What are conservatives to make of the mess in Ukraine?

     The answer to that question largely depends on what the person asked thinks America’s role in the world to be.

     So-called neo-conservatives like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz who served under George W. Bush favored an aggressive foreign policy dedicated to toppling disagreeable governments by any means necessary. Following the tragic events of 9-11, the neo-conservatives invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The documentary evidence from that time seems to indicate that these countries were only the first two in a series of a seven countries marked for regime change, culminating in the overthrow of the Iran. The purpose of these invasions was to install governments friendly to American interests in the region and bring them into the fold of global capitalism.

     The American people, however, became tired of the significant blood and treasure this approach entailed, and their objections were sufficiently strident to as to end the likelihood of any more large-scale military invasions of foreign countries in the near future

     The reason that the neo-conservatives had the “neo” prefix was because they embraced an approach to foreign policy distinctly different from their more timid Republican predecessors. Eisenhower’s machinations led to the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government, but no military invasion was employed, that former general preferring a cloak and dagger approach instead. The neo-conservatives had little patience for this sort of thing, preferring to spread American capitalism and democracy with guns and bombs.

     Much of American history, particularly before the 20th century, involved presidents and Congresses that were much more isolationist than modern politicians are willing to be. The modern American state is far removed from that quaint era, and it now apparently considered business as usual for the American government to meddle in the affairs of other countries for the sake of the national security state as long as we lie about doing so and Dick Cheney isn’t anywhere to be seen on television.

     As I said, the bellicose nature of the neo-conservatives, while initially thrilling, in the long run became unsustainable. In its place we again look forward to an American government that uses covert operations and propaganda to get rid of governments and leaders rather than gunships and bullets.

     I suspect that there are many of us in the Republican party who would object if China, for instance, declared itself to be the rightful enforcer of global justice and told American law enforcement officials that they needed to “show restraint” when dealing with, for example, the Occupy movement. For the sake of consistency we should also object when America admonishes foreign governments over how they deal with their own civil uprisings when that government is democratically elected, as was the now-defunct government of Ukraine.

     What happened in Ukraine was a blatant power grab not by the EU but by King Obama and his minions, who forced the country to choose between a financial aid package from the West and one from Russia. When the Ukrainian government, faced with this binary choice, chose Russia instead, causing much of the western, Europe-oriented portion of the country to object via staging civil demonstrations, Obama cynically exhorted the government of Ukraine to back off and encouraged the protestors in their demonstrations, which sounds noble until you realize that many of the demonstrators were armed with machine guns and had distinctly fascist sympathies.

     The leaked phone call between top American diplomats handling the crisis in Ukraine indicated that they already thought that the coup was a fait accompli and it revealed their hand in it clearly. The coup was not just a spontaneous uprising of righteous citizens. It was coldly engineered by King Obama and his court.

    The same pattern could be seen in the civil wars in Libya and in Syria, where the administration clearly sided with the enemies of the government no matter how many members of Al-Qaeda were in their ranks and regardless of how many atrocities they committed.

     So for those conservatives who are aggressive champions of American exceptionalism and believe that we should police the world and remove from the world stage those actors whom we oppose, you should find much to like about our Great Leader. He is steadfastly dedicated to continuing the American tradition of the overthrow of foreign governments who do not bend to the American will, albeit with a kinder, gentler face than the one put on the neocons, and with more illegal electronic surveillance and drone bombings (although the recent rush to bomb Syria suggests otherwise).

     If, however, like Rand Paul and other libertarians you believe that it is not only wrong but blatantly irresponsible for America to overthrow the governments of other countries, democratically-elected or otherwise, especially without bothering to inform the American people of the potential risks involved – as we now see witness armed Russian gunmen occupy the parliament building and the airport in the Crimea – you should speak out against this interference in the sovereignty of Ukraine by our Nobel Peace-prize winning president.

     The liberal media has been slavishly devoted to echoing the hollow words of the Obama administration and deceiving the American people about the role his government played in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukraine government.    

     What will Obama say when the chickens come home to roost? 

Thomas Davis – NEWSslinger Contributor