opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
5 Feb 2016
The Remainderman

Donald Trump won more votes in the Iowa caucuses than any Republican candidate in history. Impressive, except … Read More.

2 Feb 2016
Is a New Era Upon Us?

Whoever wins the nominations, the most successful campaigns of 2016 provide us with a clear picture of where … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
The Civil War of the Right

The conservative movement is starting to look a lot like Syria. Baited, taunted, mocked by Fox News, Donald … Read More.

Last Hurrah of the Interventionists?


In what a Washington Post columnist describes as a rout of Rand Paul isolationism, the Senate just voted overwhelmingly to send another $1.5 billion in foreign aid to Egypt.

The House voted 400-20 to impose new sanctions on Iran's oil exports, two days before Iran's new president, elected on a pledge to re-engage the West on the nuclear issue, takes his oath.

Do these triumphs of AIPAC and the War Party, of neocons and liberal internationalists, tell us where we are going? Or are they the last hurrahs of the interventionists, as America's long retreat proceeds apace.

If we take what Richard Nixon called "the long view," the trend line seems unmistakable. Under President Obama, America has pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq and has scheduled a full withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.

Despite his "red line" in Syria having allegedly been crossed, and the cawing of Hill hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, Obama seems the very portrait of a reluctant warrior in Syria.

A large majority of Americans, too, want no part of that civil war.

On Iran, the Pentagon seems to concur with Obama, in opposition to a new Mideast war. And as Congress votes new sanctions on Iran and new billions for an Egyptian army that just arrested its elected government, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is laying out scenarios for reducing the size, reach and power of the U.S. military.

"Without the controlling principle that the nation must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium, its purposes within its means, and its means equal to its purposes, its commitments related to its resources, and its resources adequate to its commitments, it is impossible to think at all about foreign affairs." So wrote Walter Lippmann in 1943.

That is our situation today.

During World War II, we were united in defeating Germany and Japan. After the war, we became united on a new foreign policy — containment of communism and a Soviet Empire that had spread from the Elbe River to the Bering Sea. Through great sacrifices we ensured that our resources were adequate to our commitments.

Vietnam shattered the Cold War consensus.

Yet enough of it survived for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to lead the nation and the West to victory.

Bush I then set out to build his "New World Order." He invaded Panama, drove Iraq out of Kuwait and put U.S.

troops into Somalia. The country sent him packing.

After 9/11, Bush II invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and undertook to nation-build in both. The country removed his party from power in both houses of Congress in 2006 and from the presidency in 2008.

George W. was going to "end tyranny in our world." Enough said.

Obama began the long retreat of American power that proceeds today despite a bellicosity on Capitol Hill redolent of the Cold War.

Today, as government at all levels consumes nearly 40 percent of gross domestic product, as the deficit is growing three times as fast as the GDP, as China continues to grow at four times the U.S. rate, we need to ask ourselves:

What should we fight for? Whom shall we defend? What can we afford in the way of national defense? What must we afford?

Consider America's alliances, almost all of which date to a Cold War no American under 25 can even remember.

NATO was formed in 1949 to protect Western Europe from a Soviet Bloc and a Soviet Union that disappeared a generation ago.

U.S. treaties with Japan and the Philippines date to the 1950s, when Chairman Mao was exporting communist revolution. Should these treaties now require us to go to war with China to defend disputed islets and rocks in the East and South China Sea?

Our treaty with South Korea dates to a war against the North that ended in a truce 60 years ago. South Korea today has twice the population of the North and 40 times the GDP.

Must we still deploy a U.S. army on the Korean DMZ?

In 1977 we undertook to give $5 billion in annual foreign aid to Israel and Egypt. After 35 years, how long should the United States, whose middle class has not seen a rise in real income since 1977, borrow from China to pay Egyptians and Israelis $5 billion a year not to fight each other?

Through a mindless adherence to policies that date to a long-dead past, America is forfeiting her future.

Through our abandonment of economic patriotism and embrace of globalism, we have run up $10 trillion in trade deficits since Reagan. We have fought two trillion-dollar wars in 12 years.

Every year we go into world financial markets to borrow tens of billions for the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and foreign aid to send to regimes that routinely vote against the us in the United Nations.

Is Rand Paul really the one living in yesterday?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



6 Comments | Post Comment
Yet another incoherent rant from a guy flirting with dementia. Here is my question: How do we deal with a bunch of baby-boomers who are overwhelming in numbers and moving into Alzheimer's and other manifestations of dementia?

This will be a big problem for us as a nation and a planet.

Now to an interesting statement by this patient: "Yet enough of it survived for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to lead the nation and the West to victory." Not sure what victory he was talking about.

I guess he means the fall of the "ancien regime" of the Soviet Union. Hardly a victory as far as I can tell, considering the worldwide menaces we are looking at now. How easy it would feel to be back in the simplistic cold war era.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Fri Aug 2, 2013 7:16 PM
I will say this: I'm glad Obama won the 08 election instead of McCain. Otherwise, we'd be in the middle of WWIII. McCain is the re-incarnation of Ares, the Greek god of war. Obama is bad. He always does the wrong thing, but not as bad or as quickly. But intervention always fails. Just look at history. We arm the people today that will kill us tomorrow. We never learn from our mistakes.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Sat Aug 3, 2013 8:30 PM
Obama is not looking for trouble. If he were that kind of person, he would not have become president. The question is, can he resist pressure from Congress to start a war against Iran without Congressional approval?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Peter Ungar
Sun Aug 4, 2013 2:16 PM
That last comment made no sense. Why would congress pressure Obama into a war they woulden't approve of themselves? Obama is absolutly looking for trouble. Thats why he didn't end Bush's wars. Thats why he started a war in Lybia without congressional approval. And thats why he just armed terrorists in Syria.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Aug 5, 2013 6:24 AM
Re: Chris McCoy

Every Sunday morning on the tube John McCain and Lindsay Graham like a bunch of hyenas call for war with Iran. Why does Congress want Obama to go to war you ask. Because they are true to their constituents which are not the American people but AIPAC. If you have to get approval from the Lobby before running for public office at the federal level you know which side your bread is buttered on and by whom.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mannstein
Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:07 PM
Re: Masako

"How do we deal with a bunch of baby-boomers who are overwhelming in numbers and moving into Alzheimer's and other manifestations of dementia?"

What do you suggest? Disenfranchisement at the next election? I'm a baby boomer of sound mind. Pat asks the right questions. Why should we borrow from China to provide aid to Israel and Egypt so that our kids and grand kids are saddled with an even larger debt. Makes zero sense unless of course you happen to be an Israel firster.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Mannstein
Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:13 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Pat Buchanan
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 10 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2016
Froma Harrop
Froma HarropUpdated 9 Feb 2016

15 Jun 2007 On the Escalator to War With Iran

29 May 2014 Is Obama Blundering Into a Syrian Quagmire?

28 Aug 2009 †The Get-Cheney Squad