Issue IV | July 2010

Redefining the National Interest

rds Wo en The Lad Huq In in an B Jih of
raci l Su ie Dan

All That Glitters Is Not Gold
Brian Beyer


The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy Handbook

July 2010

FEATURED | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010
Home of the Foreign Policy Handbook | Redefining the “National Interest” One Issue at a Time


Executive Director Jeff Frazee

3 4 8 10 12 14 15 16

Foreign Aid or „Forced Charity‟?

By Brendon DeMeo
In the Words of Bin Laden

Editor in Chief Roy Antoun

By Jihan Huq
Spreading Democracy. Again. Contributors Jihan Huq Brian Beyer Jeremy Davis Daniel Suraci Brendon DeMeo Elliot Engstrom Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

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

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 conduct. 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 Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

1 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Letter From the Editor
Dear Reader,
With the Obama Administration‟s weak handle 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 Department‟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 magazine like Rolling Stone. Military command aside, McChrystal‟s firing and exposé 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

“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 interventionism. 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.

Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook? Contact Find us on the web: Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

2 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 you will be thrown in a dark, lonely hole in the middle 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 sacrifices, 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 sending 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 elseImagine that you live on a lush tropical island where. with a couple thousand fellow tribesmen, which is You would surely be outraged with the chief. surrounded by a few other isYou would hate paying your taxes because your lands. You‟re a good person, you Brendon DeMeo money would often be going to people you do not work all day during the week selling fish at your support, and causes you disagree with and often small shop in the center of the island village, and find quite deplorable, all while many of your own give some of your profits away to the elders on the tribesmen suffer. But in the United States, this is the island who can no longer work for a living, and the reality. You can think of the federal government as village healer, so that he can continue to help the the chief and the spearmen as the Internal Revenue sick and wounded islanders who cannot offer him Service (IRS). The federal government takes Amerianything in return. Imagine that can‟s money and sends it overdoing so is rather hard, because You would hate paying your seas, where it often winds up supthe chief of the island confiscates taxes because your money would porting causes Americans often about half of your wealth through often be going to people you do do not believe in. The federal govtaxes. If you don‟t pay them, a not support, and causes you dis- ernment believes it knows better band of spearmen will show up at agree with and often find quite than its own citizens where to your house and demand payment, deplorable, all while many of give charitably, and how much or will haul you off to a deep hole your own tribesmen suffer. should be given, even though in the ground and feed you nothmany Americans are underfed, ing but coconut shells for a few years, until you die, undereducated, and underprivileged in general. or are set free to start working again and paying This aid often hurts developing nations who more taxes. receive it. According to the Global Issues website, Now imagine that this chief is taking your “large projects or massive grand strategies often fail money, and giving it away to tribes on other islands. to help the vulnerable; money can often be embezHe calls it “foreign aid,” a form of “charity” that exzled away,” and “aid amounts are dwarfed by rich presses your tribe‟s “national character.” You may country protectionism that denies market access for think that such a thing is not charity, for if you do poor country products, while rich nations use aid as not pay the taxes the chief uses to pay for foreign aid

Foreign Aid or “Forced Charity?”

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

3 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 a lever to open poor country markets to their products.” The latter is very troubling when we learn that the US government even uses tax dollars to advertise 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 struggle with day to day expenses. America, and much of the third world, would be much better off if America simply stopped sending 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 parties, this is not likely to happen anytime soon. But let us not kid ourselves into thinking the US government, 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 Jihan Huq 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 democracy, 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 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He was raised in a strict Wahabbi Muslim family. He was born into the Saudi royalty with the silver spoon in his mouth. According to several sources, Bin Laden is also college educated. However, what he has a degree on is disputed. He is also currently married to four women and is estimated to have 19-25 children.

Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook?
Be a Patriot. Join the Liberty Movement.

Email the Editor: Find us on the web:

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

4 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

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 superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves 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 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger.” ---Osama bin Laden (1998) It is speculated that Osama bin Laden's radical Wahabbi philosophy became much more militant during and after his participation of the SovietAfghan War in the 1980s. In fact, during this time, bin Laden was not only a religious zealot but a tenacious Jihadist. During this time during the 1980s, bin Laden created the group [Maktab al Khidamat], eventually leaving it and creating the modern alQaida. However, though his anger was fully enraged upon the Communist Soviets, it was no later than the early 1990s that bin Laden became more agitated 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 Western 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 puppets of the United States, as well as oppressors of the Muslims. He stated, “If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness 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 Jihadists despise U.S meddling in the Muslims countries, but they are also vehemently opposed to the strong U.S/Israel alliance and policies towards the Palestinians. What are Osama bin Laden's Accomplishments? “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 minions call “Victory Day”). However, his accomplishment list may not be too long, but it is significant. Earlier attacks included the USS Cole bombings,

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

5 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

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 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, according to many experts, including Philip Giraldi, Michael 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 defensive Jihad against these tyrannical regimes.  America has demanded that Muslim governments 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 Middle 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 Michael 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-

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 attack. All his motivations are based upon anti Americanism, anti Western imperialism, his religious tenacity of fighting the enemy for the sake of the Ummah or the Muslim nation. What are Osama bin Laden's Ambitions? “...Therefore I am telling you, and God is my witness, 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

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

6 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 Muslim governments to cease meddling in the Middle East.  To have his view of Sharia-based Islamic government.  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 countries, such as East Timor. And ultimately, to stop the United States from using it's military, CIA, etc, to overthrow, manipulate 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 prevent 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 differentiate 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 expanded 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 battlefield. 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 because 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 falsehood. They understand that jihad for the sake of God is the way to deter the tyranny of the infidels...These men sought to prepare a response for the Day of Reckoning. Faith in God and the Hereafter 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 measures.” --- Sun Tzu Osama bin Laden is an extremely high profiled, controversial figure. Though many deem him as violent and dangerous, some deem him as a freedom fighter against the notorious American empire. For us to completely understand the “War on Terror”, we must examine, analyze and evaluate our enemies, their beliefs, ambitions and most importantly (in this case)---motivations. With the war in Afghanistan in chaos and Iraq with no significant political/economic improvement, it is obvious that

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

7 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

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 Jeremy Davis 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 believe 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 peoples whilst battling the threat of terrorism worldwide. The neo-conservatives that drive our foreign policy would point to the recent parliamentary elections 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 believes 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 genuine investment in the betterment of the lives of the

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

8 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 Iraqi people, providing them with liberty and freeter the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Phildom previously unknown. ippines in 1986; after the ouster of General Chun But if we simply take a glance at the track reDoo-Hwan in South Korea in 1987; and after the cord of the United States in supporting democracy ending of thirty-eight years of martial law on the isabroad, the genuine ambitions of the democratic doland of Taiwan in the same year.” gooders in government don‟t seem quite so genuine. Being skeptical when politicians claim that For instance, it was in 1953 that our CIA aswe must wage preventive wars against oppressed sisted in overthrowing Mohamed Mossedech, the third world nations in order to promote democracy democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced so that we may root out terrorists becomes relatively him with the Shah and enabled his authoritarian easy when events and actions such as those menrule for nearly thirty years. The United States didn‟t tioned here are taken into account. Promoting deseem all that concerned with Sadmocracy essentially becomes code But if we simply take a for continual war while we claimed dam Hussein‟s rule back in the 1980‟s when we actually supported glance at the track record of to uphold the values of a free and the United States in supporthim and his efforts against Iran. democratic society and make friends ing democracy abroad, the U.S. interventions abroad have also genuine ambitions of the de- with authoritarian dictators and lead to the propping up of and sup- mocratic do-gooders in gov- strive to overthrow other democratiport for many dictators such as In- ernment don’t seem quite so cally elected regimes at the same donesia‟s General Suharto, Augusto genuine. time. Pinochet in Chile, Fulgencio Batista Congressman Ron Paul also points in Cuba, and Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua to out this two-faced hypocrisy in his 2003 “State of name a few. the Republic address” delivered before the U.S. The creditability of our foreign policy in carHouse of Representatives. Paul states that “Our rying through the liberation of the Iraqi people from policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for an un-free society is lacking when considering our the various complex problems of the world. Unforcontinued associations and alliances with other retunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the gimes less than friendly to democracy like Pakistan real reasons for our empire building. „Promoting deor Saudi Arabia. In fact, as in most cases of our formocracy‟ overseas merely becomes a slogan for doeign interventionism, democracy has taken hold in ing things that the powerful and influential strive to direct opposition to our meddling on behalf of do for their own benefit.” spreading our ideals through force. In that same speech, Paul also noted that In his book, Nemesis: The Last Days of the “There is abundant evidence that the pretense of American Republic, Chalmers Johnson explains spreading democracy contradicts the very policies that “It should be noted that since 1947, while we we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elechave used our military power for political and militions, but we are only too willing to accept some fortary gain in a long list of countries, in no instance the-moment friendly dictator who actually overhas democratic government come about as a direct threw a democratically elected leader or to interfere result. In some important cases, on the other hand, in some foreign election.” democracy has developed in opposition to our interDo the Iraqi people themselves honestly beference.” Chalmers goes on to cite that this occurred lieve that the U.S. is bringing them freedom through “after the collapse of the regime of the CIA installed the barrel of a gun? In another address to the U.S. Greek colonels in 1974; after the U.S. supported fasHouse of Representatives, Congressman Paul said cist dictatorships in Portugal and Spain in 1975; afthat “The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

9 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government.” Although he‟s been fervent to deny it, there‟s no doubt that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal alMaliki is nothing more than America‟s man in an American backed regime. Since the results of the Iraqi parliamentary elections earlier this year possibly hint at a jobless al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister has been quick to speculate that his power as leader is being significantly reduced and undermined, 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 democracy worth the price of making sure Iraq becomes a democratic beacon of the Middle East? Perhaps 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 foreign policy makes its living off of gross double standards of saying we support democracy here while wanting to topple some other democratic government 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 Brian Beyer the war in Afghanistan. He has, in fact, owned the war since he took his inaugural oath, but only now is the mainstream media deciding to hold him accountable. However, even they have failed at that. In order to drum up support of the warweary American public, James Risen of the New York Times “broke” a 25 year old news story: Afghanistan is full of precious metals, many of them being vital for our high tech world. In reality, the Soviets, during their lengthy and disastrous occupation 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 Afghanistan of its resources, their socialist empire collapsed. The importance of this mineral find has been both largely exaggerated and grossly underestimated. 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 powerhouse overnight. However, this discovery could be a threat to American hegemony in the Middle East rather than augmenting it, something that many are

Want to write for our FPH website?
Contact us at:
Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

10 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 saying will happen. As the American public is well aware, the United States is waging a bloody war in Afghanistan. With a July 2011 deadline for that has now been disavowed by Nobel Peace Prize winner President 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 insurgency will continue to grow stronger. Pakistan‟s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been trying to validly obtained in accordance with this Law. (3) A Person may conduct Mineral Activities, acquire 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 accordance with the provisions of this Law. (5) A surface right to land does not confer upon its holder any claim or right whatsoever 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.

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 So, even if a mining company was to discover Valley, the Taliban recently took over an emerald and extract minerals, they would first have to seek mine and demanded to be paid permission from the governa third of all earnings. These A huge obstacle towards any promis- ment as the minerals are its are just a few of the hindrances ing development in the country is its “exclusive property.” And extowards any meaningful eco- new, vague, and downright socialist tracting minerals on land that nomic development in Afghani- mining laws. is yours is void as it “does not stan. confer upon its holder any The problems with Afghanistan‟s economic claim or right.” Frequently cited as one of the most climate do not end there, however. A huge obstacle corrupt states in the world, mining companies could towards any promising development in the country easily be deterred from doing business there beis its new, vague, and downright socialist mining cause of its all-encompassing mining laws and laws. These laws, passed in 2005, are sure to leave crooked politicians. Uncertainty is business‟ worst many investors very skeptical of even mining there enemy. in the first place [emphasis mine]: With constant warfare, dangerous religious fanatics, a corrupt government, and even worse Article four: Ownership of Minerals laws, Afghanistan is no enticing place to do busi(1) All naturally occurring Mineral Substances and ness. As such, there is no reason to believe that Afall Artificial Deposits of Mineral Substances on ghanistan‟s mineral reserves have the possibility of or under the territory of Afghanistan or in its wafundamentally altering its economy. ter courses (rivers and streams) are the excluMany people think that as a result of this sive property of the State. find, Afghanistan will become another “colony,” aka (2) Mineral Activities may be conducted in Afghani“Saudi Arabia of lithium,” of the United States. stan [only] by the State, unless a Person [other While this would have been more accurate during than the state] is the Holder of a Mineral Right the Cold War, the same does not hold true for today.

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

11 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 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 becoming increasingly skeptical of the war in Afghanistan. Therefore, it is unfeasible both economically (the printing press can only do so much) and politically 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 Metallurgical 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 fuels both the mining site and Kabul), coalmine, and smelter were all included in the $3.4 billion package. Middle East expert S. Frederick Starr has succinctly 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 Afghanistan were to be quickly pulled out, it is quite possible 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.
Photo courtesy of the Associated Press

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 Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Daniel Suraci On top of our traditional soldiers, President Obama has deployed Secret Operations 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 enemies are in remains a mystery, but yet, American politicians persevere on, throwing soldier after soldier, 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 Pakistan. In 2009, there were 45 to 53 such strikes. In

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

12 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 the first 18 days of January 2010, there had already cently released a report stating that the Pakistani been 11 of them.” These strikes have stayed primargovernment is giving great amounts of aid to the ily out of the media, since the media focuses on the Taliban in Pakistan. This only makes sense as the number of American lives lost. Pakistanis view the Taliban as a Obama though is having a hard great ally in their war efforts Considering these drones are piloted out of Dayton, Ohio, it‟s hard time finding support within the against India. The people of PakiCIA for these drone strikes as to imagine them making the front stan itself see themselves caught the CIA has relentlessly stated page. The use of drones also pre- that the blowback effect of a up in a fight that they have no devents a war weary nation to keep civilian war in Pakistan will far sire to be in and entirely for politipushing on in a hopeless war effort. outweigh the benefits. cal reasons (thus far about $5 bilNot only do we not see Americans lion USD worth of political reakilled, but the cost of drone fighters is significantly sons to the government of Pakistan). Indeed, the lower than traditional soldiers. Effectively, Obama‟s first suicide attack in Pakistan did not occur until war could go on forever. 2004 when the Pakistani army joined the AmeriAlso avoiding the front page is that Blackwacans in „fighting terrorism‟. Moreover, new militant ter (now known as Xe Services) is guarding drone groups are popping up in Pakistan constantly in outposts for the CIA in “Afghanistan and elsewhere” protest of Pakistan‟s role in the war and American So while politicians condemn the actions of involvement in the Middle East. All of these prob„Blackwater‟ vehemently, the CIA hires „Xe Services‟ lems should have been foreseen by US officials. to protect their bases to the tune of $120,123,293 of Politicians and generals both constantly pay taxpayer money. Not only is the war spreading, but lip service to „staying in the fight to win it‟. But the commanders are using strategies known to fail, none of them seem to be able to answer what that and especially to cause blowback. America is not victory would look like. Certainly, a typical military only perpetuating war, but perpetuating the same 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, failed strategies and the same actions that created a when new militants are being created perpetually by quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. the violence American soldiers create. It perpetuObama though is having a hard time finding ates a cycle of violence, in which there is no possible support within the CIA for these drone strikes as the victory, other than withdraw, and all this under the CIA has relentlessly stated that the blowback effect pretense of „peace‟. As Dr. Ron Paul stated, “We are of a civilian war in Pakistan will far outweigh the following this precept of perpetual war for perpetual benefits. The evidence for this is overwhelming. peace . . . .” All the while, we hemorrhage money, Pakistan recently signed an agreement to run an oil only to increase our national threats, as American pipeline with Iran, from Tehran. Despite receiving strategies cause more and more blowback. billions in aid from America, and offering their allegiance to us, the London School of Economics re-

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

13 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 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 PakistanAfghanistan border, is only recognized as such by outsiders. The inhabitants of this region do not consider themselves people who live along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, rather they think of themselves as people who occupy their own homeland, 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

On Pakistan
One of the most frequent mistakes made in the realm of foreign policy is the forgetfulness that when dealing with other nations, we are at the base Elliot Engstrom level dealing with human beings very similar to ourselves. While different human beings may manifest their base desires and motivations in different ways, we all share the general 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 infrastructure has been decimated due to war and now is being rebuilt. In the case of Afghanistan and western Pakistan, where the United States effort is now appearing more and more like a nation building effort, 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
Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

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

14 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 years been a problematic issue for the United States military. By using drones to attack what are considered key targets in this region, the United States has undermined the strength of the Pakistani authorities, 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 already done. For example, not only have drone attacks increased resistance to an American presence, they also have increased recruiting levels for antiAmerican organizations such as the Pakistani Taliban. 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 offset 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 attack has bred hostility against the U.S. A final, and arguably the largest, issue at hand in the expansion of America‟s war into Pakistan 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 conduct operations in this turbulent region, the United States is creating what is becoming less and less another 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 Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta white powder. For several years the United States has invested billions 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 apparent of its extreme inefficiencies and waste. However, more importantly it‟s revealing questionable actions that the War implements. The War on Drugs has become another negative US foreign policy that has affected our diplomatic ties with many countries; including our neighbors and the country we are concentrating military intervention, Afghanistan. The government‟s assumed responsibility of regulating human behavior in regards to the consumption of drugs could be notoriously seen in the 1920s during Prohibition. During this time, the government took on the alcohol binge. For predominantly moral reasons, government was pushed into

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

15 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

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 unpopular 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 border towns is in direct correlation to the War on Drugs. Because drugs are illegal and the black market 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 actually increases it. While Mexico is experiencing instability in their northern region, the violence is threatening 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 Afghanistan 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 survival of many poor farmers in Afghanistan. Many farmers do not have other methods of income except for the cultivation of poppy. This poses a significant problem to the US: should the US eradicate poppy fields in facing civilian retaliation? The Taliban 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 problems 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 towards the demand side. The United States completely 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 worsening 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 minorities. This government sponsored war is only generating 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.

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

16 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 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 administrations, 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 Administration” 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 aeronautics 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 astronauts 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 Administration and State Department have run out of ideas

A Desperate Maneuver
With the United States engaged in a perpetual war across the scope of the entire globe, a formerly useful and intrinsically scientific agency is experiencing a severe case of mission creep. The National Aeronau- Roy Antoun tics and Space Administration used to have a steady mission or goal. It was to “pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” But now NASA is being used as a foreign 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
Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

17 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue IV | July 2010 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 Executive extortion. The National Guard used to be a force and power delegated to states only and for national defense. However, that quickly changed into a “peacekeeping” force that would see action in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The Department 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 administration resorting to NASA for foreign policy advice and even more disheartening to see a Federal agency change its primary role from scientific research to Earth “improvement,” which in and of itself is a debatable term.

Suggested Reading

By the FPH Team

Young Americans for Liberty | | July 2010

18 | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Foreign Policy Handbook
“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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.