Foreign Policy Handbook 4

Redefining the National Interest

YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY

In The Words

of Bin Laden

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH ForeignPolicyHandbook.com

Issue IV | July 2010

All That

Glitters

Is Not

Gold

Jihan Huq

Brian Beyer

Daniel Suraci

The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy

Handbook

July 2010

FEATURED | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010

InterestOfTheState.com Home of the Foreign Policy Handbook | Redefining the “National Interest” One Issue at a Time

http://www.endofworld.net/

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010

Contents

YAL MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committed to "winning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direction of our government.

YAL STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

We are the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, liberty, and property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individual and directed by we the people.

We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and con-duct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace and prosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen.

We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed and dragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controlling

Executive Director

Jeff Frazee

Editor in Chief

Roy Antoun

Contributors

Jihan Huq

Brian Beyer

Jeremy Davis

Daniel Suraci

Brendon DeMeo

Elliot Engstrom

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Foreign Aid or „Forced Charity‟?

By Brendon DeMeo

In the Words of Bin Laden

By Jihan Huq

Spreading Democracy. Again.

By Jeremy Davis

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

By Brian Beyer

Ron Paul‟s Warning

By Daniel Suraci

On Pakistan

By Elliot Engstrom

Prohibition: Part II

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

A Desperate Maneuver

By Roy Antoun

3

4

8

10

12

14

15

16

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 1

Letter From the Editor Dear Reader,

With the Obama Administration‟s weak han-

dle of foreign policy, one couldn't think that it could

possibly get worse. After the “firing” of General

McChrystal, not only was the Executive exposed for

bad management, but it showed us something else,

something bigger.

Primarily, it shows that the simple task the

Executive is supposed to have, control over the

armed forces, was fragile and feeble. The State De-

partment‟s internal disputes and dysfunctions were

exposed to Obama‟s distaste. And rightfully so; it was

just sad to see the transparency coming from a maga-

zine like Rolling Stone. Military command aside, McChrystal‟s firing and ex-

posé also showed the uselessness of our ambassadors abroad, like Richard

Holbrooke.

Another element McChrystal‟s firing shows us is the mismanagement

of an already broken and defunct foreign policy. Considering that I lost count

of how many generals have commanded the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, it

goes to show how poorly managed the war truly is, let alone our diplomatic

efforts to make friends. There are various similarities between the abstract

strategy of the American Civil War and our current wars abroad. From the

glorification of Obama as the second coming of Lincoln to the constant firing

of generals, down to the mission creep strategy of changing the objective of the

wars, history does love to repeat itself.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

- George Santayana

Roy M. Antoun

Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook?

Contact [email protected]

Find us on the web:

http://yaliberty.org

Find us on Facebook

http://facebook.com/yaliberty

Follow us on Twitter

http://twitter.com/yaliberty

“Of the Youth, by the Youth, for the Youth”

The objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American

foreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected

leaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interven-

tionism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying

the price in blood and gold.

While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express

the views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose

any candidate for office.

http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 2 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010

Foreign Aid or

“Forced Charity?”

Imagine that you live on a lush tropical island

with a couple thousand fellow tribesmen, which is

surrounded by a few other is-

lands. You‟re a good person, you

work all day during the week selling fish at your

small shop in the center of the island village, and

give some of your profits away to the elders on the

island who can no longer work for a living, and the

village healer, so that he can continue to help the

sick and wounded islanders who cannot offer him

anything in return. Imagine that

doing so is rather hard, because

the chief of the island confiscates

about half of your wealth through

taxes. If you don‟t pay them, a

band of spearmen will show up at

your house and demand payment,

or will haul you off to a deep hole

in the ground and feed you noth-

ing but coconut shells for a few years, until you die,

or are set free to start working again and paying

more taxes.

Now imagine that this chief is taking your

money, and giving it away to tribes on other islands.

He calls it “foreign aid,” a form of “charity” that ex-

presses your tribe‟s “national character.” You may

think that such a thing is not charity, for if you do

not pay the taxes the chief uses to pay for foreign aid

you will be thrown in a dark, lonely hole in the mid-

dle of the jungle, but, if you speak out against it, the

chief and his cohorts call you greedy and selfish.

Furthermore, the foreign aid often goes to tribes

who do horrible things to their own people and

other tribes. They kill their own in weekly ritual sac-

rifices, and are constantly at pointless religious wars

with neighboring islands. The evil men and women

who run some of the other islands often take the aid

your chief sends to their islands and keep it for

themselves, and the chief knows this full well, but

he keeps on taking his own tribes wealth and send-

ing it to other islands. It boosts his popularity, for

some of your fellow tribesmen and other island

chiefs think more highly of him because he is willing

to take his tribe‟s money, by force, and send it else-

where.

You would surely be outraged with the chief.

You would hate paying your taxes because your

money would often be going to people you do not

support, and causes you disagree with and often

find quite deplorable, all while many of your own

tribesmen suffer. But in the United States, this is the

reality. You can think of the federal government as

the chief and the spearmen as the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS). The federal government takes Ameri-

can‟s money and sends it over-

seas, where it often winds up sup-

porting causes Americans often

do not believe in. The federal gov-

ernment believes it knows better

than its own citizens where to

give charitably, and how much

should be given, even though

many Americans are underfed,

undereducated, and underprivileged in general.

This aid often hurts developing nations who

receive it. According to the Global Issues website,

“large projects or massive grand strategies often fail

to help the vulnerable; money can often be embez-

zled away,” and “aid amounts are dwarfed by rich

country protectionism that denies market access for

poor country products, while rich nations use aid as

You would hate paying your taxes because your money would often be going to people you do not support, and causes you dis-agree with and often find quite deplorable, all while many of your own tribesmen suffer.

Brendon DeMeo


a lever to open poor country markets to their prod-

ucts.” The latter is very troubling when we learn that

the US government even uses tax dollars to adver-

tise certain private businesses abroad.

The US government funds both sides of the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Millions of American tax

dollars flow into Gaza and often winds up in the

hands of Hamas, while, simultaneously, millions of

American tax dollars go to the Israeli government.

Note that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the

US government recognizes this fact. Even if you

support Israel, you have to wonder why one of the

strongest and relatively wealthy countries in the

world needs the aid of the American taxpayer, while

the value of the dollar plummets, the American

economy is in turmoil, and many Americans strug-

gle with day to day expenses.

America, and much of the third world, would

be much better off if America simply stopped send-

ing tax dollars overseas and let the citizens practice

actual charity, which must be voluntary or it is not

charity at all. Looking at the leadership in both par-

ties, this is not likely to happen anytime soon. But

let us not kid ourselves into thinking the US govern-

ment, or any other government, is charitable when

it gives away money taken by force, and let us not let

our fellow countrymen think the charlatans who run

this nation are saints for giving away money taken

by force.

In The Words of Bin Laden

Who Is Osama bin Laden?

Up until now, the whole world assumes they

have the jihadist/terrorist master-mind Osama bin

Laden figured out. However, who

is the real Osama bin Laden? Not

the Osama bin Laden we see on television but the

man himself, his philosophy, his accomplishments,

his ambitions and of course, his mission? Apart

from the already depicted view we have of the Saudi

royalty, there are many aspects of OBL that are

common misconceptions.

Today, all we witness in the media is how

OBL and his insurgent/terrorist fighters loath de-

mocracy, freedom, women in the work force and

strip clubs. Although, OBL is extremely vocal about

his opposition to such things, the fact of the matter

is it is not the driving force behind his radical jihad

against the United States.

Bin Laden was born in March 10, 1957 in Ri-

yadh, Saudi Arabia. He was raised in a strict Wa-

habbi Muslim family. He was born into the Saudi

royalty with the silver spoon in his mouth. Accord-

ing to several sources, Bin Laden is also college edu-

cated. However, what he has a degree on is dis-

puted. He is also currently married to four women

and is estimated to have 19-25 children.


Jihan Huq

Want to write

for the Foreign Policy Handbook?

Be a Patriot. Join the Liberty Movement.

Email the Editor:

[email protected]

Find us on the web: http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH



What Is Osama bin Laden's Philosophy?

“After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of

the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims,

the legend about the invincibility of the superpow-

ers vanished. Our boys no

longer viewed America as a

superpower. So, when they

left Afghanistan, they went to

Somalia and prepared them-

selves carefully for a long

war. They had thought that

the Americans were like the

Russians, so they trained and

prepared. They were stunned

when they discovered how

low was the morale of the

American soldier. America

had entered with 30,000 sol-

diers in addition to thou-

sands of soldiers from differ-

ent countries in the world. ...

As I said, our boys were

shocked by the low morale of

the American soldier and

they realized that the Ameri-

can soldier was just a paper tiger.” ---Osama bin

Laden (1998)

It is speculated that Osama bin Laden's radi-

cal Wahabbi philosophy became much more mili-

tant during and after his participation of the Soviet-

Afghan War in the 1980s. In fact, during this time,

bin Laden was not only a religious zealot but a tena-

cious Jihadist. During this time during the 1980s,

bin Laden created the group [Maktab al Khidamat],

eventually leaving it and creating the modern al-

Qaida. However, though his anger was fully enraged

upon the Communist Soviets, it was no later than

the early 1990s that bin Laden became more agi-

tated with the United States—especially during the

first Gulf War. After the Saudis permitted the U.S

military in Saudi Arabia [holy land according to

OBL], he decided to turn his animosity to the West-

ern powers. He started to emphasize more on the

U.S government's interventionist policies in the

Middle East, (esp. in countries like Egypt, Iraq,

Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc).This is when bin Laden

officially turned his Jihad

against the West. He viewed

many of the modern Middle

East governments as pup-

pets of the United States, as

well as oppressors of the

Muslims. He stated, “If incit-

ing people to do that is ter-

rorism, and if killing those

who kill our sons is terror-

ism, then let history be wit-

ness that we are terrorists.”

He also mentions his vocal

anger toward U.S policy in

Israel, stating: “We say our

terror against America is

blessed terror in order to put

an end to suppression, in

order for the United States

to stop its support to Israel.”

Thus, not only does Ji-

hadists despise U.S meddling in the Muslims coun-

tries, but they are also vehemently opposed to the

strong U.S/Israel alliance and policies towards the

Palestinians.

What are Osama bin Laden's Accomplish-

ments?

“Just like you kill us, we will kill you.” ---Osama

bin Laden (2002)

It is no secret that Osama bin Laden's biggest

accomplishments are the attacks that occurred on

September 11, 2001 (which he and his al-Qaida min-

ions call “Victory Day”). However, his accomplish-

ment list may not be too long, but it is significant.

Earlier attacks included the USS Cole bombings,



early attempt to assassinate Egyptian Dictator

Hosni Mubarrak, the attack of the Golden Mihor

Hotel, possible connections to attacks on U.S troops

in Somalia in around 1994. There are also some

speculation that he was involved in other unnamed

attacks in Africa and the Middle East.

Bin Laden's accomplishments are a symbol

and a reminder of his dangerous capability to at-

tack. All his motivations are based upon anti Ameri-

canism, anti Western imperialism, his religious te-

nacity of fighting the enemy for the sake of the Um-

mah or the Muslim nation.

What are Osama bin Laden's Ambitions?

“...Therefore I am telling you, and God is my wit-

ness, whether America escalates or de-escalates the

conflict, we will reply to it in kind, God willing. God

is my witness, the youth of Islam are preparing

things that will fill your hearts with fear. They will

target key sectors of your economy until you stop

your injustice and aggression or until the more

short lived of us die.” ---Osama bin Laden (2002)

The above quote depicts a clear image of bin

Laden's global ambitions to stop U.S meddling in

the Islamic world as well as imperialist activities. He

mentions how him and his brethren will attack the

heart of every country---it's economy. Thus, accord-

ing to many experts, including Philip Giraldi, Mi-

chael Scheuer, etc, bin Laden is getting exactly what

we wants (more political adventures in the Islamic

world as well as more wars). This is not the first

time bin Laden mentions his ambitions. According

to bin Laden:

America has vocally opposed political/military

opposition to any of the “heretic” governments of

the Islamic world, this includes opposition to defen-

sive Jihad against these tyrannical regimes.

America has demanded that Muslim govern-

ments limit, control charitable activity to other

needy, oppressed Muslim countries (Palestine,

Lebanon, Egypt, etc).

America has demanded that Muslims abandon

God' religion and to become much more secular and

progressive (Western culture, secularization).

United States policies support many oppressive,

anti-Muslim aggression in countries such as China,

India, the Philippines, in Uzbekistan, in Israel,

Egypt and many other countries.

America supports “apostate” governments such

as in Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi

Arabia, Syria, etc.

America (often using the UN) imposes several,

economically hazardous sanctions in the Muslims

countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria,

Iran, etc.

The U.S government purposely is in the Mid-

dle East to not only be an imperialist power but to

take tremendous advantage of Middle East oil and

energy resources.

These primary examples are all thanks to Mi-

chael Scheuer's book, Imperial Hubris. Either way,

bin Laden's ambitions are quite clear. Over all, he

wants:

The United States and other Western/non-



Muslim governments to cease meddling in the Mid-

dle East.

To have his view of Sharia-based Islamic govern-

ment.

To weaken or annihilate the state of Israel.

To stop Western governments, primarily the

United States, from imposing harmful sanctions in

Muslim countries.

For the United States and other Western powers

to stop exploiting Middle Eastern natural resources

such as oil.

To stop using the United Nations to create

“Christian” nations from under Muslim ruled coun-

tries, such as East Timor.

And ultimately, to stop the United States

from using it's military, CIA, etc, to overthrow, ma-

nipulate Middle Eastern governance as well as to

stop oppressive actions in the Islamic countries,

such as Israel.

What is bin Laden's Mission?

“Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a

religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these

weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do

so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am

carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims

not to try to possess the weapons that would pre-

vent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims.”

---Osama bin Laden (1998)

“In today's wars, there are no morals. We believe

the worst thieves in the world today and the worst

terrorists are the Americans. We do not have to dif-

ferentiate between military or civilian. As far as we

are concerned, they are all targets.” ---Osama bin

Laden (2001)

We can clearly conclude that bin Laden's

main mission is to free his Muslim brethren under

U.S, Western and Apostate Islamic governance. In

many aspects, bin Laden does not see himself as a

terrorist but rather an insurgent in the ever ex-

panded American empire. To bin Laden and his

minions, he sees the oppression in escalating levels,

especially in recent years after the U.S invasion of

Afghanistan and Iraq. Mass casualties, destroyed

homes of civilians, infrastructure and economies are

also relevant factors. He sees the world as a battle-

field. Therefore, he will do whatever it takes to bring

back the Muslim world pre World War I (Ottoman

Caliphate). To bin Laden, this is the only way be-

cause all the established powers will no longer have

political/ideological influence upon the Islamic

world.

Conclusion

“These men understood that jihad for the sake of

God is the way to establish right and defeat false-

hood. They understand that jihad for the sake of

God is the way to deter the tyranny of the infi-

dels...These men sought to prepare a response for

the Day of Reckoning. Faith in God and the Hereaf-

ter and emulating the traditions of Mohammed,

may God's peace be upon him, is what prompted

them to leave their homes...” ---Osama bin Laden

(after 9/11)

“If you wish to conduct offensive war you must

know the men employed by the enemy. Are they

wise or stupid, clever or clumsy? Having assessed

their qualities, you prepare appropriate meas-

ures.” --- Sun Tzu

Osama bin Laden is an extremely high pro-

filed, controversial figure. Though many deem him

as violent and dangerous, some deem him as a free-

dom fighter against the notorious American empire.

For us to completely understand the “War on Ter-

ror”, we must examine, analyze and evaluate our

enemies, their beliefs, ambitions and most impor-

tantly (in this case)---motivations. With the war in

Afghanistan in chaos and Iraq with no significant

political/economic improvement, it is obvious that



we need to re-analyze the strategies in that region.

The best thing to do at all times of war is to truly pay

deep attention to the heart of the enemy.

Spreading Democracy. Again.

For those who have accepted the role of the

United States in the world as a builder of nations,

our current involvement in Iraq

to help establish a functioning

democracy is a justifiable reason for us being there.

The old Wilsonian tradition of making the world

safe for democracy is alive and well in fueling our

interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East.

Our government leaders would have us be-

lieve that it is our noble duty as Americans to spread

the good fortunes of democracy around the world in

order to bring freedom by force to oppressed peo-

ples whilst battling the threat of terrorism world-

wide.

The neo-conservatives that drive our foreign

policy would point to the recent parliamentary elec-

tions in Iraq as being a significant indicator that our

cause is worth pursuing. After all, the elections in

Iraq, America‟s little project in democracy in action,

is helping to bring democratic stability to a region

scarred with a dictatorial past, right?

The 2010 elections in Iraq have been marred

ballot recounts, interventions by the Supreme Court

of Iraq, and challenged by a Prime Minister who be-

lieves his authority is being circumvented and that

an Iraq without himself at the helm will fall apart.

Iraq‟s fledgling democracy brought to you by the

hands of the United States is represented as a genu-

ine investment in the betterment of the lives of the


Jeremy Davis



Iraqi people, providing them with liberty and free-

dom previously unknown.

But if we simply take a glance at the track re-

cord of the United States in supporting democracy

abroad, the genuine ambitions of the democratic do-

gooders in government don‟t seem quite so genuine.

For instance, it was in 1953 that our CIA as-

sisted in overthrowing Mohamed Mossedech, the

democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced

him with the Shah and enabled his authoritarian

rule for nearly thirty years. The United States didn‟t

seem all that concerned with Sad-

dam Hussein‟s rule back in the

1980‟s when we actually supported

him and his efforts against Iran.

U.S. interventions abroad have also

lead to the propping up of and sup-

port for many dictators such as In-

donesia‟s General Suharto, Augusto

Pinochet in Chile, Fulgencio Batista

in Cuba, and Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua to

name a few.

The creditability of our foreign policy in car-

rying through the liberation of the Iraqi people from

an un-free society is lacking when considering our

continued associations and alliances with other re-

gimes less than friendly to democracy like Pakistan

or Saudi Arabia. In fact, as in most cases of our for-

eign interventionism, democracy has taken hold in

direct opposition to our meddling on behalf of

spreading our ideals through force.

In his book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the

American Republic, Chalmers Johnson explains

that “It should be noted that since 1947, while we

have used our military power for political and mili-

tary gain in a long list of countries, in no instance

has democratic government come about as a direct

result. In some important cases, on the other hand,

democracy has developed in opposition to our inter-

ference.” Chalmers goes on to cite that this occurred

“after the collapse of the regime of the CIA installed

Greek colonels in 1974; after the U.S. supported fas-

cist dictatorships in Portugal and Spain in 1975; af-

ter the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Phil-

ippines in 1986; after the ouster of General Chun

Doo-Hwan in South Korea in 1987; and after the

ending of thirty-eight years of martial law on the is-

land of Taiwan in the same year.”

Being skeptical when politicians claim that

we must wage preventive wars against oppressed

third world nations in order to promote democracy

so that we may root out terrorists becomes relatively

easy when events and actions such as those men-

tioned here are taken into account. Promoting de-

mocracy essentially becomes code

for continual war while we claimed

to uphold the values of a free and

democratic society and make friends

with authoritarian dictators and

strive to overthrow other democrati-

cally elected regimes at the same

time.

Congressman Ron Paul also points

out this two-faced hypocrisy in his 2003 “State of

the Republic address” delivered before the U.S.

House of Representatives. Paul states that “Our

policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for

the various complex problems of the world. Unfor-

tunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the

real reasons for our empire building. „Promoting de-

mocracy‟ overseas merely becomes a slogan for do-

ing things that the powerful and influential strive to

do for their own benefit.”

In that same speech, Paul also noted that

“There is abundant evidence that the pretense of

spreading democracy contradicts the very policies

we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elec-

tions, but we are only too willing to accept some for-

the-moment friendly dictator who actually over-

threw a democratically elected leader or to interfere

in some foreign election.”

Do the Iraqi people themselves honestly be-

lieve that the U.S. is bringing them freedom through

the barrel of a gun? In another address to the U.S.

House of Representatives, Congressman Paul said

that “The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk



But if we simply take a glance at the track record of the United States in support-ing democracy abroad, the genuine ambitions of the de-mocratic do-gooders in gov-ernment don’t seem quite so genuine.

Want to write for our FPH website?

Contact us at:

http://www.interestofthestate.com/join

about spreading democracy and values. The evi-

dence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate

to support dictators and install puppet governments

when it serves our interests. When democratic elec-

tions result in the elevation of a leader or party not

to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to un-

dermine that government.”

Although he‟s been fervent to deny it, there‟s

no doubt that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-

Maliki is nothing more than America‟s man in an

American backed regime. Since the results of the

Iraqi parliamentary elections earlier this year possi-

bly hint at a jobless al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minis-

ter has been quick to speculate that his power as

leader is being significantly reduced and under-

mined, leaving him with relatively little authority or

unable to fulfill his duty as a strong leader.

Is sacrificing untold amounts of our own

blood, treasure, or freedom worth dictating to other

countries how their governments should be more

like ours? Is undermining our own system of de-

mocracy worth the price of making sure Iraq be-

comes a democratic beacon of the Middle East? Per-

haps if it was our actual role (which it isn‟t) and our

intentions were more genuine then it could appear

more believable.

But since our misguided interventionist for-

eign policy makes its living off of gross double stan-

dards of saying we support democracy here while

wanting to topple some other democratic govern-

ment we don‟t like over there, our government has

no room to talk in terms of supporting freedom or

liberty.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

After President Obama‟s escalation of the war

in Afghanistan, remarks that it is the “just war,” and

recent dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal,

Obama has now come to own

the war in Afghanistan. He has,

in fact, owned the war since he took his inaugural

oath, but only now is the mainstream media decid-

ing to hold him accountable. However, even they

have failed at that.

In order to drum up support of the war-

weary American public, James Risen of the New

York Times “broke” a 25 year old news story: Af-

ghanistan is full of precious metals, many of them

being vital for our high tech world. In reality, the

Soviets, during their lengthy and disastrous occupa-

tion of Afghanistan, wrote a report on the country‟s

mining potential in 1985. The narrative remained

largely the same: plenty of minerals and plenty of

money to be made. However, before the Soviets

could spend the time and money to deplete Afghani-

stan of its resources, their socialist empire col-

lapsed.

The importance of this mineral find has been

both largely exaggerated and grossly underesti-

mated. Sadly, this will not be the magic bullet that

reignites Afghanistan‟s failing economy. It also will

not shoot Afghanistan to the status of regional pow-

erhouse overnight. However, this discovery could be

a threat to American hegemony in the Middle East

rather than augmenting it, something that many are



Brian Beyer

saying will happen.

As the American public is well aware, the

United States is waging a bloody war in Afghani-

stan. With a July 2011 deadline for that has now

been disavowed by Nobel Peace Prize winner Presi-

dent Barack Obama, “the Graveyard of Empires”

will remain a war zone for the foreseeable future.

Even in the highly unlikely case that western troops

will be removed in a timely fashion, the Taliban in-

surgency will continue to grow stronger. Pakistan‟s

Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been trying to

facilitate talks between the Afghan government and

the Haqqani network, an insurgent group with close

ties to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. In Pakistan‟s Swat

Valley, the Taliban recently took over an emerald

mine and demanded to be paid

a third of all earnings. These

are just a few of the hindrances

towards any meaningful eco-

nomic development in Afghani-

stan.

The problems with Afghanistan‟s economic

climate do not end there, however. A huge obstacle

towards any promising development in the country

is its new, vague, and downright socialist mining

laws. These laws, passed in 2005, are sure to leave

many investors very skeptical of even mining there

in the first place [emphasis mine]:

Article four: Ownership of Minerals

(1) All naturally occurring Mineral Substances and

all Artificial Deposits of Mineral Substances on

or under the territory of Afghanistan or in its wa-

ter courses (rivers and streams) are the exclu-

sive property of the State.

(2) Mineral Activities may be conducted in Afghani-

stan [only] by the State, unless a Person [other

than the state] is the Holder of a Mineral Right

validly obtained in accordance with this Law.

(3) A Person may conduct Mineral Activities, ac-

quire control or possession over Minerals and

Mineral Substances extracted [in Afghanistan]

pursuant to a Mineral Right [validly obtained in

accordance with this Law].

(4) The Ministry of Mines and Industries is hereby

authorized to grant Mineral Rights in accor-

dance with the provisions of this Law.

(5) A surface right to land does not confer

upon its holder any claim or right whatso-

ever over the Deposits of Mineral Substances

which may be found/detected on or under such

land without a Mineral Right validly obtained in

accordance with this Law. The provisions of

Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this article shall prevail

in any case.

So, even if a mining company was to discover

and extract minerals, they would first have to seek

permission from the govern-

ment as the minerals are its

“exclusive property.” And ex-

tracting minerals on land that

is yours is void as it “does not

confer upon its holder any

claim or right.” Frequently cited as one of the most

corrupt states in the world, mining companies could

easily be deterred from doing business there be-

cause of its all-encompassing mining laws and

crooked politicians. Uncertainty is business‟ worst

enemy.

With constant warfare, dangerous religious

fanatics, a corrupt government, and even worse

laws, Afghanistan is no enticing place to do busi-

ness. As such, there is no reason to believe that Af-

ghanistan‟s mineral reserves have the possibility of

fundamentally altering its economy.

Many people think that as a result of this

find, Afghanistan will become another “colony,” aka

“Saudi Arabia of lithium,” of the United States.

While this would have been more accurate during

the Cold War, the same does not hold true for today.



A huge obstacle towards any promis-ing development in the country is its new, vague, and downright socialist mining laws.

The US is drowning in red ink (to the tune of $13.1

trillion) and is about to experience an economic

freefall that will make the “Great Recession of

2008” look like a joke. The American public is be-

coming increasingly skeptical of the war in Afghani-

stan. Therefore, it is unfeasible both economically

(the printing press can only do so much) and politi-

cally to maintain another Saudi Arabia.

Instead, it looks as though if China is slowly

building s strategic foothold in Afghanistan. It was

only a few years ago that state run China Metallurgi-

cal Group Corporation (CMGC) outbid all of its

competitors by an incredible $1billion for mining

rights near the village of Aynak. The project was

grand on all levels. A railroad, power plant (that fu-

els both the mining site and Kabul), coalmine, and

smelter were all included in the $3.4 billion pack-

age. Middle East expert S. Frederick Starr has suc-

cinctly described the Chinese way of doing business:

“We do the heavy lifting. And they pick the fruit.”

What he meant to say was that Americans do the

fighting and securing, and the Chinese profit over

the “stable” environment.

However, even if all of the troops in Afghani-

stan were to be quickly pulled out, it is quite possi-

ble that the Chinese would continue to extract. Since

CMGC is a state run corporation, it can take many

risks that a private company would be unwilling or

unable to take. Also, China is notorious for working

in some of the most inhospitable and dangerous

places in the world, all to feed its rapidly growing

economy. In fact, China is more heavily invested in

Iraqi oil than other country (including the US), has

signed long term contracts for gasoline from Iran,

and has many investments in Pakistan and some of

the most turbulent parts of Africa. Where private

companies see danger, China sees opportunity.

If China continues their strategy of “picking

the fruit,” it is quite possible that they could become

a powerful influence in the Middle East just as the

United States‟ influence is diminishing. China is

currently not engaged in any military conflict in the

region, which gives them none of the baggage that

the US has. They are willing to deal with leaders of

all stripes, from Karzai to Ahmadinejad. And most

importantly, they are eager to spend in order to feed

their monstrous economy. If Afghanistan is ever to

become a satellite state, it could very well be of

China rather than the United States.

Ron Paul‟s Warning

Years after Dr. Ron Paul warned us of the

danger of perpetual war, the wars in Afghanistan

and Iraq have recently spread like a disease to Paki-

stan, Yemen, and Somalia.

On top of our traditional sol-

diers, President Obama has deployed Secret Opera-

tions in over 70 countries. While the media is calling

Afghanistan “Obama‟s War”, the ongoing conflict in

Pakistan deserves that moniker more so. Today,

Americans fight a war against soldiers that cannot

be located or named. Even which country the ene-

mies are in remains a mystery, but yet, American

politicians persevere on, throwing soldier after sol-

dier, civilian after civilian, in order to achieve

„victory‟.

Since coming into office, President Obama

has used drone attacks in Pakistan frequently: “In

2008, there were reportedly between 27 and 36 U.S.

drone attacks as part of the CIA‟s covert war in Paki-

stan. In 2009, there were 45 to 53 such strikes. In


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 P

ho

to co

urtesy

of th

e Asso

ciated P

ress

Daniel Suraci

the first 18 days of January 2010, there had already

been 11 of them.” These strikes have stayed primar-

ily out of the media, since the media focuses on the

number of American lives lost.

Considering these drones are pi-

loted out of Dayton, Ohio, it‟s hard

to imagine them making the front

page. The use of drones also pre-

vents a war weary nation to keep

pushing on in a hopeless war effort.

Not only do we not see Americans

killed, but the cost of drone fighters is significantly

lower than traditional soldiers. Effectively, Obama‟s

war could go on forever.

Also avoiding the front page is that Blackwa-

ter (now known as Xe Services) is guarding drone

outposts for the CIA in “Afghanistan and elsewhere”

So while politicians condemn the actions of

„Blackwater‟ vehemently, the CIA hires „Xe Services‟

to protect their bases to the tune of $120,123,293 of

taxpayer money. Not only is the war spreading, but

the commanders are using strategies known to fail,

and especially to cause blowback. America is not

only perpetuating war, but perpetuating the same

failed strategies and the same actions that created a

quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama though is having a hard time finding

support within the CIA for these drone strikes as the

CIA has relentlessly stated that the blowback effect

of a civilian war in Pakistan will far outweigh the

benefits. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

Pakistan recently signed an agreement to run an oil

pipeline with Iran, from Tehran. Despite receiving

billions in aid from America, and offering their alle-

giance to us, the London School of Economics re-

cently released a report stating that the Pakistani

government is giving great amounts of aid to the

Taliban in Pakistan. This only makes sense as the

Pakistanis view the Taliban as a

great ally in their war efforts

against India. The people of Paki-

stan itself see themselves caught

up in a fight that they have no de-

sire to be in and entirely for politi-

cal reasons (thus far about $5 bil-

lion USD worth of political rea-

sons to the government of Pakistan). Indeed, the

first suicide attack in Pakistan did not occur until

2004 when the Pakistani army joined the Ameri-

cans in „fighting terrorism‟. Moreover, new militant

groups are popping up in Pakistan constantly in

protest of Pakistan‟s role in the war and American

involvement in the Middle East. All of these prob-

lems should have been foreseen by US officials.

Politicians and generals both constantly pay

lip service to „staying in the fight to win it‟. But

none of them seem to be able to answer what that

victory would look like. Certainly, a typical military

victory will not occur; that much should be obvious.

There will be no treaty, and it will be anticlimactic.

In this way, a political victory can never be

achieved. If the objective is to eradicate the Al

Qaeda, current estimates place only about 100

members in Afghanistan. And the 94,000 American

soldiers cannot kill them. Many have moved into

Pakistan, and American forces have followed. But

how will generals ever know they killed them all,

when new militants are being created perpetually by

the violence American soldiers create. It perpetu-

ates a cycle of violence, in which there is no possible

victory, other than withdraw, and all this under the

pretense of „peace‟. As Dr. Ron Paul stated, “We are

following this precept of perpetual war for perpetual

peace . . . .” All the while, we hemorrhage money,

only to increase our national threats, as American

strategies cause more and more blowback.



Obama though is having a hard time finding support within the CIA for these drone strikes as the CIA has relentlessly stated that the blowback effect of a civilian war in Pakistan will far outweigh the benefits.

On Pakistan

One of the most frequent mistakes made in

the realm of foreign policy is the forgetfulness that

when dealing with other na-

tions, we are at the base

level dealing with human

beings very similar to ourselves. While different hu-

man beings may manifest their base desires and

motivations in different ways, we all share the gen-

eral characteristic of looking out for the well being

of ourselves and those close to us above all others.

It has been characteristic of the United States

to forget this basic fact throughout our involvement

in the Middle East, as we often reduce the actions of

the people of such regions as the Middle East to

simply describing them as “terrorists” without any

attempt to understand why they react in such a way

to our presence. However, it seems that this base

mistake on the part of the United States continues

as we spread our war into Pakistan with little regard

for the likely consequences. An analysis of the

flawed idea of nation building in the region will help

shed light on why its people continue to become

more hostile to an American presence.

Nation building is an impossible enough task

in the case of a country like Iraq where the infra-

structure has been decimated due to war and now is

being rebuilt. In the case of Afghanistan and west-

ern Pakistan, where the United States effort is now

appearing more and more like a nation building ef-

fort, the task is made even more difficult, and nearer

to impossibility, by the fact that no infrastructure of

the kind the United States is trying to create has

ever existed before in the history of the region.

Consider the analogy of Humpty Dumpty.

When Humpty Dumpty falls off of the wall and all

the king‟s men have to put him back together, it is

quite a difficult task in and of itself. However, what

the United States is attempting to do in Afghanistan

and western Pakistan is to put Humpty Dumpty

“back together” despite the fact that he has never

existed. In other words, they‟re trying to create

Humpty Dumpty out of thin air.

Even a mild analysis of the demographics of

western Pakistan makes it fairly obvious why there

is such hostility to American attempts to radically

alter their culture. The Federal Administered Tribal

Area (FATA), located along the Pakistan-

Afghanistan border, is only recognized as such by

outsiders. The inhabitants of this region do not

consider themselves people who live along the Af-

ghanistan-Pakistan border, rather they think of

themselves as people who occupy their own home-

land, just like everyone else in the world. They do

not see the area they occupy through western eyes,

but rather through their own.

This fact by itself makes it hard enough for

the United States to accomplish any of their goals in

the region, such as hunting down enemies hidden in

the tumultuous terrain of the region and making the

people of the area more sympathetic to an American

presence. However, the tactics being used by the

United States military in Pakistan not only hinder

accomplishment of American objectives, but directly

antagonize them.

One example of this is drone policy along the

Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which has in recent



Elliot Engstrom

years been a problematic issue for the United States

military. By using drones to attack what are consid-

ered key targets in this region, the United States has

undermined the strength of the Pakistani authori-

ties, and in fact has increased the kind of political

instability so feared in the region. Even if the drone

attacks are now being reduced, the damage is al-

ready done. For example, not only have drone at-

tacks increased resistance to an American presence,

they also have increased recruiting levels for anti-

American organizations such as the Pakistani Tali-

ban. Baitullah Mehsud, founder of the Pakistani

Taliban, said in an interview, “I spent three months

trying to recruit and only got 10-15 persons. One

U.S. [drone] attack and I got 150 volunteers!”

This reverts back to the statement at the off-

set of this effort that human beings are motivated by

concern for themselves and those close to them, and

thus it should be no surprise that this method of at-

tack has bred hostility against the U.S.

A final, and arguably the largest, issue at

hand in the expansion of America‟s war into Paki-

stan is the simple fact that historically, the United

States does not quickly withdraw forces from areas

where they have been committed. If the American

war continues to escalate into Pakistan, it will be

nearly impossible to have any significant drawdown

of forces in the near future. By continuing to con-

duct operations in this turbulent region, the United

States is creating what is becoming less and less an-

other theater of the war in Afghanistan, and more

and more an entirely new theater of war in itself,

stretching an overworked United States military

over three theaters of the Middle East. It can be

predicted that as this continues, any natives of this

region that fight back in concern for their own

autonomy will be dubbed terrorists by the United

States, and end up serving as yet another pretext for

a continued expansion into the region.

If a massive increase in the war in the Middle

East is to be avoided, then to time to end expansion

into Pakistan is now.

Prohibition: Part II

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only wars

that the United States is currently waging. There is a

third major war that the United States has resumed

responsibility for. In many cases it takes form in

green leaves or

white powder.

For several years the United States has invested bil-

lions in a no-win war that seems to be quietly

tucked away in the President‟s budget: The War on

Drugs. The War on Drugs takes on an interesting

history that still continues up to this day. As the

black-market increases its revenue in the street drug

cartels, America‟s skepticism is increasing as well.

Recent news of drug violence in our neighboring

Mexico is leading many Americans to believe that

our War on Drugs is becoming more and more ap-

parent of its extreme inefficiencies and waste. How-

ever, more importantly it‟s revealing questionable

actions that the War implements. The War on

Drugs has become another negative US foreign pol-

icy that has affected our diplomatic ties with many

countries; including our neighbors and the country

we are concentrating military intervention, Afghani-

stan.

The government‟s assumed responsibility of

regulating human behavior in regards to the con-

sumption of drugs could be notoriously seen in the

1920s during Prohibition. During this time, the gov-

ernment took on the alcohol binge. For predomi-

nantly moral reasons, government was pushed into

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta



prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol deeming it a

drug whose effects were seen as negative to the

overall society. Prohibition became notoriously un-

popular as violence within mobs increased and costs

to ban the product soared (sound familiar?). As a

result prohibition did not do what it intended and

was lifted. Today the War on Drugs takes not only

domestic problems but now has shifted it into the

hands of violent non-state actors in other countries.

Mexico‟s recent violence in neighboring bor-

der towns is in direct correlation to the War on

Drugs. Because drugs are illegal and the black mar-

ket is in such high demand, drug cartels compete for

top spots in supplying drugs. This leads to illegal

activity and violence between each group. As seen

in Mexico, drug cartels have been waging a war with

each other to drive the other out of the competition

in supplying America with its drugs. Therefore, the

War on Drugs in its intention to stop violence actu-

ally increases it. While Mexico is experiencing insta-

bility in their northern region, the violence is threat-

ening to cross the border into the United States. The

threatening violence is just another example how

the War on Drugs has failed in its implementation

of reducing drug use and drug crime.

On the other side of the world, Afghanistan

also seems to be under the War on Drugs spell. In

Afghanistan, poppy fields are being questioned by

the US military. Eradication is taking root in Af-

ghanistan to prevent heroine to be supplied to the

United States. This might seem like the right thing

to do however, poppy fields are essential to the sur-

vival of many poor farmers in Afghanistan. Many

farmers do not have other methods of income ex-

cept for the cultivation of poppy. This poses a sig-

nificant problem to the US: should the US eradicate

poppy fields in facing civilian retaliation? The Tali-

ban also seems to use this an excuse to gain more

supporters in the region. Poor farmers whose poppy

fields are destroyed by the United States look for

support from the Taliban who can provide them

economic and physical security that the United

States could not. This has become a major problem

for our plans in the region and how the United

States is perceived by other countries. Many prob-

lems we also face in South America take this form as

well. The War on Drugs is simply another reason to

create anti-Americanism that can one day have an

effect on our national security.

And instead of focusing our interests in the

supply side of the problem, all our efforts go to-

wards the demand side. The United States com-

pletely bypasses our contribution to the problem by

becoming the consumers of these cartels that create

instability in their respective countries (as also seen

in Colombia).

The War on Drugs is a needless $40 billion

(per year) waste that produces nothing but worsen-

ing results. Its affect on diplomacy in Latin America

(with certification laws) and other parts of the world

can lead to consequences in the future and already

have. Not only does it affect our diplomatic ties but

also seriously affects urban populations and minori-

ties. This government sponsored war is only gener-

ating more jail time to those who are neither violent

nor a danger to society. It‟s time for the US to end

political morality and the War on Drugs.



A Desperate Maneuver

With the United States engaged in a perpet-

ual war across the scope of the entire globe, a for-

merly useful and intrinsically scientific agency is ex-

periencing a severe case of mis-

sion creep. The National Aeronau-

tics and Space Administration used to have a steady

mission or goal. It was to “pioneer the future in

space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronau-

tics research.” But now NASA is being used as a for-

eign policy mechanism to “reach out to the Muslim

world and engage more with dominantly Muslim

nations.” One little caveat: “…to help them feel

good about their historic contribution to science,

math, and engineering.”

The Obama administration‟s utilization of

NASA in this respect is quite degrading. In the

words he used, he does several things. First, he

separates the “Muslim world” from the rest of the

world; he is compartmentalizing and creating an

otherwise untrue accusation that the Middle East is

detached from the world. In essence, Mr. Obama is

purposefully creating a rift that otherwise does not

have to exist. Second, he immediately loses touch

with non-Muslims living in what he deems as the

“Muslim world.” Christians, Jews, Copts, Hindus,

and Buddhists live in the Middle East and steppes

as well. Third, it isn‟t the job of NASA, of all admini-

strations, to help a group of people “feel good”

about anything. If anything , NASA makes us feel

really small and tiny in the grander scheme of

things.

According to NASA Administrator Charles

Bolden, “NASA is not only a space exploration

agency… but also an Earth improvement agency.”

Essentially, foreign policy has been lucratively

dubbed as “Earth improvement” and a “Space Ad-

ministration” is now an Earth management agency

that has to differentiate people by their associative

religions and then make them feel good about it.

That‟s what your tax dollars do: they make religious

people half way across the world “feel good.”

However, in saying this, Mr. Bolden and

President Obama have applied the mission creep

tactics of the war on terror to a Federal agency. As

of this publication, NASA‟s website definitively

states that its “mission is to pioneer the future in

space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronau-

tics research.” Nevertheless, the new direction that

Bolden and Obama are taking NASA is a farfetched

understanding of what NASA‟s original intentions

were. On paper, science and research constitute

NASA‟s goals. In practice, there‟s an unprincipled

deviation from its roots; the manipulation of words

to describe an otherwise well-intentioned agency is

malicious and irresponsible.

Obama‟s petty NASA plan has former astro-

nauts up in arms over the future of NASA, let alone

the future in space exploration. According to the

San Francisco Examiner, “the moon program will be

scrapped, replaced by a hazy hope to visit Mars. The

space shuttle will die, leaving America with no way

to put a man in orbit.” That task will be left to the

Russians who will supply our astronauts with a

venue into space. It seems that the Obama Admini-

stration and State Department have run out of ideas



Roy Antoun

to fix what they see as broken and are resorting to

space exploration to fix a sickly foreign policy.

Similar to the changed roles that the National

Guard, Department of Defense, and Congress play,

NASA will soon fall victim to mission creep and Ex-

ecutive extortion. The National Guard used to be a

force and power delegated to states only and for na-

tional defense. However, that quickly changed into a

“peacekeeping” force that would see action in Saudi

Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The Depart-

ment of Defense has become a nation-building

mechanism designed to export a neoconservative

foreign policy. Congress used to be an institution

that defended the Constitution.

It‟s disheartening to see a weak Obama ad-

ministration resorting to NASA for foreign policy

advice and even more disheartening to see a Federal

agency change its primary role from scientific re-

search to Earth “improvement,” which in and of it-

self is a debatable term.



Suggested Reading By the FPH Team

“Anyone who has ever looked into

the glazed eyes of a soldier dying

on the battlefield will think hard

before starting a war.”

- Otto von Bismarck

olicy Handbook P

F oreign

Date post:	30-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	roy-antoun
View:	229 times
Download:	2 times

Foreign Policy Handbook 4

Documents