Frustrated with the inability of the Democratic Party within the two party to express a principled alternative to the expansionist policies of the Bush presidency?

Dismayed with the passivity of progressives in the face of bipartisan congressional support for the occupation of Iraq and a possible war with Iran?

Shackled by the crackpot realism that dominates the discourse of American foreign policy within the liberal blogosphere?

Nature abhors a vacuum, as they say, so the libertarians are filling it, with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. Consider this event in DC tomorrow which, if one encountered it on the agenda of an organization aligned with the Democratic Party, like say, MoveON.org, would surely cause one to faint:

June 14, 2006

The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy Presents:

Right Against War with Iran

The speakers include:

Ivan Eland (Independent Institute)
"The United States Might Have to Accept a Nuclear Iran."

Philip Giraldi (former CIA officer, partner in Cannistraro Associates):
"Iran: Same Bad Intelligence, Same Catastrophic Results"

Doug Bandow (Liberty Coalition):
"Another War: Another Attack on Civil Liberties"

Chuck Pena (Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy):
"Refocusing the War on Terrorism"

When: Wednesday, June 21st 2006
Where: 122 Cannon House Office Building
Time: 2 p.m.-3 p.m.

If you have any questions please call Michael D. Ostrolenk, Policy Fellow, Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy at 301-717-0599, or michaeldostrolenk@gmail.com.

No doubt a lot of people in DC have many questions for them, starting with, why are the speakers allowed out in public? Aren't they subject to home detention, with monitoring of all of their electronic communications by the Department of Homeland Security, with weekly reports issued to the Dick Cheney, Bill Frist and Harry Reid? I mean, really, how are such affronts to good taste through the discussion of such shocking topics tolerated?

It gets worse, much worse:

The Perils of Empire
Statement of Principles
by the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy:

Against the backdrop of an ever-bloodier conflict in Iraq, American foreign policy is moving in a dangerous direction toward empire.

Worrisome imperial trends are apparent in the Bush administration's National Security Strategy. That document pledges to maintain America's military dominance in the world, and it does so in a way that encourages other nations to form countervailing coalitions and alliances. We can expect, and are seeing now, multiple balances of power forming against us. People resent and resist domination, no matter how benign.

We are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across the political spectrum who believe that the move toward empire must be halted immediately. We are united by our desire to turn American national security policy toward realistic and sustainable measures for protecting U.S. vital interests in a manner that is consistent with American values.

The need for a change in direction is particularly urgent because imperial policies can quickly gain momentum, with new interventions begetting new dangers and, thus, the demand for further actions. If current trends are allowed to continue, we may well end up with an empire that most Americans-especially those whose sons and daughters are, or will be, sent into harm's way-don't really favor. The issue must be the subject of a broad public debate. The time for debate is now.

The time for debate is now?? Don't these people understand that the national political leadership of both parties have decided that there is never to be any public discussion of these kind of issues? No, past history shows that these people are incorrigible:

The Perils of Occupation
October 28, 2004

In this election season, we still need a realistic debate over the most costly and dangerous American foreign policy action in recent history: the military occupation of Iraq. We are a diverse group of scholars, analysts and former government officials from across the political spectrum who believe that the use of military force to direct the internal affairs of other nations is detrimental to American national security.

We question the new conventional wisdom, which proclaims the need for the United States to "stay the course" in Iraq by maintaining a substantial army on the ground. It is reminiscent of last year's conventional wisdom, which uncritically accepted the need for an invasion to eliminate Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction." The experience of the past year and a half has demonstrated that instead of producing stability, the presence of American troops inside Iraq is a continuing incitement to nationalist insurgency and regional upheaval.

Note that this statement against the occupation of Iraq was issued on October 28, 2004. How many lives, both American and Iraqi, might have been saved if such sane advice were followed?

Speaking as someone on the left, the program of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy could be significantly improved. But the renunciation of our continued efforts to assert imperial control over much of the rest of the world is essential, and the efforts of the Coalition to provide a political and ideological framework for it is worthy of praise, and will, ultimately, be more historically significant than the efforts of American liberals to analyze the Iraq war as merely a tactical failure in order to preserve the fundamental necessity for an ongoing US global military presence.

Labels: Libertarians, Occupation of Iraq