When President Trump ordered the U.S. military to attack and kill the Quds Force commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, near Baghdad airport, he demonstrated as graphically as possible what non-intervention means. Trump has yet to find the words to fully and easily explain the concept to the citizenry. He should read and rhetorically exploit the potent ideas located in the 1939-1941 speeches of Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh. (1) The components of non-intervention are presented there by Lindbergh perhaps better than by anyone else in republic’s history, save by the Founders in their era, and during the long congressional career of Virginia’s splendid non-interventionist John Randolph of Roanoke.
In 1919, U.S. Senators William E. Borah (R-Idaho) and Robert M. LaFollette (R-Wisconsin) successfully led a small bipartisan group of senators that preserved the republic by blocking U.S. ratification of and adherence to the League of Nations and the Versailles Treaty. The senators thereby halted for most of the next two decades the continuation of the interventionist foreign policy born of Woodrow Wilson’s delusional crusade for democracy and world government.
But then along came the republic’s master deceiver, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who, in the late 1930s and in 1940, casually reneged on his solemn and oft-given pledge to American parents: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” (2) Thereafter, FDR authored a long series of provocations that he and his advisers knew would leave Japan with no choice but war. This provocation campaign also was carried out in the Atlantic, where Roosevelt and his gang eventually wore out the Fueher’s willingness to ignore Roosevelt’s much-denied but always blatantly anti-German policy of diverting badly needed arms from the U.S. military, and ordering the neutral republic to arm the British military and protect Britain’s supply convoys. “Have you ever stopped to think,” Lindbergh intended to asked listeners to a speech set for delivery on 12 December 1941,” how ridiculous it is that this democratic nation has twice, within a generation, been carried to war by presidents who were elected because they promised peace.”(3) (NB: Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor caused Lindbergh to cancel the speech. He then began a war-long personal effort to aid the republic along the path to victory. He voluntarily served as a human guinea-pig to test and improve masks for the use of air-crews flying at high-altitudes, and, later in the war, flew 50 combat missions in the South Pacific.)
The U.S. bipartisan governing elite –under the direction of Roosevelt, his conniving, acid-tongued Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, and the foreign intervention they welcomed from Churchill and Britain’s intelligence services — slandered Lindbergh and ultimately ruined his reputation, thereby almost entirely blotting out the history of his pivotal political role in trying to preserve the American republic.
Why was Colonel Lindbergh the top target of these war-wanters, or, as he called them, the “war agitators”? Simply because he had the nerve and grit to tell the absolute truth as he and most Americans saw it; namely, that Roosevelt and most of the East Coast’s governing elite, Jewish-Americans and their media and political organizations, and the British government were pushing to involve the United States in a war that much of the U.S. citizenry wanted no part of. Lindbergh’s words were true in 1939-41, and they are more clearly true today.
Speaking of today, all three of the groups Lindbergh called out — and especially Jewish-Americans — are still “war agitators”, although the war they currently are waging is a covert and overt war that is meant to destroy the legitimately elected Trump administration, as well as the American republic and its Constitution.
Since the vicious and dastardly destruction of Lindbergh’s reputation, the U.S. governing elite, including presidents, generals, admirals, senators, congressmen, professors, clerics, mainstream journalists, major Jewish-American leaders and their organizations, and senior civil servants, has consistently hurled hatred at their fellow citizens, clothing it in such epithets as “isolationist” and/or “non-interventionist”. This hatred is aimed at any and every American citizen who (a) respects the Founders’ foreign-policy guidance; (b) accepts, as did the Founders, the truism that humans are unalterably hard-wired for war; (c) opposes the idea that the United States must participate in other peoples’ wars that have no impact on genuine U.S. interests; (d) dismisses the insane contention that America must join wars waged by other states in the name of spreading war-causing abstract ideas, such as democracy, women’s rights, the glories of sexual deviance and fluid genders, secularism, diversity, multiculturalism, etc.; and (e) believes that the republic’s security and survival is dependent on adhering as closely as possible to the concept embodied in the two words “America First”.
Trump’s marvelous, Americans-protecting attack on Suliemani is a perfect example of the role that military force always must play in a forthright non-interventionist foreign policy. Our republic can never be neutral and non-interventionist unless it is well-armed and the world knows American leaders are ready to unilaterally use it — with catastrophic impact — against anyone unwise enough to attack us. Suliemani commanded forces that have killed or wounded many hundreds of Americans, and he was on his way from the Baghdad Airport to do more damage to Americans when he was wonderfully shredded and presumably splattered by a Hell-fire missile’s shrapnel.
Thus, President Trump ordered the unilateral application of U.S. military force in the only cause it should ever be applied; namely, when Americans or the republic’s interests are imminently threatened or attacked by foreign foes. If Iran responds militarily to Suliemani’s long overdue demise, Trump must drop any pretense of proportionality, which is a murderous, always war-prolonging-and-expanding doctrine that war-wanters, arms-makers, and prating clerics adore, and which has kept America at war with Iran since 1979, and in Afghanistan and Iraq for 18 and 16 years, respectively. The only mercies in war, after all, are a speedy conclusion and a clear and irrefutable victory.