Lloyd Austin: Non-Interventionists Are the Real Enemy

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Original (Archive)

Over the weekend Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explained to the American people what’s really wrong with US foreign policy. Some might find his conclusions surprising.

The US standing in the world is damaged not because we spent 20 years fighting an Afghan government that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. The problem has nothing to do with neocon lies about Iraq’s WMDs that led untold civilian deaths in another failed “democratization” mission. It’s not because over the past nearly two years Washington has taken more than $150 billion from the American people to fight a proxy war with Russia through Ukraine.

It’s not the military-industrial complex or its massive lobbying power that extends throughout Congress, the think tanks, and the media.

Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California’s Simi Valley, Austin finally explained the real danger to the US global military empire.

It’s us.

According to Secretary Austin, non-interventionists who advocate “an American retreat from responsibility” are the ones destabilizing the world, not endless neocon wars.

Austin said the US must continue to play the role of global military hegemon – policeman of the world – because “the world will only become more dangerous if tyrants and terrorists believe that they can get away with wholesale aggression and mass slaughter.”

How’s that for reason and logic? Austin and the interventionist elites have fact-checked 30 years of foreign policy failures and concluded, “well it would have been far worse if the non-interventionists were in charge.”

This is one of the biggest problems with the neocons. They are incapable of self-reflection. Each time the US government follows their advice into another catastrophe, it’s always someone else’s fault. In this case, as Austin tells us, those at fault for US foreign policy misadventures are the people who say, “don’t do it.”

What would have happened if the people who said “don’t do it” were in charge of President Obama’s decision to prop-up al-Qaeda to overthrow Syria’s secular leader Assad? How about if the “don’t do it” people were in charge when the neocons manufactured a “human rights” justification to destroy Libya? What if the “don’t do it” people were in charge when Obama’s neocons thought it would be a great idea to overthrow Ukraine’s democratically-elected government?

Would tyrants and terrorists have gained power if Washington did NOT get involved? No. Tyrants and terrorists got the upper hand BECAUSE Washington intervened in these crises.

As Austin further explained, part of the problem with the US is democracy itself. “Our competitors don’t have to operate under continuing resolutions,” he complained. What a burden it is for him that the people, through their representatives, are in charge of war spending.

In Congress, “America first” foreign policy sentiment is on the rise among conservatives and that infuriates Austin and his ilk. He wants more billions for wars in Ukraine and Israel and he wants it now!

And our economic problems? That is our fault too. Those who “try to pull up the drawbridge,” Austin said, undermine the security that has led to decades of prosperity. Prosperity? Has he looked at the national debt? Inflation? Destruction of the dollar?

There is a silver lining here. The fact that Austin and the neocons are attacking us non-interventionists means that we are gaining ground. They are worried about us. This is our chance to really raise our voices!
 
On the one hand? He has a point. America retreating from its World Police role is going to clause global instability.
On the other hand? None of us asked the feds to take on that role, they did it because they could, and the populace has told them they hate it at nearly every opportunity, from Vietnam on through the global war on terror.
 
On the one hand? He has a point. America retreating from its World Police role is going to clause global instability.
Has our 35+ years of playing global cop really reduced it that much to start with?

It was never about policing the world, it was always about using it as an ad-hoc test range for our newest gen weapons while remaking "lesser" nations in our image if they wanted it or not. That doesn't sound like benevolent policing. That's what the Evil Empire in a movie does.
 
Has our 35+ years of playing global cop really reduced it that much to start with?

It was never about policing the world, it was always about using it as an ad-hoc test range for our newest gen weapons while remaking "lesser" nations in our image if they wanted it or not. That doesn't sound like benevolent policing. That's what the Evil Empire in a movie does.
We are living through the most peaceful time in world history and disease, infant mortality, and famine are mere shadows of what they once were throughout the developing world. The American navy securing global trade routes and exerting soft power over various 3rd world dictatorships is a huge part of why that's the case.
I'm all for America going less interventionist, I dunno why it is coupled with pretending that our presence abroad never accomplished anything good at the same time.
 
Has our 35+ years of playing global cop really reduced it that much to start with?

It was never about policing the world, it was always about using it as an ad-hoc test range for our newest gen weapons while remaking "lesser" nations in our image if they wanted it or not. That doesn't sound like benevolent policing. That's what the Evil Empire in a movie does.
Exactly. The world has been and always will be a fucked-up place with or without the United States. Even without American intervention, other countries and regions will inevitably find their own ways to stability. They don't need nor should they have Uncle Sam holding their hands and coddling them.

Just like every other county, the United States has been driven by geopolitics, trade routes, resources, and power projection. It's hilarious to think the United States was somehow uniquely humanitarian or cared about the rest of the world. Both the U.S. and the rest of the world will survive just fine without American interventionism.
 
Just like every other county, the United States has been driven by geopolitics, trade routes, resources, and power projection. It's hilarious to think the United States was somehow uniquely humanitarian or cared about the rest of the world. Both the U.S. and the rest of the world will survive just fine without American interventionism.
Wonder how many countries started wars in the last 30 years because they knew if they started losing, Uncle Sam would swoop in with some fancy new toys and a blank checkbook?

Ukraine was never going to win, all we did being "supportive" in that was draw out the suffering and waste billions.
 
We are living through the most peaceful time in world history and disease, infant mortality, and famine are mere shadows of what they once were throughout the developing world. The American navy securing global trade routes and exerting soft power over various 3rd world dictatorships is a huge part of why that's the case.
I'm all for America going less interventionist, I dunno why it is coupled with pretending that our presence abroad never accomplished anything good at the same time.
That's a fair point, but at same time all this coddling the Third World comes with a huge price. It means getting involved in entangling alliances that stretches our military thin. We need to let these shithole countries solve their own problems. We also need to stop pretending we need them or care about them. In the meantine, we neglect our country and let it rot from the inside out just to humor these shitholes.

Wonder how many countries started wars in the last 30 years because they knew if they started losing, Uncle Sam would swoop in with some fancy new toys and a blank checkbook?
Damn straight! War, genocide, and dictatorships continued to happen despite U.S. interventionism.
 
Exactly. The world has been and always will be a fucked-up place with or without the United States. Even without American intervention, other countries and regions will inevitably find their own ways to stability. They don't need nor should they have Uncle Sam holding their hands and coddling them.

Just like every other county, the United States has been driven by geopolitics, trade routes, resources, and power projection. It's hilarious to think the United States was somehow uniquely humanitarian or cared about the rest of the world. Both the U.S. and the rest of the world will survive just fine without American interventionism.
Hell, it could actually be argued that in some ways our interventionism is actually hurting the people we're intervening on behalf of, not helping them. Africa, despite all of our billions dumped into that continent, still has countries constantly bordering on famine. They've had less incentive to try and find a way to make agriculture work because we've been giving them fish instead of teaching them to fish. Not to mention giving them food often means they might end up having even more kids, further taxing what few resources their countries have and forcing us to invest even more money to try and keep them afloat. Then there's the fact that these regions are unstable as fuck and prone to wars breaking out at the drop of a fucking hat. War always causes massive instability and food insecurity. So we get even more fucking starvation.

Leaving them to their own devices has a higher chance of them actually figuring out a workable solution. What reason has a man to learn to fed himself if someone else is feeding him for free?
 
Last edited:
We are living through the most peaceful time in world history and disease, infant mortality, and famine are mere shadows of what they once were throughout the developing world. The American navy securing global trade routes and exerting soft power over various 3rd world dictatorships is a huge part of why that's the case.
I'm all for America going less interventionist, I dunno why it is coupled with pretending that our presence abroad never accomplished anything good at the same time.
sodomy and degeneracy has spread to those nations those other things you site are prolly not even because of intervention overseas also to call today the most peaceful time in world history is batshit crazy
 
We are living through the most peaceful time in world history and disease, infant mortality, and famine are mere shadows of what they once were throughout the developing world. The American navy securing global trade routes and exerting soft power over various 3rd world dictatorships is a huge part of why that's the case.
I'm all for America going less interventionist, I dunno why it is coupled with pretending that our presence abroad never accomplished anything good at the same time.
We have indeed accomplished great things when working with other countries that do in fact want us there. When we go into another country against their will with any other objective than removing a threat that has actually attacked us, it tends to cause more problems either immediately or later on down the line.

For example, getting involved in and bogged down in neocon nonsense in Iraq when the actual threat was in Afghanistan the whole time, and thus botching the latter in epic fashion culminating in a senile election-stealing pedophile causing a precipitous withdrawal that led to our enemies in charge and stronger than ever now that they are armed with our stuff.

It's not a strict binary where we either try to remake the world in our image against its will or we sit at home and do absolutely nothing, although if I had to choose now I would choose the latter each and every single time, even against Nazi Germany until and unless they attacked us first.
 
Would tyrants and terrorists have gained power if Washington did NOT get involved? No. Tyrants and terrorists got the upper hand BECAUSE Washington intervened in these crises.
How about this Washington instead?
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
 
For example, getting involved in and bogged down in neocon nonsense in Iraq when the actual threat was in Afghanistan the whole time,
Operation Iraqi Freedom was the fuck around and find out conclusion of Saddam playing fuck-fuck games ever since Desert Storm ended. But Bush just had to most ineptly tried to tie Saddam to Bin Laden overshadowed everything else prior to 9/11. Helped by the democrat run news media which memory-holed almost the entirety of Clinton Administration's handling of Iraq.
 
"I don’t care who Washington sends; I am not paying for a forever war."
 
Wow, Ron Paul is still at it.

sodomy and degeneracy has spread to those nations those other things you site are prolly not even because of intervention overseas also to call today the most peaceful time in world history is batshit crazy
It's the argument made by people like Steven Pinker. Is it accurate? Eh, who cares, bring on the bloodsports.

 
Back
Top Bottom