Skip to main content

Non-Interventionists ARE Pro National Defense and Do Support The Troops

By Daryl Luna, Editor at:
*In Defense of the Constitution*


Can you be opposed to our current wars as well as the influence of the military-industrial complex and still be pro-troops and strong on national defense? Of course, you can! But you wouldn't know it, listening to many of the talking heads who claim to carry the mantel of conservatism but are really just neocons or neocon-influenced.

Opposition to preventable, unconstitutional war is nothing new to libertarians and conservatives who made up the Old Right. In the past, adherence to a strict non-interventionist foreign policy was a distinguishing mark of the Old Right, and any self-respecting libertarian/conservative was quick to be weary of war and what Murray Rothbard labeled "the warfare state."

Moreover, war was only to be fought according to a strict set of principles. Just War Theory conditions, constitutional parameters, and true defensive needs had to be met in order for those past champions of human freedom to endorse the United States taking military action.

Needless to say, much has changed in recent decades. Neoconservative influence and a general lack of consistently applied principles have led so-called libertarians and conservatives to abandon their non-interventionist heritage and endorse unconstitutional and unnecessary wars.

To make things worse, those who hold to traditional principles as small government advocates are called unpatriotic, anti-military, and anti-strong national defense by many who claim to be on the side of liberty. This deception has gone on for far too long, and it is time to set the record straight.

In no way is it unpatriotic to believe that your country is great. In fact, it is so great that it should not lower itself to a level that neglects the seriousness of war, the preciousness of human life, and the morality and justice of its actions. My opposition to hawkish behavior and unconstitutional warfare stems not from a lack of patriotism, but rather, from an abundance of it.

Likewise, a belief in non-interventionist foreign policy in no way makes one anti-military. I have friends and family currently serving in the military. In fact, my uncle is serving in Iraq as we speak. I support them wholeheartedly and pray for their safety.

In no way am I anti-military. I respect our men and women in uniform, and I believe their service is both vital and honorable. Because of this care and respect I have for our military, I believe that we should never be hasty to send our troops into harm's way.

How does wanting to keep the military men and women from sacrificing their lives unnecessarily make one anti-military? Only a neoconservative would say something so illogical! Moreover, in no way does non-interventionism run counter to a strong national defense. In fact, it is the only foreign policy position that can achieve this goal.

By refusing to engage in war for the sake of war, a non-interventionist foreign policy provides for better troop morale, responsible defense spending, and a safeguard against overextending our military might. Rather than weakening our military by forcing it to become policemen of the world, non-interventionism seeks to keep the focus solely on national defense and our own interests. Moreover, in not creating enemies around the world by picking sides in international disputes, non-interventionism adds to our security and removes us from a host of enemy lists.

Lastly, we should note that opposition to the military-industrial complex's unchecked influence and the call for responsible defense spending does not run counter to a strong national defense. General Dwight D. Eisenhower first sounded the alarm against unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex, and the great hero of WWII can hardly be called anti-military or anti-national defense.

Conservative organizations like The Heritage Foundation often equate a desire for a more responsible level of defense spending with a desire to strip America of its strength and safety. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At least for those constitutionalists who cry out against bloated defense budgets, the desire is to balance security with fiscal responsibility--something that can and must be done if we are to remain safe and free.

There are those out there who refuse war at all cost and in all cases; I am not one of them. I believe that a just war can exist and a constitutional war is permissible. There are also those against war who are also against the troops; I am not one of them, nor are most non-interventionists. Then there are admittedly those in the liberty movement who use reckless language when referring to issues involving the military and defense, but we must not allow this to mar the image of the movement as a whole.

I am proud of our military men and women, and I am ashamed of our leaders for putting so many of them in harm's way for unconstitutional and unjust reasons. But I love America and see the importance of a strong national defense, which I support fervently. I know however that a strong national defense is not achieved through our current reckless interventionist policies. Does this make me unpatriotic or anti-military? By no means!

As for me, I will continue to fight for a truly strong national defense and truly support all of our troops. To achieve this we must follow the advice of our nation's Founders and support "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Don't forget to visit Daryl at:
In Defense of the Constitution

Popular posts from this blog

Thomas Sowell Returns

By: Thomas Winslow Hazlett Reason

Tax Bill Is Beginning of Formal Debt Criminalization

The noose is tightening on liberty. The United States Congress is steadily headed to a place where those who owe money to the US government shall be treated criminally. This phenomenon is advancing domestically and now, increasingly, internationally. The first shot in this latest campaign took place in 2010 when US President Barack Obama signed into law The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. It demanded, basically, that foreign banks withhold up to 30 percent of the income that an American abroad might earn. This bill isn't working so well because overseas banks are not cooperating (a state of affairs that was certainly expected). Thus, there is a need for something else: Senate Bill 1813, recently introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). This bill, in part, states that taxpayers with unpaid taxes over US$50,000 may find their passports confiscated. This isn't criminal per se, but the IRS has recently made noises about "sharing" information with police a...

How To Cripple The Real Estate Market In Five Easy Steps

If the government and the banks had just allowed real estate prices drop to market equilibrium, we'd be out of this mess and housing would truly be affordable. But the government is determined to artificially prop up housing prices, whatever the cost to the economy. If you were head of Central Planning (howdy, Ben!) and were tasked with crippling the real estate market, here's what you would recommend. Choke the market and banking sector with zombie banks... Have the central bank (the Federal Reserve) buy up $1 trillion in toxic, impaired mortgages... Lower the rate that banks can borrow from the Fed to zero, and then pay the banks interest on all funds deposited at the Fed... Try to prop up the housing market by giving poor credit risk buyers loans with only 3% down... Load young people up with the equivalent of a mortgage in student loans... OK,let's see how our Organs of Central Planning are doing: check, check, check, check, check: a perfect score! they're...
–––As Featured On–––