It is almost agreed upon entirely by conservatives that government actions can cause unintended consequences. Whether it is an influx of illegal immigrants that drive American workers wages down or whether it is a national health insurance program. The conservative will seem to agree that vast unintended consequences will arise from such programs or legislation. But when it comes to the forum of international relations most conservatives will never admit that our foreign policy has unintended consequences. Why is this?

Surely the military is a part of the federal government; the intelligence community is also part of the same federal government. Both are subject to bureaucracy, politics and in fighting. Why can the conservative not recognize that these agencies no matter how honorable are still part of the state apparatus?

The conservatives that appear on television or talk radio seem to rail on and on about how horrible President Obama’s domestic agenda is (which I agree) but no criticism about Obama attacking Pakistan on a daily basis, no criticism about Obama intervening in the lawless state of Somalia, interventions in the Philippines, and if there is criticism of Obama’s foreign policy it is that he has a September 10, 2001 mentality.

The conservatives try to paint Obama as a man of peace but anyone who is not looking at the issue in a purely partisan way will see that Obama is a man of war. He still spends $106 Billion dollars waging the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No talk or TV show host claiming to be a conservative has ever complained about the massive amount of foreign aid that the latest Department of Defense bill including $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. There has also been no mention of President Obama’s plans build military bases in Colombia to encircle Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. The plan to house US military personal in Colombia will undoubtedly lead to increase in cocaine and narcotics trafficking and will annoy its neighbors. The heads of state in Brazil, Bolivia and others in the region have all objected to the bases. President Obama has also been attacked for not putting missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic by conservatives in government and in media. But this claim was always bogus. Why in the world first of all would Iran attack Poland or the Czech Republic? The real purpose of the missile defense system was in fact meant to encircle the Russians. Far too many conservatives still think Russia is the Soviet Union. It is not it is a much smaller country.   Real conservatives and the GOP must recognize that President Obama is just as much of a warmonger as President Bush was.  The American empire is different from past empires because it does not attempt to colonize the native population. The American empire is the military bases. These bases cause massive resentment amongst the native population. For example a military golf course in the offshore Japanese island Okinawa has a golf course with a sign reading "Natives Must Be Accompanied by Freedom Fighter." How would Americans feel if this type of sign was posted in our country by a foreign government? Would we not resent this?

The central mission of this blog conservatives to realize that our foreign policy just as all government action has unintended consequences. Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public in whose name the intelligence agency acted are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.

            For example in 1979 the majority of the American population was not aware of the 1953 Coup of a democratically elected government in Iran of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. So when the tyrannical taxpayer funded Shah of Iran fell and American hostages were taken it was blowback for interventions by the American and British governments that were on behalf of British Petroleum. The information was secret and not widely known so the American public so it was a shock.

The attacks of 9/11 were the most horrific in American history on our homeland. But we cannot say that they were unprovoked as many conservatives on radio and talk argue. US foreign policy in the Middle East has undeniably ruffled a lot of feathers.

 Osama Bin Laden in his declaration of war against the United States even says it “First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.”

Osama released this in 1998 a whole three years before the 9/11 attacks.  It is important for the GOP to realize 9/11 came from too many international commitments to from too few.  The only way to defeat terrorism is to find those who have done us harm and then address the issues that have popular support. For example there is absolutely no need for the US military to have any presence on the Arabian Peninsula. Second supporting Arab police states in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is not in the United States interest. Finally, we need to reassess our views in regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The anti-Americanism is growing precisely because of interventions and intrusions into other peoples countries. Conservatives should recognize neutrality, diplomacy and non intervention are the best way to solve international relations. How can a conservative argue that American military personal should patrol the North/South Korean border but no military presence on the border with the Narco terrorist state of Mexico? The contradictions are plenty all future Republican candidates should be vehemently antiwar and they all should put America first.

If America is attacked by foreign terrorists then the appropriate response would be that Congress should grant letters of Marque and Reprisal toward these individuals. The letters would allow the President to commission privateers to find the individuals associated with the attack. It is a much more sensible option then invading a sovereign nation. For example after 9/11 Congress could have deemed the attacks a form of Air Piracy. Then the President could have commissioned say Blackwater to kill or detain Bin Laden. It could have been short and sweet. But instead eight years later a financially strapped American government is still fighting imperial wars that have nothing to do with defense of the homeland. If conservatives seek to redefine themselves they must do it in the area of international relations. As a firm believer in natural law I feel it should be at the centerpiece of the future GOP views on foreign policy. It is against the laws of nature for the American government to tax its people to give foreign aid to an oppressive regime in any corner of the earth.

The principle of blowback is a serious one. If the GOP plans to be taken seriously it needs to realize that all government actions have significant unintended consequences that are not predictable. You are not un-American, un-Patriotic if you realize that American foreign policy is not about defending the homeland for at least the last century more or less has been about asserting the American governments influence in domestic, economic and political affairs of other nations. This type of imperial hubris is destructive and is destroying America. The policy of collective security against aggression such as the NATO Imperial Ambush of Afghanistan is a policy of perpetual peace for perpetual war. The GOP should support the troops by ending the war that the administration and the ideology (NEOCONSERVATISM) started that has bankrupted the party politically.

With the 2010 elections coming up the American right must present itself in a dramatic different light the American left. Conservatives, Libertarians and most independents are firmly united in opposition of Obama Care. Tea parties and town hall exploded throughout the country during the most recent Congressional recess.

Conservatives if they seek to be taken seriously in the 2010 elections we must reject the Neoconservative world view of the Bush administration. If conservatives seek to gain seats in the House they must realize that the United States has been severely damaged economically and politically from all of the Bush Administration foreign policies despite to this day Neoconservative intellectual's claims. Moreover the Right should be opposed to the escalation of the Afghanistan War and the continuing occupation of Iraq. Because in fact these wars are now Barack Obama's war and he is the imperialist in chief now. The American left is far more successful in its imperialism and it has been since its history. The Neoconservatives that populated the last administration were blunt about their imperial ambitions. This is why Presidents Clinton and Obama have received far less media attention concerning the imperial attacks on Serbia and Pakistan as compared to President Bush's imperial attacks in Iraq. The media doesn't mind when the left applies a humanitarian intervention with the military against a country and people who do not pose a threat to us but it does mind when the right applies regime change or preemptive war against the same countries or people it is called out immediately by the media. It is fair to say that leftist Presidents are much more effective imperialist than their counterparts on the right.

When the Soviet Union collapsed influential intellectuals within the neoconservative movement believed that the United States was the 'New Rome'. The Neocons felt as if we won the Cold War but today it seems that the Soviets lost the war first but we are losing it now. The Neocons had a vision of the post Cold War era where only America was the global power so it must inevitably be the hegemonic in its relationships with other states. The Neocons felt that in order for America to stay dominate in international affairs it must dominate the middle east and the Central Asian republics of the old Soviet Union. The reason the neoconservatives wished to dominate the Middle East was so Israel would have protection from the growing animosity of the Arab world in regard to the treatment of the Palestinians. The dominance in the Central Asian republics was to thwart any attempt by the Russians or Chinese in having any influence in the region. Both regions are also loaded with natural resources mostly oil. With America in the position of the imperial influence in the region the politics of oil played a significant role in formulating the policy of this type of regional domination. The conflicts of interest are amazing when it comes to neoconservatives and companies like Halliburton, Blackwater and Chevron. These private sector hawks are in the process of raping and pillaging the lands of people far away from the American homeland and they are doing it in the name of us the American people.

The conservative movement was led astray during the Bush years by such war hawks as Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, who never for one moment thought about balancing a budget, limiting government or abolishing any tax anymore then President Obama today. The Neoconservatives have led the Republican Party close to political bankruptcy. This is because of the hard line positions of the Neocons in international affairs and failure to limit the size of government. Even Max Boot claims that Neoconservatives are hard line Wilsonians. Woodrow Wilson, whose entry into World War I prolonged the war and made the world so safe for democracy that Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini all came to power within a two decades of the intervention on behalf of Woodrow Wilson. Conservatives must realize that when we march into a foreign country and overthrow its government a worse government is just as likely to arise as is a Pro American government. The chance is always 75-25 in the favor of the worse government coming to power.

Congressmen Ron Paul brilliantly warned his fellow conservatives in the majority in July of 2003 when he said on the House floor "Neo-conservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world."

Being Americans most consistent Conservative in elected office Congressmen Paul in the same speech would name seventeen characteristics of the Neoconservatives and their general views on the world. (1) They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. (2) They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so. (3) They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. (4) They accept the notion that the ends justify the means that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity. (5) They express no opposition to the welfare state. (6) They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. (7) They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. (8) They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit. (9) They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it. (10) They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised. (11) They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. (12) They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate. (13) Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country. (14) 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. (15) They dislike and despise libertarians therefore; the same applies to all strict constitutionalists. (16) They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary. (17) They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Talk show hosts like Mark Levin or Sean Hannity sound ridiculous when they call Barack Obama a Marxist. These so called spokesmen for the Conservative movement don't even realize that the intellectual roots of the Neocons go back to Trotskyites such as Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol. The early neoconservative intellectuals were growing weary of the mainstream left rejection of imperialism that occurred after the Vietnam War. The Neocons heroes are Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman when it comes to foreign affairs. They shout down anyone as un-American for not supporting their imperial wars.

Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, Vice President Cheney; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz all hold Straussian ethic near and dear to their hearts. Wolfowitz even earned his PhD under Professor Strauss. Michael Ledeen of AEI I his book The War against the Terror Masters write "Creative destruction both within our own society and abroad. Foreigners seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone." Ledeen then concludes in The War against the Terror Masters that "They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission." Ledeen also uses the tendency of the deceiving the Christian right to promote imperial wars that are anything but Christian. In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership Ledeen goes on to say "Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good." He also argues that "Dying for one's country doesn't come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country." Influential neo cons seem to have hijacked the moral majority and the Republican Party if we want to have any future success these ideas such as lying, manipulations of religion and a Machiavellian world view were disastrous during the Bush Administration and if it continues to be the dominate faction within the Republican Party it will keep being a disaster.

These so called Neocons even claim that their foreign policy is benevolent in nature and the American empire is a good thing. It is a good thing for who Conservatives should ask themselves? It sure does not seem to be good for the US Military that is being resisted by hostile sectarian, religious and ethnic Iraqis and Afghanis on a daily basis. It is not good for the Japanese who's newly elected Democratic Party is seeking a more balanced relationship with the US including the possibility of renegotiating the Status of Forces Agreement and even asking American troops to leave the offshore island of Okinawa. The American empire is also no good for Pakistan a country whose border regions are being bombarded by Predator drones that are killing droves of civilians without any real accuracy. The large and highly educated middle class of Pakistan is also becoming more and more Anti-American as the attacks upon that state continue. The American empire is also no good for the Iranians who fear that their country will be the next to feel the wrath of American imperialism. An attack against the Iranians by the United States or even worse Israel would most certainly help foment a mass guerilla ground war from at least Egypt to India. An attack on Iran could also be a major event in the start of a third world war. Russian capitalists have built the civilian nuclear facilities. The Chinese also is importing major amounts of oil from Iran. The price of oil when through the roof during the imperial ambush in Iraq, it can only get worse Iran is attacked. So if conservatives are willing to start a third world war with Russia and China then they should attack Iran.

If Conservatives argue in 2010 that the Federal government should not be more involved with Healthcare then they should also realize the Federal government's inability to shape foreign societies way of life whether by military, political or economic means. The Neoconservative arguments such as 'they hate us because of our freedom' or 'we must fight them there so we don't have to fight them here' are straw men arguments that are not based in reality. The only reason an Osama Bin Laden can keep his rag tag gang of barbarians together and inspire countless others is not because of religion but because of rejection of US foreign policy. In Dying to Win: the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by University of Chicago Professor of Political Science Robert A. Pape he proves that "(There is) little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider being their homeland"

It is also ridiculous for a conservative to claim to be in favor of property rights when any war whether waged by a democracy or a dictatorship allows a massive amount of destruction of private property. It also sounds absurd for a conservative to argue for free markets when the military industrial complex and its vast amount of subsides and corporate welfare that distorts the free market almost as much as the financial services & banking industrial complex that has reared its ugly head for the last year.

A strong national defense is essential and it is one of the few true responsibilities of the Federal government. But American foreign policy is not about defending the homeland. In fact we have at least 700 military bases and installations in over a 130 foreign countries. The US currently does not house any foreign military troops or bases on the American homeland. Our troops are seen as occupiers in the eyes of the natives of the lands we occupy. This does not help defend the American homeland in fact all it does is cause animosity, resentment, resistance and terrorism. Terrorism is the price of empire.

Conservatives must look at the history of empires and see the violent and political resistance that empires always foment in occupied countries. The Imperial British faced widely supported resistance from native populations in Ireland, Israel, India and Iraq during its heyday as the global hegemonic power. The US is currently being viewed just as the British were during their imperial period. Just as the British the US will be resisted by natives pursuing their own political, religious or ethnic goals that are not shared by their imperial occupiers.

The US crossed the line between Republic and Empire over a century ago and in light of the country's economic problems the best place for conservatives to argue for massive cuts is in the massive overseas expenditures. In 2010, if the GOP seeks to gain politically it must insist of changing its foreign policy to one that puts America First. In 2010, if the GOP wants to show the left how hypocritical they are it is imperative that they argue against the continuing expansion of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The GOP also should call for the end of all military and economic aid. This includes closure of all foreign bases. The GOP must reject all the ideas of neoconservatives when it comes to international affairs. The GOP must understand that domestic economics and foreign affairs are directly connected. Just as conservatives had to turn there backs on the President Nixon after Watergate we MUST turn our backs on the neoconservatives if we ever want to limit goverment.