In part two of this four-part FlynnFiles interview, Howard Phillips outlines why every Republican president since Eisenhower has appointed a liberal to the Supreme Court, criticizes Beltway conservatives for rolling over when conservative office-holders betray conservative principles, and analyzes the successes and failures of the conservative movement.

Howard Phillips makes a number of good points. Two of the points I find most interesting are his observation that Republicans lack the moral confidence of Democrats. As a general rule this does seem to be true. If Conservatives and/or Republicans are going to win, we will need to develop more moral confidence in our positions.

During the interview he discusses China. He believes we have looked the other way while China has expanded. He seems to imply that the focus on Iraq has caused us to lose focus on the much larger threat posed by China. From the beginning, I have been concerned that all of our focus on Iraq and even Iran could cause us to lose sight of bigger threats. We have allowed our Navy to shrink from 600 warships to 289 warships. This cannot be helpful to American national security. I think we need to increase our Navy from 289 warships to 2,000 warships or as many as we can make!! While we have been focusing on Islamic terrorists China has expanded their sphere of influence exponentially and their strength as well as their anti American beligerence only grows stronger by the day. This is not to say we should not continue to fight Islamic Extremist terrorists but while we do so we should not loose sight of the threat posed by China.

Disturbingly absent from Mr. Phillips's ana-lysis is the threat posed by a country that has about 16,000 nuclear warheads. This country has recently upgraded its nuclear arsenal. This country actively supports every terrorist organization and terror supporting state under the sun. The name of this country is Russia. I believe Russia poses the greatest threat to America. China poses the second greatest threat. Islamic Extremists pose the third greatest threat. Again, none of this is to suggest the terrorist threat is not real. It certainly is. We should continue fighting the terrorists, however, in doing so we must not lose sight of other threats.

I disagree both with B.Poster and Phillips on this issue.

China may have some regional aspirations, but I don't see how they are a threat to the US. If they take over Taiwan, that may not be good for Taiwan, but it isn't the end of the World, and it's certainly not worth a confrontation. My grandfather was killed by Mao, and I'm well aware of how horrible the regime was, but it has made serious progress, is now semi-capitalist country that isn't particularly great on civil liberties. But what Asian country is?

The same thing with Russia. We don't need to fight the Cold War over again, and it seems like we "won," yet we must punish the Russian regime by costantly atagonizing Putin, and any other Eastern European leader who doesn't follow our suit.

If we truly need to fight "radical Islam," then China and Russia, who both have significant, violent, and radical Muslims within their borders, why don't we align ourselves with those countries? Instead, we side with the Chechen and Albanian terrorists against the West.

Marcus

As always your posts are very well thought out. I appreciate your response to what I wrote.

Your ana-lysis could be spot on regarding China. I still think if we allow a democracy, such as Taiwan to be swallowed up by China this will diminish us all. Having said this, now that China has nuclear war heads capable of targeting American cities I find it highly unlikely that America would challenge China over this. Hopefully we can find a peaceful solution to this that does not sacrifice Taiwan for the sake of appeasing China. If we sacrifice Tawain, I'm concerned China will only want more and more. Appeasement did not work with Hitler and it does not seem to be working with the Palestinians. I'm skeptical that it is going to work with China. Besides, if we have to fight China some day, we are going to need allies.

I'm not so sure the cold war actually ended. There seem to be elements within Russia's politial structure who don't think so. How close to the top it reaches I am unable to say for sure. It does not seem to me like we "won." Our military is only a shadow of what it once was and adversaries such as China and Russia are stronger than ever, or so it seems and they are every bit as beligerent as I can ever remember them being. I don't really see us doing anything to antagonize Putin or any other Eastern European leader. When thinking about our policies toward Putin, I would describe them as "kid glove." As I recall, the United States government said a few words regarding democracy in Ukraine and the US conducts business with some of the former Soviet satelite states. With the agreement of these sovergin governments, the US has some military bases there for the purpose of battling Islamic extremists. One of these countries recently asked us to leave and we have agreed. There certainly seems to be nothing here that would threaten Russia's national interests. Ukraine, the former Soviet satelite states, and the Chechens receive no overt assistance from us that I am aware of. I can understand the desire of Eastern European countries, such as Poland and other former Soviet satelite states to side with us. I don't think they want to be under the thumb of the Russians again. I certainly see no pressure from us, besides we really don't have much leverage to pressure them with these days.

Our lack of overt assistance to these countries is in direct contrast to Russia's active assistance to our enemies, such as Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, Russia is an active military supplier of Venezuela. Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez has been extremely hostile to us. It appears to me that Russia has been establishing beach heads throughout Central and South America for the purpose of undermining us. If in fact we are "antagonizing" Putin, it must be understood in light of this context. Perhaps, if Russia will agree to respect our concerns, then we can reach an honorable agreement. I'm not even sure if our leaders are even aware of the problem because all we get from American leaders such as Condi Rice and George W. Bush are statements to the effect that Russia is our "friend."

What does seem clear to me, if America is to survive and thrive in the 21st century, it will need a smart and assertive foreign policy. Our current policies are mildly assertive, however, it remains to be seen if they are smart. If there is some good news regarding percieved enemies, such as Russia and China they are far to arrogant. Such arrogance will lead to mistakes. We will need to be ready to capitalize.

"Why don't we align ourselves with those countries?" Good question. I think we need to ask the Russians and the Chinese this question. They should be aligning themelves with us. The Chechens and the Albanian terrorists don't seem to be getting very much from us, in terms of active assistance. If they do receive active assistance from us, it could mean on some level the American government is aware of the threats posed by Russia and China. In any event, I think our actions need to be understood within the context of the actions taken by others. Having written all of this, I'm not sure our leaders fully understand the religous issues that drive Islamic Extremists. Unfortunately political correctness prevents us from publicly debating this.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

B. Poster,

Just a quick point. Do you know where the Chechens (of the blowing up schoolchildren fame) got their weapons from? Us. Specifically they got them from Bill Clinton who decided to arm and assist the Bosnians in the Yugoslav wars of secession (or whatever they are supposed to be called). The islamic militants involved in that struggle (Bosnia was plurality Muslim) simply transferred the arms after the conflict to the Chechens, the flow of arms to Muslim rebels in eastern Europe is thus largely a consequence of earlier US intervention.

That's one unintended consequence of an assertive foreign policy free from being constrained by realistic and genuine American interests. This is only to point out a) how complicated foreign affairs are, and b) how reasonable a more modest foreign policy is given the dangers of overreach and overinvolvement in conflicts not our own.

I do think that Marcus is possibly being to dismissive of China as a threat though. He suggests that (to reduce it to utter simplicity) "The U.S. should not strive to have an empire, but China's assertions in their region are only a threat to us if we are an imperial hegemon. Therefore, China is no threat to us." But possibly your free market economic views are tinting your glasses a bit Marcus.

The threat of China is economic, in that they (along with Japan and S. Korea) control our national debt and are fleecing us blind and impoverishing us. The possible economic collapse we face, easily done if ever China or Japan decides to drop our currency, is a major threat to our security and independence.

The British destroyed their empire by being strict apostles of free trade and globalism (external not internal) and we face the same fate. As far as destroying our status as hegemon it doesn't phase me, but as far as destroying our national strength, independence, security, and jobs, it does trouble me.

B Poster: To be honest, I have not heard of the aid the aid you say Russian gave our enemies, but I'll take your word for it. I don't see how the Palestenian Authority (who we also give money to), Iran, Syria, much less Venezuela need to be our enemies.

We have done many things to antagonize Russia. After the Chechens blew up the school, the President pretty much blamed Putin for their policies in Chechnya. Sadaam was more contrite after 9-11 than we were, and I'm sure if any head of state had even suggested that our foreign policy could have provoked 9-11, there would have been massive outrage. As a whole our expanding Nato eastward, and getting involved in regional struggles in Eastern Europe, and usually taking the more anti-Russian side in those conflicts is sure to upset Russia.

Brian: I won't argue with you over free trade, but I do agree with you that the huge piles of debt our government owes Japan and China has serious consequences. However, the fact that China can drop our currency is all the more reason that we shouldn't antagonize them about their regional squabbles.

My basic point is that however unpleasant the Chinese or Russian governments may be today, they are by no means the crazed ideologically driven states that they were in the past, so I see no reason why we should antagonize either of them

Marcus,

The issues are intertwined though. If the serious consequences of giving China such economic power over us causes us to avoid antagonizing them over regional squabbles, then that would be a positive consequence in the sense of forcing us to have a more realistic foreign policy. It would cause us to have to forego policies which aren't in our interest to begin with. However, that avoids whether or not the economic policies are themselves in our national interest. I am not a consumer advocate type so I care less about low prices then I do economic independence and job security. So that is where my criticism of globalist policies of purportedly free trade come from. Also, it is always possible that we may find ourselves in conflict with China over very real issues of our national security. You are right that they don't seem to be a crazed ideological state these days, but that could always change. So my point is that allowing ourselves to be in a position of weakness and economic dependency on them (or really anybody) is simply a dangerous situation regardless.

I would prefer that we drop the imperial act as a country b/c it is misguided, and as a conscious choice on the part of our rulers, not b/c we have weakened ourselves into it out of necessity.

Brian,

First of all, just so you are on the same page as me, I am taking that you agree with me that 1) there is no reason to antagonize china and
2) they are currently not a threat to our security unless we feel compelled to meddle in their business.

Now as for economic globalism,

you act as if having a sane foreign policy is unrelated from free trade. My point is that if we are commercially connected to any country it makes us less likely to go to war with them. I'm sure you've seen the quote 100 times, but as Bastiat said "If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."

I agree that our government should not have foreign debt, but that is a completely different issue than trade.

Brian

Thanks for your comments. We could have some culpability in the Breslan bombings. Without question, some of our interventions have been misuided. The Chechens may have used weapons we gave to the Bosnians. You are correct to point out that foreign policy is a very difficult thing. We need to hold government officials to account for the consequences of their actions and not what they intended to accomplish. I think where Clinton and Bush have often gone wrong is they may not fully understand the nature of Islamic Extremism. In hindsight, Clinton should have known these weapons would end up elsewhere but of course the US, our NATO allies, and I think Pope John Paul II did not think we could allow Bosnians to be slaughtered by Serbs. Of course I can't tell that we accomplished anything. Last I heard Bosnians are slaughtering Serbs now or maybe that has subsided by now. Foreign policy is very difficult indeed no matter what you do and no matter who the President is. Russia could help itself greatly by ceasing with the beligerence and they should abandon the goal of restoring the Soviet Union. At a minimum, they should eliminate those who want to restore the Soviet Union from their political power structure. There is plenty of blame to go around, however, I think most of it resides with Russia. Hopefully we will be able to work out an honorable agreement with them. As part of this agreement, perhaps we pay reparations, for any culpability we may have in Chechnya or elsewhere and Russia agrees to stop sponsoring virtually every terrorist state under the sun. Russia should also offer security guarantees to Eastern European countries and other former Soviet states. If they do so, these states would not feel compelled to join NATO and we would not be compelled to offer them membership.

I understand that we currently have some type of military presence in some 100 countries around the world. I don't think we need a military presence in this many places. In order to avoid more unintended consequences of our foreign policies, we need to evaluate this and figure out where we need troops and where we don't and withdraw them from areas where we don't need them asap.

You are correct to point out the dangers of an assertive foreign policy. This is why simply having an assertive foreign policy is not enough. It must also be a smart foreign policy.

Btw I agree that our policies may be misguided but by the reference to them as "imperial" I assume you are speaking metaphorically.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

Marcus

Iran and Syria actively sponsor terrorists and their organizations. Russia recently agreed to sell missles to Syria that could neutralize the air force of our most important ally, Israel. If these weapons are transferred to terrorists, they would greatly hinder our efforts in Iraq. Russia is the chief supplier of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Russia was also the chief weapons supplier of the former Iraqi government. (We aren't totally innocent there.) Russia is selling fighter planes and other weapons to Venezulea. Russia seems to be assisting Venezulea in training communist guerillas. Venezulea's leadership is being very hostile to the US.

You are right we do give money to the Palestinian Aurhority. This seems to be a monumentally stupid policy!! The Palestinian Authority is currently the most ruthless terrorist organiation of them all. I'm at a loss to explain this. Perhaps with the military busy right now president Bush feels he has no choice. We have almost no leverage with them right now. For the record, I do not think Bush is a very good president. This is just one of many problems I have with his policy.

I don't remember the statement where the President blamed Putin after the Chechens blew up the school. This is not to say there was not a statement somewhere. What I remember now is all of the "we are one", "the terror war comes to Russia", "Putin is our friend," "Russia is our ally in the war on terror" speeches from various people. The Russians seem to have been far more aggressive in conducting the war on terror in Chechnya than America has been in its war effort. Maybe Bush felt there was something he needed to point out to his "friend." Its hard to get an accurate count of Chechen civilian casualties, as Russia has virtually no free press and Russia is not subjected to the kind of scrutiny that the US is but the Russian inflicted civilian casualties appear to be higher than what the US has inflicted in Iraq or Afghanistan. Any critcism of Putin, seems to have been a case of lip service only.

I don't recall any head of state blaming 911 on our foreign immediately after the attacks. Overall, we criticize the policies of various countries from time to time and they criticize us. Generally with anti-Americanism running rampant these days there seems to be very little risk involved in verbally lashing out against America, however, if you do something like oppose the sale of Unocal to China, the NY Times writes an op-ed accusing you of "China bashing." This is in contrast to the virtual ignoring by the main stream media of China's threat to use nuclear war heads against us.

I adress the NATO expansion in my response to Brian. I think we and the other Eastern European nations might not feel the need to do it, if Russia would alter some of its policies. Having written this, expansion of NATO may be a tactical blunder. Many of the Eastern European leaders are former communists. I'm not sure they can be trusted. Our intervention in these places, while sometimes misguided, I think needs to be considered in its context.

The FBI has recently has had to redirect its priorities to attempt to curtail Chinese spying. It is estimated that over 3,000 Chinese front companies have been set up for the purpose of stealing economic and military secrets. If there only goal is Tawain or even regional dominance, I don't think all of this would be necessary. This looks to me like the actions of a country with global aspirations. Of course I could be wrong about this.

I don't remember Saddam being very contrite after 911. The day after the attacks an article was written in the state controlled press praising the 911 attacks. Later on he invited Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi into his ocuntry and gave him medical treatment. He did all of this before we got there.

I'm in no way trying to suggest that our foreign policy is perfect. We have made many mistakes. Unfortunately we seem to be continuing to make some of them. I would suggest a foreign policy that focuses on the national interest and any foreign interventions should be done only when our natinal interests are threatened. I agree that we do not want China, Russia, or any one else as an enemy. I hope we cna reach honorable agreements with all of them.

Best Wishes
B.Poster

I also think we need to do something to address the fact that countries, such as China and Japan control huge amounts of national debt. I agree with others that this is not a healthy situation.