Lee Harris points out the fatal flaw in the argument of the "non-interventionists":

We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.

I'm not a Paul supporter, but

since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results

is a straw man argument. I don't remember Paul saying he's going to shut down the Navy, pull in all the troops around the globe and then watch the fun.

K, talk about your strawman arguements! The Navy and Air Force were up and running on 9-11, and guess what happened on 9-11? Lee Harris didn't say anything about shutting down the armed forces. He said that failing to intervene could still have unintended consequences. You can have a Navy and Air Force and still refuse to use either. For example, see France, which also has a police force.

There are levels of responsibility. The only way to completely avoid being at least partially responsible for the situation in the middle east is to avoid contact entirely. Much of the existing mess in the middle east is due to a failure to intervene and yet a willingness to do business which props up the corrupt regimes in the region.

"only way to completely avoid being at least partially responsible for the situation in the middle east is to avoid contact entirely. "

Um, no. The only way to COMPLETELY avoid partial responsibility for anything is to no longer exist; or perhaps even never to have existed.

There is no way to avoid contact entirely. Our cultural products transmit globally. The mere existence of these cultural products influences other people. So, we are all partially responsible for human events, even though that responsibility is indirect, and subordinate, to the responsibilities of more proximate and influential actors.

Much of the existing mess in the middle east is due to a failure to intervene

Ha, that's funny. FAILURE to intervene? As in when we failed to intervene in Iran in the 1950s and did not install the Shah, or when we failed to prop up the Saudi monarchy for decades, or when we failed to arm Saddam when it was geopolitically expeditious for us, until it wasn't? Or when we failed to intervene in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by giving billions a year in aid to Israel for reasons that escape me...

Oh, wait. That's right - we didn't fail to intervene in any of those situations.... what was your point again?

There's a bit of irony in your statement, being as Mossadeq was mostly supported by the Tudeh
(Iranian Communists) there would likely have been protests by the merchants (bazaaris) and the Mullahs. Which would have likely provoked a soviet
intervention from Azerbaijan; which following CENTO rules would have provoked American military intervention. In fact, this scenario predicted in 1963! leading to a decade long civil war was the backstory to "Seven Days in May. With the South supporting the allied forces and the North in Soviet hands. The Saudis would have likely chipped in for that campaign as well; despite
their opposition to the Shia. So it was likely only a question of what kind the intervention would take not whether.

The only way to truly avoid responsibility for that part of the world is to free ourselves from out dependence on foreign oil. We had 8 years of Clinton/Gore positive economy, no major threats, and Earth in the Balance environmentalism and got no closer to that goal.

We should have started, seriously started, under Nixon during the first oil boycotts but we had the Cold War as a serious concern so some forgiveness can be granted. Unfortunately after the cold war I just can't see any excuse. None at all. Clinton/Gore screwed up. Bush screwed up. Pretending Jihadists with their Caliphate short term goals and global domination long term goals would magically have been law abiding citizens if the US was absent from the region but petrodollars were still funding Wahhabi Maddrasses is naive to say the least.

"but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better."

There are some obvious benefits. We would avoid wasting hundreds of billions of dollars fighting other people's wars. We would have 3500 more American soldiers alive. There would be tens of thousands more not maimed for the rest of their lives. Our erstwhile allies in Europe and Asia would have to start taking responsibility for and paying their own freight for their own national defense.

Narciso, That type of statement is prophetic at best. You nor I can know what would have happened if Mossadeq had remained in power.

Any speculation on what might have been is nothing but mental masterbation, nothing more. We have to live with what did happen not what would have happened.

Our problem as a nation is we know that in the middle east, the blowback of each intervention by the CIA did far more harm than help.

There will always be times we need to intervene, that isn't the point of Ron Paul and non-intervention. The intervention the CIA and our government participated in wasn't in the interest of National Security but in the name of profit and power.

With the advent of Hydrogen Cars like the new Honda Fuel Cell car. http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
and new innovations like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/

Our interventionism for oil and its profit will come to a stop but it won't stop the type of intervention based solely on power.

What will happen in the Middle East when nations are no longer dependent on their oil, I won't speculate at this point but Dr. Paul is correct that we need to butt out in other nations affairs for now and get our house in order. If we don't, our debt will bring us to ruination.

Jardienro1 wrote:
"Our erstwhile allies in Europe and Asia would have to start taking responsibility for and paying their own freight for their own national defense."

While I'm ashamed of and annoyed at the lack of effort and more importantly support on Europe's part* it all depends a lot on how far you're gong to take non-intervention and how early it would have happened. If the America First Committee supporters had attained their non-interventionist isolationist goals in the late thirties and early forties you wouldn't have any allies either in Europe or Asia and I would probably be owning a "small" farm the size of a tiny country this side of the Ural mountains complete with slave labor. Since my culture would be hailed as the ultimate (even approaching inherent holiness) I likely wouldn't even need to speak German although it obviously would have become the new lingua franca.

All things considered I'm happy and grateful it didn't turn out that way.

And for your own sake it might be prudent to have a look at the so-called "neutral" countries and their fate during WWI (Norway was neutral then) and WWII (Sweden and Switzerland come to mind). Neutrality doesn't work so much as it puts you last on the list, and of course being last on the list there won't be anyone around to help you when your turn eventually comes... until then the neutral country will be ignored unless they have something valuable in which case they'll be steamrolled or pandered - whatever takes the least effort.

* A few thoughts on that:
1. Although it might seem completely non-existent that is decidedly untrue.
2. The alternative of a militarily stronger Europe would likely not be working alongside the US (that's the main argument for a much stronger military from the EU perspective right there! Can't you hear those loonies usually situated in Brussels from across the pond?) and thus a militarily weak Europe is actually in the longterm US interest if you don't simply want to shut the world out. You can't have it both ways (someone please explain that concept to Dr. Paul).
3. The US is the winner and top dog and yet it seems like many Americans don't truly realize it. If they do and still act like a champion who can't help heaping scorn on the silver medalist because they were so much worse... that's called being a sore winner. Are you really fine with that?

Someone claimed that non-interventionist policies in the Middle East might have been better for us? Crazy talk!

Why, the worst we did was to subvert democracy in Iran, support a dictator in Iraq, arm guerilla warriors in Afghanistan, and prop up an oppressive theocratic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. From the way these people complain, you'd think we'd experienced some trouble from the Iranian government, that Iraqi dictator, the Afghani warlords, or Saudi religious extremists.

roystgnr,

Miss the Soviet Union, eh comrade? I suppose you are grateful the US stopped before destroying the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Some people are so dense they refuse to listen or read. We would have involved in Iran, because of its proximity to Russia, oil, and other interests.
The regime you tout so highly, Mossadeq's had very little support; that it would have likely relied on the Soviets (like the example of Afghanistan a generation later) It is true that two people in particular, Eichelberger & Copeland, chose to support the Baathist opposition in Cairo, despite the fact that they should have learned from the example of Nasser, who dissapointed them. Of course, there is the issue of which regime had any legitimacy;Quassem, the one who toppled the Prime Ministership of Nuri al Said, Araf, who drove out Quassem; or Saddam Hussein. The question of the Sauds is due to the irresponsible choice of the British back in the 1910s over the more moderate Hashemites; who actually aided the Brits against the Turks; directed by the likes of St. John Philby. The three centuries old bargain between the Ilkwan
Wahhabis and the Sauds is at the heart of this problem; or more properly stated the appeasing
of this particular group; that stemmed from the
Siege of Mecca, from wayward members of the Uteibi and Quahtani tribes; which make up no small part of AQ's footsoldiers. Afghanistan had drifted from its moderate regime in the early 70s; to the Amin regime, which was toppled because the Soviets though it was too pro Western.