Well, the imperial "republic" that the Anti-Federalists warned would follow the ratification of the Constitution is about to re-launch another ill-fated military adventure, this time in Afghanistan. The NY Times gave the game away in an article on Sunday, September 27, when it wrote that Obama was facing a choice between continuing his agenda of fighting on in Afghanistan or "drastically changing course" and ending US involvement. [Don't you just love the euphemisms we use to disguise what is actually going on? Military engagements are wars, not "involvements." I get "involved" with the NY Times Sunday crossword puzzle, not with enemy soldiers. If I were mugged at gun point, I would not say that the mugger and I were "involved." Oh, where is George Orwell when we need him? As Orwell said: "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." Indeed.]
The "drastic course" is continuing our military adventure in Afghanistan, not ending them. And drastic for two reasons. First, because it is almost certain that the adventure will fail. But, second, and let this be clear: Because it is another imperialistic adventure and republics and an imperialistic foreign policy are incompatible. Perhaps success in Afghanistan would be worse than failure because then the militarization of American society and politics would be strengthened and "the military-industrial complex," that that "radical" President Eisenhower warned us about, would also be strengthened. Another "radical," George Washington knew that an imperialistic foreign policy was incompatible with a republic as evidence by his farewell address. Is it not amazing how "change" can be made to seem identical to "continuity?"