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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 3 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
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.
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 4
Jihan Huq
Want to write
for the Foreign Policy Handbook?
Be a Patriot. Join the Liberty Movement.
Email the Editor:
Find us on the web: http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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,
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 5 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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-
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 6 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 7 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 8
Jeremy Davis
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 9 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 10 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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.
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 11 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 12 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
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.
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 13 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 14 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 15 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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.
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 16 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 17 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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.
[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202 18 Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | July 2010
Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
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