Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: What is happening, Edward?
Edward: Whats happening is that you and Pat Buchanan fail to recognize that statist threats exist abroad the same as they do inside this country.
Mike: So what is a statist threat?
Edward: Well, they metastasize in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and then eventually theyre on our border. And they happen throughout history. And theyre the means by which statists gain power because they cant gain power by legitimate means, so they use coercion as a means to gain power. Thats their…
Mike: Why didnt the how come the statists in Red China and Red Russia and Red Cuba, how did we keep them at bay without bombing their white people?
Edward: We use coercion, as well. The Cold War was a series of numerous hot wars, including Vietnam and Korea. And by engaging in coercive means in El Salvador and Nicaragua, Angola, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, we were able to check them and eventually defeat them or attrit them.
Mike: Well, why werent they defeated in 1970 when we went into war, or 1965 when we went into war in Afghanistan, or in Vietnam, then?
Edward: We attrited them in Vietnam, but we checked the global communist advance in Southeast Asia by that effort. It was a campaign in the Cold War. It was tactically unsuccessful. We had to conduct a strategic withdrawal. But strategically, that as well as Korea and numerous other places where you win battles, you lose battles, but ultimately we prevailed in the overall war for the betterment of society and mankind as a whole.
Mike: Yes. Oh, yes. Yes, were such at peace now, Tom. Weve done such a I mean Ed. Weve done such a wonderful job. The world is at peace.
Related: Using Statism to Stop Statism and other Looking Glass Like Parables
Edward: Were never going to be at peace. As I said, Mike, coercion is a means used by statists to gain power. Its the only one they have.
Mike: So the time of relative peace from, lets say, 1814 or so, all the way up until the incursion in the Philippines, which really wasnt any of our business, as well, lets say all the way up until 1915 and the unconstitutional drafting of our young men to be sent over to the Maginot Line and what have you. What do you call that? Silliness? Stupidity?
Edward: I would call that…
Mike: What is that?
Edward: The Mexican-American War. I would call that the Texas War for Independence. The Civil War, in which more Americans got killed than any other war. We had numerous…
Mike: Yeah, and why, what was the okay. As far as the Mexican War, what was the purpose of that?
Edward: The purpose of that was monarchs took power in Mexico. They called them the Congressionalists. And they took power, and they overthrew the republic, and then they…
Mike: And what did we do there? Ed, Ed, youre the historian of first result. How come theres not an American empire in Mexico, then? If we went there, and we did what needed to be done, why didnt we just occupy and claim it?
Edward: They didnt represent a threat, and the cost of taking Mexico and the gains the gains were less than the costs.
Mike: Mm-hmm. And then the next, the Battle of San Jacinto, the Alamo and what have you, what was the rationale for that?
Edward: Texas independence.
Edward: The people of Texas wanted to be independent.
Edward: From Santa Ana and the statists in Mexico.
Mike: Yes. Why is everyone a statist?
Edward: Well, then weve got statists because, as I said, Mike, statists cant gain power by legitimate means.
Edward: They have to use coercion. And as a result we have to meet them with coercive means, as well.
Mike: What does that have to do with Santa Ana being defended or being asked to leave the countryside of Texas, what does that have to do with invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, name your Middle Eastern country. How do you link those two?
Edward: You brought it up, Mike. You brought I didnt bring up the 18th Century. You seemed to you brought it up. My point is that what were doing abroad is to fight statists at their national state.
Mike: So goat herders in the middle of the Afghanistan desert are statists.
Edward: No, theres an element over there called political and military Islam. Theyre the statists. The goatherds arent. We could we can employ them. They could be our allies in the war. I dont agree with the manner in which were fighting political and military Islam in Afghanistan. And I think I could prove that youre a pacifist instead of an anti-statist. Primarily we, what we should do…
Mike: How could you prove that I love this, a psychoanalysis. Now Im on the couch. Okay. Ed, I am on the couch, Doctor. How do you prove that Im a pacifist? I am waiting to hear this. This is going to be fun.
Edward: Because I agree with you, we should not be using conventional American forces over there.
Edward: Its too expensive, and its too costly and risky.
Edward: What I believe we should employ, the Reagan Doctrine, which means we leverage indigenous fighters over there that are nominally allied with this country to overthrow political and military Islam.
Mike: Yeah, but Ed, but Ed, hang on. Okay, you had your turn. Let me go.
Edward: And you disagree with that.
Mike: No, no, I…
Edward: And you disagree with that.
Mike: I disagree with some of it because my question would be, or my opposition and my point in opposition against this is why do we have to have these allies? What is the purpose of these alliances?
Edward: Because we need allies against statism.
Edward: We need to counter this because…
Mike: But why?
Edward: If we would have reacted as aggressively as Neocons are reacting now to external threats, if wed have reacted aggressively to internal threats against freedoms in the 1900s in this country by the progressives and later by FDR, then we wouldnt be in the problems were in today.
Edward: But we cannot wait until problems metastasize, either at home or abroad, until theyre so difficult to deal with they destroy our civil and political society.
Mike: Yeah, but…
Edward: Simple as that.
Mike: But Ed, well, no, its not as simple as that because youre promoting the youre promoting what you call the metastasizing of the statist element by forming the alliances.
Edward: So you mean to tell me that by engaging and attacking and going after political and military Islam, which has no redeeming characteristics, and by supporting moderates over there, that were somehow encouraging political and military Islam?
Mike: Well, what…
Edward: I dont think you understand the threat, Mike.
Mike: Well, no, Ed. Im a no, Ed, I dont understand it. I never read. I dont ever leave the cubicle here. Of course I dont understand it. The threat is the threat has been around since ships have taken to the seas and there have been pirates. The threat has been around since merchant ships have sailed around the northern part of Africa, sir. I know a little bit about this. And it has been dealt in prior centuries and prior times b
y Americans without making alliances and by dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. What exactly is the problem with that? You seem to think, or it seems to me in Eds world that there is some kind of God-ordered or constitutionally or I guess tradition-ordered paradigm that says that we have to, that its our responsibility to combat despotism or statism, whatever you want to call it, wherever it exists in the world. Where do you find this at?
Edward: No, we dont. Im just Im offering that we should assist those that are doing our bit [indiscernible] for freedom.
Mike: Why? If you assist them, then you engage their enemies; do you not?
Edward: Well, thats ridiculous. So we shouldnt [indiscernible]
Mike: No, its not ridiculous. Why is it…
Edward: If someones breaking into my house or your house, what am I supposed to do? Sit back and let you become plundered? How is this liberty going to work if we dont help each other out?
Mike: Were not helping each other out when youre causing more of the problem in the foreign land. What is so hard, what is so difficult to grasp about this?
Edward: Whats so difficult to understand if people like the political and military Islam are not negotiable?
Mike: What is mili- now, wait. What is this term military and political Islam, this is a new one. I must confess that I am not familiar with this term. I am familiar with sharia law, and I am familiar with the lunatics over there that seek to implement it. And as we have learned, thanks to Professor Codevilla, this is not new, Ed. Its been going on since the 8th Century. Why didnt the Founders then see this, and why didnt they warn us about the threat of political and statist Islam?
Edward: Its not necessarily a specifically political and military Islam or sharia law, as you correctly state. What it is, is that statism or any kind of totalitarianism or absolutism gains strength by coercion. And you have to meet coercive means with coercive means, as well.
Mike: Let the people that live near the coercive means, if its in their interests, meet the coercive means. If they try…
Edward: Why not help them out?
Mike: If they try and institute it, lets say, just using the Monroe Doctrine, for example, if they were to try to institute this in, oh, I dont know, the Chihuahua District in Mexico, which borders I believe Arizona, then you may have a case to do exactly what you just said. Thats if it becomes an existential threat. Short of that, a madman 7,000 miles away is not an existential threat. And as John Quincy Adams warned us, Ed, if you go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, well, you will have a never-ending supply of monsters.
End Mike Church Show Transcript