War and Foreign Policy

Thomas Fleming’s outstanding book poses a fundamental problem. Fleming shows that Woodrow Wilson led America into an unnecessary war. 

During the 1920s and 30s, a majority of Americans came to believe that our involvement in World War I had been a horrendous mistake. The war was supposed to make the world safe for democracy,

The neoconservative clique and their partners have deepened the state's commitment to empire, but Republicans hold no monopoly on building empire in the recent history of our country. The Clinton regime, now seemingly forgotten except as a kind of Camelot II by the American Left, featured most of the same patterns of imperial conquest and domestic repression.

Scott Trask shows that the period of the Articles of Confederation was not characterized by chaos and increasingly bad economic times, as historians tend to assume. Rather, the Articles proved themselves to be a perfectly viable structure for a free society, encouraging trade and prosperity and adherence to the highest ideals of 1776—until the mercantilists and nationalists overthrew it.

The historical record shows that commercial freedom is the best policy in peace and war. Cooperation is more fruitful than coercion. And if one wants the friendship or assistance of others it is better to appeal to their interests instead of their fears.  Above all, foreign trade should be as free and unrestricted as trade within a nation.

Professor Elshtain is troubled. Many intellectuals do not realize the need for a  forceful American response to world Islamic terrorism.

William Bennett has updated the paperback edition of his book with two new chapters, one of which demands that Saddam Hussein and all his works be eradicated. 

The extent to which we are secure in our homes, property, and the places we shop is due in large part to the commercial marketplace. It is the free market that makes available alarm systems, locks, fences, cameras, security services, and in purchasing these items we are free to make a choice among competitive products. If they don't work, we can try something new. If there is fraud, we can hold the producer liable.

War gaming may be the newest term for the static trial runs that government officials use as proxies for a real world that always surprises them. If we want to call war planning a "social science"—that's how the Pentagon thinks of it—what we have here is a classic error: the belief that government policy and its effects can be modeled in the same way as the physical sciences.