In defense

The other day, I made some comments to someone about how I disagreed with Mitt Romney's statement that we need to do something about Iran for the security of the world. This person commented that we, the laymen, know too little about global politics, and that we should allow those who know more than us to make decisions. Well, I countered with some comments that probably sounded very arrogant; it probably sounded like I think I know as much. I wrote the following email, to state that my opinions are not based on an arrogant ignorance, but instead, on a thoughtful consideration of history, and listening to those who know more than I.

It probably sounded very arrogant for me to suggest I know enough to say that we shouldn't be doing things for the security of the world. However, it doesn't take much reading to understand that many of the things we do are morally reprehensible. While I don't think individual morals always apply to a national or world view, I do think that themes are the same: treat others with respect, and treat them as you would like to be treated. Considering this, and a little history of our foreign activities, quickly leads to the correct conclusion that we should not let world security motivate our foreign policy.
A friend of mine who is somewhat knowledgeable and supportive of our activities in the middle east, disagreed with my views of combating bad governments with free trade by saying that it is not possible to anticipate what the effects of our actions might be, so it's impossible to say that free trade would discourage non-us friendly activities. I agreed fully that it is impossible to anticipate the effects of our actions, so it makes more sense NOT to be involved in manipulating foreign governments, no matter whether the goal is to improve the security of the world, or simply to maintain the availability of oil.
As for the moral issue, according to the Iraqi Liberation act of 1998 (or 99), the number one the Sadaam regime should be displaced is that they attacked Iran without reason in 1980. We actually encouraged and financed this action. Condemning a country for doing what we encouraged them to do is completely wrong. Furthermore, the fact that we provided weapons to both sides of the conflict surely prolonged the war, and caused the loss of many more lives. If only one side of the conflict was supported, it could then be argued that we did some good in our support, but with both being assisted, that is irrational.
We continued providing weapons to Iraq almost up to the point that we went to war with Iran, in 1990. The reason Iraq was able to invade Kuwait in the first place was that they had a powerful military, due to our generous donations of military equipment. So, not only did our assistance provide Iraq with the ability to invade Kuwait, it made Iraq a much stronger adversary during our conflict with them.
While many Israel supporters will argue that Israel can take care of itself militarily, Golda Meir expressed different views during the Yom Kippur war. It was suggested to her by some of her advisors that Israel conduct preemptive strikes to deter the attacks by the few arab countries. She said, though, that if Israel conducted preemptive strikes, the U.S. would not provide the resupply Israel would need in order to carry on through the end of the war. This, and other similar incidents, show that Israel does rely on us for assistance. If Israel did not have our support today, in the name of world security, they would be forced to work harder at achieving diplomatic solutions, rather than jumping into military action.
So, the fact that we tend to support one regime or country for only a few short years before switching sides and condemn actions that we encouraged and supported, and the fact that our actions tend to prolong and encourage military actions, resulting in more people killed and lives destroyed, should show that we have no business trying to control other countries. There are many more examples, enough to fill volumes, that demonstrate these same recurring themes. These themes make it obvious to me that we should worry about our own security, rather than the world's. It is hard enough to maintain the security of our own country. I think the problem is what you have suggested before: that people are so arrogant that they ignore the historical facts, and believe that their ideas are better than those of their predecessors, that they base their foreign policy on what is popular, and, additionally, that they are scared to do what is right, that is, to practice non-intervention.
I hope that shows that my boldness is not based on thinking I know more than our country's leaders; in fact, I know very little. But, I do know that my thoughts are generally correct, since they seem to be in line with those of many people, such as Cato scholars, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and many other freedom fighters.