to the 1973 coup in Chile.

Kissinger's support for the end of the Rhodesian Bush War would see South Africa pull out support for Rhodesia and the civil war there then degenerate for some time, until it went from minority rule to dictatorial rule under Robert Mugabe.

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger speaking about the Coup.

So much for the concept of democracy.


Zbigniew Brzezinski would prove just as adept at 'Realism' in the outlook that strengthening ties with Communist China was more important than supporting the prosperous break-away province of Taiwan. Yes, we are *still* using that designation to this day, when Communist China still has State controlled elections and Taiwan has multiparty, democratic elections. All the US had to do was break the treaty we had with Taiwan and pull out our forces... and so it was done, a friend and ally turned away for the 'realism' of a Communist counter-weight to the USSR. Not that the USSR and China had been on good relations very much for a decade or two, by that point.

Now Mr. Brzezinski would *also* support Islamic Fundamentalists in Afghanistan after the Soviet Invasion and, if some accounts are true, *before it* so as to bog down the Red Army in a central Asian 'quagmire'. Yes, as National Security Adviser he saw supporting totalitarian, fundamentalist Islamic radicals as a *good idea*. And once the Afghan War started, the support for those radical elements would not only remain, but increase under Ronald Reagan.

Just about the same time, in 1978, Mr. Brzezinski assured the Shah of Iran that the US would 'back him to the hilt'. Even when members of the State Dept. were saying otherwise. The whole fiasco of not doing a damned thing against the Iranian Shia Revolutionaries, the hostage taking of the US Embassy staff, and the entire fact that those actions are casus belli remains a major stain on all concerned in the Carter Administration, starting from the top. Iran was a US ally, not a Soviet one and the USSR made NO inroads there after the revolution. Actually came to hate the regime quite some bit and upped its supplies to their neighbor's dictator ascendant - Saddam Hussein.

"I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could." - Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1979


This brings us to the wonderful era of Ronald Reagan where he did, indeed, call for a wall to be torn down and an Evil Empire to be confronted! Kicked the Armed Forces back into the procurement concept and got a few new weapons systems started, which would prove the final straw on the Soviet back. Some few may say the view of getting the Red Army bogged down in Afghanistan and funding radical Islamic groups was *worth it*! Not like the USSR was involved in more partisan conflicts than one could easily shake a stick at across the world and was ready to spend itself blind to do that little thing. What President Reagan did *not* do is stand up for the Nation against non-Soviet threats... the little things like terrorists bombing the Beirut Embassy a couple of times, gratis of Syria and Iran. Also bombing the Marine Barracks there who were in place to try and stop the fighting from going from bad to worse. The American dead from the Embassy bombings was only 19 out of the total of 85 dead, and the Barracks bombing would netting 241 US servicemen and 58 French allies dead, along with some civilian staff. While the Vice-President spoke brave words about the US staying and that we 'would not be cowed by terrorists', what would happen is the US *would* leave within 6 months after a minor bombing campaign and no ground work to take out the terrorist safe havens. This was a defeat for the US in a non-Soviet venue: the USSR had little to care about as Iran and Syria were making their own plans for Lebanon.

From there comes the entire and ongoing Iran/Iraq war which the US had decided to give some help to Saddam Hussein against Iran. The old 'enemy of my enemy' not being too nice a guy in his own right. Still, compared to the USSR and the amount it was channeling into Iraq, and no one has done a good comparison of the economics between that support and the funds needing to go to Afghanistan, Angola, Ogaden, Uganda, etc, was quite small. That does not indicate level of technical expertise gained, but it does point out that material support in equipment and infrastructure were not on par between the US and USSR. That extension of support on a global basis and in particular for Iraq really was quite an overstretch by the USSR by any accounting, but Iran was willing to expend lives cheaply, including children, to stop Iraq, and so the death toll mounted and little in the way of equipment would have changed that outcome.

What did happen, however, on Ronald Reagan's watch, was the Iran-Contra affair, in which Ollie North, Richard Secord, John Poindexter and a cast of variegated players, decided it would be 'a neat idea' to send arms to Iran for hostages, supply money to an international arms dealer so as to get arms to the Contras. Such a fun idea that! Unfortunately, beyond breaking some Congressional prohibitions on that and the word of the President that we would have nothing to do with Iran nor EVER negotiate with terrorists, this little cabal introduced one of the most able and noxious characters to hit the international arms circuit into a whole new line of business: exporting terrorism.

Anyone reading the past few months of posts at my other site know that man: Monzer al-Kassar. From this one, single man being introduced via secure association with Administration officials into Latin America would come a truly awful tide of events that would continue on far past the 'neat deal' of Ollie North. Before Mr. Kassar arrived on the scene in Latin America there was very little in the way of Islamic terror that was not associated with Fatah, and those few events were either of the assassination sort or the 'joint venture' with some minor 'Red' faction doing something in the amateur leagues.

Starting with Mr. Kassar would come ties between him and the child of Syrian ex-pats in Argentina: Carlos Menem. As Carlos Menem was running for office he was getting direct aid from Syria and brokering deals to give the Syrians advanced missile technology and nuclear technology... all that before he ever got into office. The man doing that brokering was Mr. Kassar, who's wife was of the Assad family. Even though that deal was scotched by the US at high levels, the outcome of those contacts would be to funnel Argentinian arms to Bosnia to equip Iranian fighters. Also out of that would come the establishment of the Iranian intelligence network for its Foreign Legion - Hezbollah. Mr. Kassar was also in a fine position to use his narcotics trafficking background to reach out to FARC and work out deals with them on the 'arms for cocaine' concept.

By 1992 the first truly professional terrorist attack in South America happened: the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina. The measure of its professionalism is that it has never been tied to *anyone* due both to the Menem regime's destruction of records and the work of Mr. Kassar to obfuscate his whereabouts. Later the AMIA Jewish Center Bombing would wait over two decades until someone could be *charged* with it. This is the fallout of that 'sweet deal' of Ollie North: the establishment of Hezbollah in Latin America. The very same organization that killed Americans in Lebanon at the Embassy and Barracks.

Argentina, for all of its problems, had never been on the forefront of anyone's lists of Nations at risk due to the USSR. It was on the periphery of the 'big game' for that. It moved to the center stage of the terrorist step-stones into the Western Hemisphere, and from there the Tri-Border Area and other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean would see an influx of Islamic Terrorism. Even before the 1992 bombing the effect of that was being seen in Trinidad when Jamaat al-Muslimeen staged the first Islamic coup in the Western Hemisphere. A very, very 'sweet deal' that now sees multiple and diverse radical Islamic elements across the Caribbean and Latin America. Plus, if General Contreras is to be believed, that Monzer al-Kassar actually had drug rings in the US and Europe to do final processing and distribution for him. Add in connections to Chile for arms running and to the Medellin and Cali drug cartels, and one begins to wonder just how such a 'sweet deal' could have such a nasty outcome. No, that isn't the end of it, not even close! But I will continue on to the next fun 'Realist': James Baker.

For Mr. Baker I will turn tothe articles in the BNL notebook and see what lovely things he was promulgating while in the Reagan Administration. As the head of the Treasury Dept. and then moving on, during the Bush (41) Administration State Dept., James Baker was placed in a set of critical roles for oversight on the movement of funds to Iraq via the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation. Money for 'grain sales' wound up funding procurement of 'dual use' equipment and often for funding, directly, things like the Gerald Bull 'supergun' during 1988-1990. Before Mr. Baker came into the Dept. of State, Iraq was under the CCC for $393 million/year starting in 1986 in loans, and that would skyrocket to $1 billion/year in 1990.

This policy started, however, in 1984 prior to Mr. Baker's time at the Dept. of State while he was in the Head of the Treasury Dept. that would oversee the funds moving to Iraq via theExport-Import Bank for loan guarantees. Although the EXIM Bank is a separate part of the Executive Branch, it is difficult to see how funds flowing through it and via the CCC would not attract any attention of the Treasury Dept. from 1984-89. This is especially true as questions were raised about Iraq's ability to actually repay the loans before 1989 and Mr. Baker moving from Treasury, under President Reagan to Dept of State, under President Bush. Those questions seem to have been sidelined as the Iraqi participation moved from that of a large CCC participant to the largest participant in that program.

The main bank that would be utilized for purchases was the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro, Atlanta Branch, which would famously deliver farm equipment and lose the manifest for it so have to redeliver it with the first delivery going *missing*, send G-5 Howitzers and ammunition via the 'freight forwarding' aspect of the CCC, moved nuclear triggers via the CCC and BNL that were stopped by the UK that saw a few problems with sending those to Saddam, and, of course, buy goods at inflated prices and the middlemen would resell them and keep the profit. All of that to help out poor little Saddam Hussein who got at least ten times as much from the USSR, at least twice as much from France and three times as much from China. Some of the things that Saddam bought couldn't be found from them, obviously, but the amount of influence purchased compared to the top three, who had longer term and lasting relationships meant that the US accounted for 0.45% of Saddam Hussein's support up to 1990.

What *was* Mr. Baker buying with that policy? One could argue, as Mr. Kissinger did, that the Iran/Iraq War was one that we hoped *both* sides could lose. The meager amounts put into that vast war and supporting Saddam after it point out to sheer and unabashed negligence as the US could not hope to match the Soviet and later Russian influence there. The amount of debt Saddam retained was enough to swing those top three Nations to his whims to help thwart the UN Security Council resolutions in the Oil-For-Food program. The course of 'Realism' meant investing in a genocidal tyrant well after he was known to BE genocidal. Isn't that a lovely policy for the US to uphold? Yes, it is against Iran, but the pure venom evinced by the people of Iraq against Iran was manifest by the fact that a large amount of Iraqi Arab Shia *volunteered* to die for Saddam so as to fight Iran. And then 300,000 would die believing that the US would actually step in to help them if they staged an uprising. But the US couldn't do that, after encouraging them to do so... that was 'unrealistic'. Poor saps actually BELIEVED in the US to abide by its word.

"I fear the current wave of radical Islamism is going to be a continuing problem as long as poverty and discontent exist in that part of the world. We must find a way to get beyond that and to achieve some economic development. I once made a proposal for a Middle East development bank. It was not picked up on but it's still needed, for the Middle East is the only part of the world without a development bank." - James A. Baker III, The Middle East Quarterly, SEP 1994, Volume I: Number 3.

Warren Christopher got to be the next Secretary of State during this new post-Cold War era where everything was going to be just fine in the world and history would end. Unfortunately he was as unprepared as his predecessors to actually deal with what was happening in the world, as this short listing of terrorist incidents will show, my thanks to the MIPT Terror Knowledge Base:

Bomb explodes near US Ambassador's Residence in Columbia,
Carbomb explodes outside US Ambassador's Residence in Columbia,
Slayings of CIA personnel in Langely, VA,
Window smashing of US Cultural Center in Serbia,
Grenade attack on US Embassy in Serbia,
Guards at US Consulate attacked in Columbia,
ETA suspected of bombing near US Embassy in Spain,
Two US soldiers wounded by sniper fire in Somalia,
Kakurokyo attacks HQ of US forces in Japan,
Kakurokyo attacks US Camp Zuma in Japan,
Shining Path explodes carbomb outside US Embassy in Peru,
US diplomat killed in Tblisi, Georgia,
Forces of Gen. Aidid suspected in killing of four US soldiers in Somalia,
Red Brigades attack US-NATO airbase in Italy,
Three US soldiers killed when helicopter downed in Somalia,
US Embassy bombed in Estonia,
One US soldier killed in Somalia,
Shining Path attacks US-Peruvian Binational Cultural Center in Peru,
US diplomat kidnapped by Jahm tribesmen, headed by Mubarak Mashan, in Yemen, US soldiers fired upon in Somalia,
Gunmen fire shots at US diplomat in Ethiopia,
'Southern California IRA' grenade attack on British property in US,
Lebanese man fires on van carrying rabbinical students in US,
Haitian exiles fired upon in US,
Shots fired at residence of US Ambassador in Uruguay,
Mozambique National Resistance Movement kidnaps US pilot working for UN in Mozambique,
Convoy carrying US Ambassador attacked in Somalia,
FARC kidnaps American in Columbia,
Shining Path bombs US Embassy in Peru,
Grenade attack as USAID offices in Ethiopia,
Two Americans working at US Consulate killed in Pakistan,
Oklahoma City Federal Office building bombing in US,
RPG attack on US Embassy in Russia,
US Army Captain fired at in Saudi Arabia,
GIA sets US Embassy warehouse on fire in Algeria,
Hezbollah and al Qaeda attack OPM/SANG complex in Saudi Arabia,
Chukakuha and Kakurokyoha bomb US base in Japan,
Attempted kidnapping of US human rights worker for UN in Guatemala,
Territorial Anti-Imperialist Nucleus firebombs US serviceman's car in Italy,
FARC kidnaps American Citizen in Columbia,
Guard at U.S. Government Binational Center disarmed and wounded in Columbia,
Revolutionary Struggle launches RPG attack at US Embassy in Greece,
Attack on US Consulate in China,
US Consulate attacked in Mexico,
Bombing of US Information Services compound in Pakistan,
Attempted firebombing of US Cultural Center in South Korea,
Firebombing of US military compound in South Korea,
Contras kidnap USAID election observer in Nicaragua,
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah bombing kill six US servicemen in Saudi Arabia,
US Defense Intelligence Agency employee stabbed in Egypt,
USAID vehicle torched outside US Embassy in Russia,
Nicaraguan Sandinista Liberation Front HQ set on fire in US,
Attempted firebombing of US Consulate in Indonesia,
Jamaat-e-Islami attack US Consulate in Pakistan,
FARC captures and kills US Citizen in Columbia,
Letterbombings of Saudi Arabian newspaper offices in US,
Letterbombs arrives at Ft. Leavenworth in US,
Letterbombs arrive at Saudi Arabian newspaper offices in US.

Probably missed a few there as I concentrated on diplomatic and military events, leaving out the vast swath of other things that are out there, but those happened just while Warren Christopher was in office as Secretary of State. Still, while a number of these are 'just' terrorist attacks, quite some few go by an older and more prosecutable concept, which no one in the Clinton Administration every bothered to do. For all the fact that the concept of 'law enforcement' being used against those waging illegitimate warfare is just plain nuts, the Clinton Administration couldn't even be bothered to actually do the work to prosecute these under *any* name. Far better to be 'liked' than respected on the world scene, I guess. I can't really lump Warren Christopher in with the 'Realists'... he just failed the US without much of a direction for it. Thus we get an idea of how President Clinton handled foreign policy in a way that safeguarded the Nation.

From that we get - 1) North American Free Trade Agreement - In which now that Mexico has broken its agreement to bolster its economy, stop the flow of illegal aliens northward and, instead of exporting goods is exporting its unemployed, has broken with this agreement. Mind you, that was WHILE President Clinton was in office. Far too hard to hold Nations to agreements they signed on to, I guess.

2) Allowing Saddam Hussein to break his cease-fire agreements, throw out multiple teams of weapons inspectors, corrupt the Oil-For-Food program, subvert the sanctions regime and, with impunity, killing 300,000 Shia Arabs that revolted against him and having two US Presidents do NOTHING about that. Yes, far too difficult to hold Nations to agreements, especially ones where they fire at you and undermine the concept of international law.

3) Operation Desert Fox, in response to (2) which did NOTHING to remove Saddam Hussein and emboldened him as he believed the US and the international community would do NOTHING to seriously challenge him.

4) Get involved in 'peacekeeping' operations in so many places that Congress had to start curtailing that as it was eroding the infrastructure of the Armed Forces. From that, two US Army Division fell to their lowest readiness rating since Vietnam as the CinC would not allow them proper R&R and sustainment by rotating them OUT of 'peacekeeping' duties. One of those was the 10th Mountain Division which would be unready to go anywhere right after 9/11.

5) Allowing Iran an easy set of inroads to the Balkans by not being willing to either uphold or break or hold any other Nation to international agreements about the Balkans. Finally allowing arms *in* gave Iran the pretext to go into Bosnia and a few other places with its agents and trainers.

6) Doing nothing to confront al Qaeda even after: 2003 WTC Attack, African Embassy Bombings, the attempted bombing of the USS The Sullivans, and no warning given from that to the Navy and thus getting the USS Cole attack. Mind you, Osama bin Laden had *declared war* on the USS and was getting a body count to prove it even before 9/11.

7) Doing nothing to confront Hezbollah or Iran based on: OPM/Sang bombing killing US personnel in Saudi Arabia, a bombing by Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia killing 6 US servicemen. Mind you this is after Hezbollah had started attacking US Embassies and servicemen in Lebanon in the 1980's and the Iranian involvement in those and the later bombings showed how little the Clinton Administration cared to do anything to protect US personnel *just* on the Government payroll, not to speak of private citizens.

8) FARC, from Columbia, established a good and hard track record of going after Americans in S. America: kidnapping an American, another kidnapping, capturing and killing an American, taking over the US Embassy in Columbia, and attempting to assassinate President Clinton via a bomb on a State visit to Columbia. Apparently doing such things just was too difficult to confront by President Clinton.

9) Working out the Oslo Accords and then doing nothing to convince Yassir Arafat that he must, in actuality, carry through with his agreements. Meanwhile browbeating Israel to keep its side, even when its 'negotiating partner' has demonstrated bad faith. Failing utterly at Camp David to end the Arafat initiative to constantly change goals upwards on his side to put forth appeasement as, if he didn't get the new demands, he would 'restart the intifada'. Which, by the way, hadn't stopped anyways.

10) Brokering a deal with North Korea to end its enrichment of nuclear material and putting no structure to force North Korea to hold to that agreement. Instead North Korea attempted extortion of more than the US was obligated to give by threatening to restart its work. That agreement gave the tyrant of North Korea the ability to get food and goods to feed his people without stopping any of his other activities outside of the nuclear realm, like the creation of $100 US bank notes called 'supernotes', which was aimed at debasing the US paper currency in use.

11) Ignoring the INTERPOL testimony on the coalescence of transnational terrorism and organized crime, thus leading to much of the expansion of radical Islam into the western hemisphere by Hezbollah and al Qaeda. That plus a misguided concept to try and utilize police powers against those waging illegitimate warfare on the US made for the expansion of radical terrorism without any attempt to end it a lasting legacy of the Clinton Administration.

President Clinton was no 'Realist', obviously. He also had no Foreign Policy nor any concept of National Security or even holding Nations to their signed agreements. He escaped the verdict of al Qaeda by 8 months and 11 days. Because of these things based on some unidentified view of how the world works, the US was left with worn down Armed Forces, no ability to counter terrorism, inability to enforce treaties and with a legacy of not even treating those using the means and weapons of war against the US as actually doing this thing known as 'waging war'.

The era of 'Realism' and the post-Cold War mentality did the following:

I) Ignored threats that were asymmetrical to the Cold War, completely. These were threats that did not impact the Cold War and were outside the chilly environs of it, being done with Nations that had already 'chosen sides' but were minor to the main conflict, or were willing to take advantage of the two sides in the Cold War without regard to that conflict.

II) Moved away from the traditional American support of democracy and accountability as the basis for Foreign Policy, and putting in its place a brokering of despotism to counter outside threats. This has not safeguarded the US and, instead, empowered tyrants on a global basis that could exploit 'regional necessity' to get US backing. The US was unwilling to counter or reform these Nations and, instead, empowered tyrants through a slogan of: trade helping individuals to democracy. The tyrants saw this, I'm sure, as: cheap goods to keep their people quiet. America is a Revolutionary Nation born on principles that the basis for human liberty are universal. Whenever the US decides to give a tyrant a 'free pass' because they are a 'counter-weight' to a worse tyrant, we forget that the enemy of ALL tyrants is human liberty. The US debases its own beliefs of that foundational concept when it reneges on that as a basis of Foreign Policy. All tyrants should fear the US, not look to the Nation for 'goodies' to quell their populace so that the few may remain in power over the many forevermore.

III) Countering regimes that have come to power democratically because the US does not like their outlook. If the true power of democracy is to allow Peoples in their Nations to find the best route to liberty and freedom, then any People that make a mistake must fix it for themselves. The US was ill served by the coups against Ngo Dinh Diem and by that against Salvador Allende. This, patently, has not worked out to the best interests of the United States. The argument can be made that taking down such regimes is trying to avoid the catastrophe of WWII and the corruption of a democratic Nation. It can be counter-argued that if we mean what we say about democracy, then we will not be afraid to go to war with one like was done in WWII against such a corruption of it, if it decides to declare war upon us. Bringing down a *neutral* or *allied* democratically elected government debases our own democracy and our trust in it as a system of government.

IV) Believing that poverty is a driving force behind radical Islam or terrorism. Poverty has not been the driving force behind Islamic Radicalism or of terrorism. Indeed, al Qaeda's main operations are carried out by those that we would consider to be 'middle class', living in Nations with opportunity but coming from repressive regimes. Revolts by the poor can become ones that are radical or be radical to start off with, but many, like in the Philippines against Marcos, are seeking *justice* and *accountability* by the government to the People. Those that turn to terrorism are not seeking *justice* nor *accountability* but an overthrow of the entirety of the Nation State order to get their way. None of the terrorist organizations have restricted their fund-raising, recruiting, training or attacks to just one Nation. Even the most Nationalist of terror organizations, like some of the IRAs, ETA and Shining Path, have gone extra-territorial in their means, methods and attacks. This is not a question of poverty, it is one of corrupt and power-hungry views of the world to make it run in accordance to the wishes of the groups involved. That can be in just one Nation, but there are many that cross Nation State boundaries and seek a wider regional or global change in the ordering of the power structure in their favor. It is the middle class and affluent that can afford the education for radical teaching and can afford to follow that with what we would consider to be 'good jobs' that pay well. The poor can and are used by such organizations as foot soldiers, shock troops, and 'expendables' for various things. Their leadership are those that are well off in the realm of finances and goods, but lacking in the realm of accommodation with the rest of humanity.

V) Realists have never dealt with Foreign Policy on the basis of the Revolutionary conception of America. They have approached, one and all, even the less than capable President Clinton, on the basis of the US being a Great Power first, and a land of Freedom, second. Looking through what went on through the latter part of the era of 'Realism', we see that view permeating the air with Kissinger, Brzezinski, Baker, Scowcroft... all very much on the 'Realistic' economic stability side and not very much on the universality of human freedom side. This is not a misperception, as witness all the thugs, tyrants and despots that they urged the US to support over the years. This entire school of Foreign Policy misses the basis for what America *is*: a land that believes that all men are created equal. That the source of legitimacy is not in the power of the economy nor in the power of arms nor in the vastness of the individuals, but in the depth and sincerity of holding *to* liberty so as to be free. America does not export revolution and has no business deciding for other people what their system of government should be. America does have a stance to make that we believe all People are better off being Free and utilizing Liberty to the widest extent possible so as to lead good and fulfilling lives. We are the friends of those who befriend us, and urge our friends to find the most liberty that their people can have so that we can grow stronger together as Free People. Tyranny and despotism are the enemies of Liberty and Freedom and should be given no quarter, no rest, no succor.


In pulling in evil regimes to counter worse ones, we diminish the meaning of liberty and freedom for ourselves and the scales slowly shift in favor of the evil of tyrannical and authoritarian outlook. That has gone on so long that an entire segment of the political spectrum now adheres to authoritarian concepts about diminishment of the individual under the beneficent oversight of the State. These dwell in both the Right and the Left. They are Enemies of Freedom. 'Realistic' policies have debased the foundation of what it means to have a Nation called the United States of America. The ideals of Liberty and Freedom being universal are now widely attacked within the Nation itself, because the Government has looked towards a 'Balance of Evil' rather than the Might of Freedom as its guidepost. In that light, those that seek to give more and more to the Nation State are proceeding down the pathways set up by the 'Realists': they seek to treat Peoples as servants to events, not as the movers of them and the definers of Nations. By adhering to tyrants and despots to counter totalitarian regimes, we have come to accept that authoritarianism is an acceptable path for ourselves and the world. Those seeking to erase Nations, homogenize humanity and bring partisan based equivalence across humanity are far *worse* than dictators we have countered over generations.

America can go forward by jettisoning its support of regimes that encourage no Freedom and Liberty within their bounds. That means actually confronting them, ending our trade with them and encouraging our allies to do the same. That will hurt the Nation economically, and greatly, as we have come to accept the everyday banality of such repression of the human spirit until we accept it as the natural order of things. Both the Left and Right mouth words of freedom, but in their hearts are views of authority over mankind, not coexistence within the panoply of human outlook and cultures. By no longer daring to say that human Liberty and Freedom IS universal, we deny its protection to ourselves as well as those in desperate need of it. America, for all that she deals with the actual world on a daily basis, is a highly idealistic Nation, based on ideals and principles that transcend class, culture, ethnicity and politics. Those pushing that 'everything is political' wish to say that human liberty can now be bartered away by the political class. Those foundational aspects that give root and meaning to the American outlook are being hacked at by those wishing to uproot this Nation and all Nations.

The United States was not founded to be a 'Realistic' Nation: democracy in such a large Republic had never been tried and all Republics AND democracies had failed throughout the ages. By working to undermine the ability of the Nation to hold to its long-term views on the universality of human freedom and liberty being paramount to mankind, and by making alliances with dictators and tyrants, the position of the US to actually oppose them has weakened over the past four decades.

The Nation is now in the untenable position of having to support a 'free trade agreement' with a Nation that demonstrates no ability to regularize its democracy or to institute reforms necessary to drive out corruption in the public policy area: Mexico.

We also support trade to increase freedom without any demonstration that this concept works. The American History is that free people at liberty to invest and spend their hard earned wages and winnings in life as they see fit to build their lives better to benefit the Nation is an obvious one. Having cheap exports and imports with Nations that do not adhere to basic human freedoms of speech, religion and freedom from government confiscation of goods now means that the US actively supports those ends and not the ends of liberty and freedom. China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and other Nations are direct recipients of US money and investment and there is little to no overhead on that to help support pressing these regimes to become free and prosperous based on that freedom, instead of extracting funds from their populations or just repressing them for natural resources extraction.

The Nation does not bolster its free friends and allies nor encourage them to greater liberty and freedom via investment in them. A simple plan to hand the industrial and material cast-offs of the US economy to recently freed Nations and those Allies in need of such things to help them prosper would be very low cost to the Nation as we have utilized these goods to the greatest amount we can, but there is still utility and ability to make a good living with them in other Nations that have befriended us. While the US can and should work with other peoples to create freedom and liberty, we should work even harder to sustain it in our friends and allies so that we can become stronger for being free *together* and that there is large and good value in liberty and freely choosing ones own way in the world. That means no longer appeasing tyrants and gaining an iota of humility to recognize that others *trust* us, and that such trust must NOT be betrayed by 'Realism'.

These are outcomes of the Foreign Policy that I proposed earlier.

Support friends and allies with free trade and by having cross-investment with them to sustain our liberty and freedom together with them.

Put tariff and taxation upon those dealing with Nations that neither help nor oppose the US. There is a cost to support our freedom and liberty and that is not only internal to the Nation but external to it as well so that our goods and values are not exploited by those who do not care overmuch for us.

And the enemies of freedom and liberty must come to recognize that they have no friend in the US, and that their opposition to the universality of human freedom and liberty is a bane to us. They should get no trade, these Nations that seek to undermine human freedom and liberty and that openly show their hostility to the US and its friends and allies.


The Liberty and Freedom we have has a cost to it, and when we let the good of it move to support despotism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, our liberty is perverted to unjust ends. Free People can acknowledge this cost and adhere to the rallying cry of the Revolution: "No taxation without Representation."

And those Nations that offer no representation to their People should be *taxed* for that, so the wages of Free People do not build the bonds of slavery.