My Thoughts on the U.S.'s Foreign Policy

As humans, it is wise to master the art of self-defense. Therefore, it is reasonable that we expect our government to protect us from foreign and domestic threat. However, wise individuals do not pick fights nor are aggressive. There is a more successful way to address problems: words. That being said, why should it be any different for our government? In the past several decades, the United States has mostly engaged in unconstitutional wars, neglecting the process outlined in the Constitution of the United States [1]. If the wars were “just,” why would government officials ignore Checks and Balances [2]? Why is our government quick to engage in preemptive wars instead of first taking a diplomatic approach? But even so, our government must have an excellent reason for risking innocent lives, right? These are only a few of the many questions anyone should posit.

 I have found that minding my own business is an effective way to avoid conflict. However, our country has taken a different approach at addressing conflict. It seems that our government strongly embraces militarism [3]. Could this be a contributing factor to the animosity felt by other nations? Could our sense of entitlement for natural resources from other countries also be a problem? Might our foreign policy actually lead us to initiate unconstitutional wars? Is it possible that some of our foreign interventions bring about “blowback”[4]? If you think about the grand scale of things, it makes sense that the consequences of our foreign policy would cause retaliation from individuals living in the very countries we occupy.

Some might disagree and proclaim that freedom is not free and we must remain on the offense to protect our country. Even so, let us take a step back and analyze the situation. Does having numerous military bases around the world make us freer? Do these unconstitutional wars make us safer? Perception will undoubtedly garner different answers. However, since the 9/11 attacks, our liberty has become more limited. Consequences of the 9/11 attacks have resulted in the Patriot Act [5] and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Why should we have to comply with legislation and programs that directly violate our liberty? The Patriot Act is controversial because it is said to undermine our liberties by allowing the government to access private information otherwise deemed unconstitutional. The TSA allows for full body scans and pat downs. These travel procedures might seem justified because it provides a sense of security during airplane flights. But what is actually at stake here? Where do we draw the line?

As recent as December 16, 2011, Congress passed a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and President Obama signed this new provision into law on December 31, 2011. Essentially, this new provision robs U.S. citizens of a trial and does not require for actual charges to be filed against them to proceed with indefinite detention. Once indefinitely detained, citizens may be transported to prisons overseas for as long as they are deemed a threat. This new provision to the NDAA is disregarding the basic principle of habeas corpus [6] and due process of law [7]. The aforementioned revisions are arguably a recipe for a plot straight out of a dystopian novel [8]. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” So are we allowing ourselves to be fearful to the point that we are effortlessly giving up our liberty?

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the United States’ foreign policy, it is indisputable that innocent lives are being lost. As the wise statesman, Dr. Ron Paul, once said, “Unless we… understand that life is precious and we must protect life, we can’t protect liberty.” It appears the government feels justified in limiting our liberty while simultaneously risking lives. Does that sound like a sour deal? So, at the end of the day, we should take a step back and really consider whether our government is correct in suggesting that the pros of our foreign policy outweigh the cons. You decide.


[1] Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides Congress the power “to declare War,” whereas Article II, Section 2 says the President “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Thus, every time the President declares war without getting a majority vote in Congress it is unconstitutional.
[2] Checks and Balances is the “Separation of Powers” aimed at preventing any of the branches from gaining too much power. Our government consists of three branches: Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch.
[3] Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.
[4] Blowback is the unintended consequences of foreign operations.
[5] H.R. 3162, the USA Patriot Act is a law passed as a result of the 9/11 attacks with the intended purpose of enhancing domestic security against terrorism. Details about this legislation can be found via the Library of Congress http://tiny.cc/w7jc8
[6] Habeas corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. This is done to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.
[7] Due process of law highlights a citizen’s entitlement for fair treatment through the normal judicial system.
[8] Dystopian society is an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one. An example of a dystopian novel is Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1949). This is compared with utopia, which is an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect. The novel, Utopia (1516) was written by Sir Thomas More.