Smith Faculty Opinion Article
The 30 Seconds Outlook
November 1, 2011
“There is a great distance between the natural right to liberty and the
capacity of particular peoples and nations for self-government.”
—Matthew Spalding, America’s Founders and the Principles of Foreign Policy,
Sovereign Independence, National Interests, and the Cause of American
Liberty in the World, Heritage Foundation, October 15, 2011.
U.S. military interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan
have generated strongly felt debates concerning the appropriateness of these actions.
To assess these interventions, one has only to seek the wisdom of the Founders who
gave careful consideration to the extent to which our goal of spreading freedom
across the globe should include military action.
First, Spalding reviews the principles and criteria set by the Founders regarding
the spread of freedom and military intervention (excerpted):
“The Declaration of Independence holds that all men—not just Americans—are endowed
with a right to liberty. That liberty is an aspect of human nature everywhere is
central to understanding America’s first principles. This is why the promotion of
freedom in the world has been and should always be a predominant theme of American
foreign policy.
The question, then, is not whether but how to advance liberty, and this is a
preeminent question of prudence and statecraft, relating principles and practice.
The Founders framed the question with three important caveats.
First, they understood that America, though dedicated to a universal principle,
is a particular nation. The United States must always keep in mind its own sovereign
obligations and be careful not to risk its capacity to perform the vital task of
defending itself, its people, and its interests.
Second, the Founders understood that America acted within the possibilities of
the real world, and in a world of limited resources, the nation must not forget
its limits. Moreover, no matter how passionate we are to expand free government,
it is not in our hands to dictate the final outcome. Making the right to liberty
into an enduring principle of a nation’s political order can be fully accomplished
only by the people of that nation.
Third—and most important—the Founders were acutely aware of the difficulties
involved in advancing the cause of liberty. They based their hopes, as James Madison
wrote in Federalist 39, on ‘that honorable determination which animates every votary
of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for
self-government.’ Liberty is not just about holding an election now and again; it
is also about establishing stable constitutional government and the rule of law,
upholding majority rule, and securing civil and religious liberty.
There is a great distance between the natural right to liberty and the capacity
of particular peoples and nations for self-government. Although every human being
has a desire to be free, by no means are all willing to fight (and perhaps die)
for it or to acknowledge the political forms necessary to establish and preserve
it for themselves or for others.
This is not to say that the Founders thought establishing republican government
was unlikely or impossible—or that they were opposed in all cases to intervention
on behalf of liberty and the republican cause. That would make a mockery of their
own call for foreign support in the Declaration of Independence.
It is one thing to unfurl the banners of freedom but quite another to actually
establish constitutional government.
The Founders fervently welcomed opportunities to promote liberty in the world,
but they judged those opportunities in light of America’s legitimate national interests
and obligations and recognized that the success of liberty ultimately required stable
institutions of constitutional government—what today we often refer to broadly as
liberal democracy. Likewise, while it is important to understand the universal and
even revolutionary implications of our principles, as a nation with sovereign responsibilities,
it is not our objective—or our responsibility—to intervene in every case when our
principles are invoked or to impose liberal democratic forms on the rest of the
world.
When opportunities for advancing liberty arise, the United States is entitled
(even obligated) to make prudent distinctions about commitments (such as cost, time,
and manpower) relative to our interests and sovereign responsibilities, including
the larger cause of liberal democracy. The principal duty this nation has toward
the world is to remain strong and independent so that the United States can maintain
the freedom to advance and, when necessary, defend freedom in the world.
The Founders sought to advance liberty not directly by imperial expansion or
by using force to change other nations, but indirectly—even secondarily to our primary
obligations and interests as a nation. America should promote and assist democracies
and even prevent others from intervening with or imposing nondemocratic governments
(implied in the Monroe Doctrine when the United States agreed not to intervene in
Europe in exchange for Europe’s not establishing European-backed monarchical regimes
in South America). Otherwise—with strong encouragement and general support for the
spread of liberal democracy—it should let particular peoples determine their own
fate. This approach reflects our historical understanding of how best to uphold
and vindicate the universal principle of human liberty.”
Second, with this foundation in mind, it is fair to say the Vietnam war was inconsistent
with Founder principles and criteria. There was no direct threat to the U.S. Similarly,
the war in Iraq was inconsistent with Founder principles. Any threat to our country
by “weapons of mass destruction” could have been solved with air power if proven
true, but, of course, this was not the case. The “indirect” military intervention
in Libya was a violation of Founder principles. Libya was not a nuclear threat.
The wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are another matter given Al-Qaeda attacks
against civilian and military targets in various countries, including the U.S. 9/11
attacks, the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, and the 2002 Bali bombing. The U.S. response
to 9/11 was and is the War on Terror. The direct attacks in the U.S. justified military
intervention under Founder principles and criteria. The proper debate should be
over strategy—whether the numbers of troops and their missions are optimal in a
tribal country that has foiled the Russians and other invaders.
John A. Haslem
