The Founding Fathers and early American Presidents were very cautious of foreign entanglements. The reason for their hesitancy resided in their keen understanding of the intrigue and unintended consequences that often follow foreign adventurism. This caution is illustrated in many of the statements of the Founders and early Presidents. Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address called for "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." President George Washington echoed Thomas Jefferson when he added:

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible....Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"

And perhaps the most astute understanding of the dangers of foreign adventurism comes from the wise words of President John Quincy Adams:

"If the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world...should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless, and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights; she has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own; she has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart."

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benediction and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her won, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her won spirit...."

Have we followed the wise advice of the Founders? Indeed, for the first 100 years or so, America heeded the call of the Founders and remained largely aloof from foreign entanglements. Even when Napoleon's armies ravaged Europe, America did little to interfere and therefore was allowed to prosper as other nations suffered. This non-interventionist policy contributed to Americas fast rise to prominence. Unfortunately, as America's power and influence in the world increased so did the temptation to meddle in other countries affairs. We have only to examine the record to determine if the Founders were indeed right about the futility of such adventures.

One just has to start with Woodrow Wilson, who not only permitted but propagandized America into World War I. Although the war was won, the consequences of our intervention included the Treaty of Versailles, which impoverished the German people and directly lead to their support of Hitler and the Nazi party who promised a rise in prominence and glory.

Because of the earlier interference, Hitler now needed vanquishing and therefore President Roosevelt brought America into the war to save our British allies. Unfortunately, although Hitler was vanquished, an alliance with Stalin lead to the iron curtain, decades of the cold war, and further communist entanglements in Korea and elsewhere. These regimes massacred tens of millions of their own citizens. One has only to wonder that if the alliance had never been made, if the focus of Hitler's attention would have remained on the Soviets and would have lead to the demise of Stalin, Hitler, or both.

Since World War II, the meddling has only increased. And unfortunately the record is the same. American involvement in Iran lead to the removal of a properly elected president and placed the pro-American Shah in his stead. The Shah, although a staunch ally of America, was a dictator to his own people. This lead to the Islamic Revolution and the resurgence of radical Islam. This combined with American involvement In Afghanistan against the Soviets lead to Osama Bin Laden and other groups of militant anti-western fundamentalists. These groups used the involvement of America in their countries as fodder to recruit disgruntled Muslims.

What about Saddam Hussein? It is well known that in order to counter Iran's rise in prominence, America supported Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s. What was the result of such interference? Of course, nothing less than even more war and blood-shed. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, America was forced to repel him back to Iraq to protect our oil interests and our Saudi Arabian allies? The unintended consequence of this action was further fomenting of radical Islam who saw American occupation of Saudi Arabia as an insult to their holy land.This only lent further credence to Bin Laden and his allies.

George W. Bush during the presidential debates promised a policy of non-intervention in response to Clinton's 'nation-building' in Bosnia. However, as soon as he acquired power he changed his tune and started following the policies of his predecessors. This included plunging us into a phony war in Iraq who was not and would never be a threat to the United States. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq remains one of the most embarrassing moments in American history. The Iraq war lead to further fomentation of radical Islam and civil unrest in Iraq and elsewhere. One can only wonder what the long term consequences will be.

The story does not end there. America now has bases in over 130 countries throughout the world. It is through these bases that we hope to promote our own interests and keep many of these countries in check. Unfortunately, as I have illustrated above, the more we become involved the more isolated and hated we become throughout the world. Strangely, a policy of active intervention only makes us more isolated in the world's eyes. The untold story lies in the trillions of dollars spent and the millions of lives lost. Most of this money and loss of life could have been saved if we had but heeded the warnings that were given. 

These bases or 'garrisons' throughout the world would fulfill the words of the pre-eminent old Republican Robert A. Taft. Russell Kirk, in writing about Robert Taft, says:

"Taft's prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions-and the worst of results. He foresaw the grim possiblltiy of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant "democratism" imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America's domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources on amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world; that is, the "garrison state," a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution  made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption."

It is time we learned from the words of Robert Taft, the words of the Founders, and our past failures. We don't need to be in 130 countries. What we need to do is to defend our own country and protect our own borders as the constitution directs. However, I fear that we will continue down the road to our own destruction unless people like you and I can promote a responsible, constitutional, and non-interventionist foreign policy.