America’s Last Crusade
For Americans of the Greatest Generation that fought World War II and of the Silent Generation that came of age in the 1950s, the great moral and ideological cause was the Cold War.
It gave purpose and clarity to our politics and foreign policy, and our lives.
From the fall of Berlin in 1945 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, that Cold War was waged by two generations, and with its end Americans faced a fundamental question:
If the historic struggle between communism and freedom is over, if the Soviet Empire and Soviet Union no longer exist, if the Russians wish to befriend us and the Maoists have taken the capitalist road, what is our new mission in the world? What do we do now?
The debate was suspended when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. George H.W. Bush assembled a mighty coalition and won a war that required but 100 hours of ground combat.
We had found our mission.
The United States was the last superpower, and a triumphant Bush declared that we would build the “New World Order.” Neoconservatives rhapsodized over America’s “unipolar moment” and coming “global hegemony.”
But Americans were unpersuaded and uninspired. They rejected the victor of Desert Storm — for Bill Clinton. By Y2K, the Republican Party was backing another Bush who was promising a “more humble” America.
Came then 9/11 and the midlife conversion of George W. to Wilsonian interventionism. After the rout of the Taliban in December 2001, Bush decided to remake Afghanistan in the image of Iowa and to go crusading against an axis of evil. In his second inaugural, he declared that America’s mission was to “end tyranny in our world.”
The world declined to oblige. By the end of 2006, the Taliban were back and America seemed in an endless war in Iraq. Republicans had lost Congress and Bush’s democracy crusade was producing electoral victories for Hamas and Hezbollah.
In November 2008, the crusaders were sent packing.
Came then Barack Obama. With the “Arab Spring” beginning in 2010, with dictators being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria, Obama embraced the movement as his own.
But Obama received a rude awakening. As the Arab dictators began, one by one, to fall, also unleashed and now surging and spreading through the lands they had ruled were the four horsemen of the Arab apocalypse: tribalism, ethno-nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and anti-Americanism. So we come to an elementary question:
If the Islamic world is so suffused with rage and hatred of us — for our wars, occupations, drone attacks, support of Israel, decadent culture, and tolerance of insults to Islam and the Prophet — why should we call for free elections, when the people will use those elections to vote into power rulers hostile to the United States?
If the probable or inevitable result of dethroning dictator-allies is to raise to power Islamist enemies, why help dethrone the dictators?
During the Cold War, the United States took its friends where it found them. If they were willing to cast their lot with us, from the shah to Gen. Pinochet, we welcomed them. Democratic dissidents like Jawaharlal Nehru in India and Olof Palme in Sweden got the back of our hand.
During the Cold War and World War II, the critical question was not whether you came to power through free elections — after all, Adolf Hitler did that — but are you with us or against us?
Ideology, as Russell Kirk admonished us, is political religion, and democracy worship is a form of idolatry, the worshiping of a false god, a golden calf, an idol.
And — while this may border on a hate crime — some countries are unfit for democracy. As Edmund Burke remonstrated: “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
With hatred of America rampant across the Arab and Islamic world, we face anew a defining moment. What now is our mission in the world? What now should be the great goal of U.S. foreign policy?
What global objective should we pursue with our trillion-dollar defense, intel, and foreign aid budgets, and pervasive diplomatic and military presence on every continent and in most countries of the world? Bush I’s New World Order is history, given our strategic decline and the resistance of Russia, China, and the Islamic world.
Bush II’s democracy crusade and Obama’s embrace of the Arab Spring have unleashed and empowered forces less receptive to America’s wishes and will than the despots and dictators deposed with our approval.
All three visions proved to be illusions. With America headed for bankruptcy, with new debt of $1 trillion piled up each year, perhaps John Quincy Adams’ counsel may commend itself to a country weary from a century of crusades.
“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Read more by Patrick J. Buchanan
- What Should Americans Die For? – May 16th, 2013
- Who Are the War Criminals in Syria? – May 6th, 2013
- Their War, Not Ours – April 29th, 2013
- Is War With North Korea Inevitable? – April 4th, 2013
- Goading Gullible America Into War – March 21st, 2013





Johnny in Wi.
September 24th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Pat has been right for over 20 years. Lets go home now. WW2 was no good war but the worst war ever. We gave Hitler's partner in starting WW2 half of Easten Europe and had a 45 year cold war because of it. Also out of WW2 came the Atomic Bomb and Israel, 2 disasters the world may never recover from.
davidgrayling
September 24th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
"If the Islamic world is so suffused with rage and hatred of us — for our wars, occupations, drone attacks, support of Israel, decadent culture, and tolerance of insults to Islam and the Prophet — why should we call for free elections, when the people will use those elections to vote into power rulers hostile to the United States?"
This question is the best question I have seen and exposes the basic flaw in American Imperialism. Unlike the Romans and Britain, the U.S. does not understand what imperialism is or, if it's attempted, how it should work. It thinks if you bomb people into the dirt, they will worship you!
Hitler showed the world how silly that idea is!
Cowboys shouldn't try to control the world. They should stick to herds of cattle and sheep.
America’s Last Crusade
September 25th, 2012 at 1:58 am
[...] clarity to our politics and foreign policy, and our lives. From the fall of Berlin in 1945 to [...] Antiwar.com Original Tags: America’s, crusade, last Posted in Pundits | No Comments [...]
More Articles on the Amerikan Police State, QE, etc… » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
September 25th, 2012 at 4:17 am
[...] Pat Buchanan: America’s Last Crusade [...]
greedrulesindc
September 25th, 2012 at 5:20 am
Pat asks:
"What now should be the great goal of U.S. foreign policy?"
I think the corporate and political warmongers have a goal in mind, and for now, they seem to be achieving it. Yesterday Justin Raimondo wrote:
"Bedeviled by our friends, reviled by our enemies, and envied (and resented) by all, America has no friends in the world — only clients, dependents, and targets."
That is the goal of the warmongers: to make the U.S. a "service provider." The product they're selling to their clients is war, the product to their dependents is the diversion of Western culture, so they can steal valuable resources, and to their targets is death.
The question is, how can we rid ourselves of the corporate and political warmongers? We need a domestic policy guided by the rule of law in order for us to have any kind of decent foreign policy.
Gera Rosy
September 25th, 2012 at 7:29 am
Yes Johnny, you're correct. In addition, the Cold War was good for business and produced our once vibrant middle class. The big disaster, a nuclear Israel, may be the end of us all.
curmudgeonvt
September 25th, 2012 at 8:40 am
"What now should be the great goal of U.S. foreign policy?"
Silly rabbit…our goal should be to rebuild and reclaim the once held vision that America is a good place with good people and that the rest of the world is welcome. To whatever degree that claim have in fact been illusory and not real, it is something to desire. However, as long as we continue down the paths we as a nation have chosen for the last century or two – fomenting wars, encouraging others to foment wars, selling the wares for wars, and basically causing the entire world to look upon us with derision and hate – we will never reach that goal.
It's easy to say that we must pull back from the world and let them sort it out themselves but the current set of elites and Archons will never allow that to happen – there's too much money at stake. So, until we change the set of leaders we have – from top to bottom – and change the way we select those people to represent us nothing will change…it may in fact get worse as they continue the tightening and restricting of our once perceived rights and freedoms. on the current trajectory we are willingly allowing ourselves to be enslaved. Time to really change…but I hold no hope. The American people gave up any real desire to make democracy work a long time ago and have since forgotten how to get it back.
rwe2late
September 25th, 2012 at 8:42 am
Buchanan is correct in his call for an end to US overseas imperialism/militarism.
But his premise for the cause of US imperialism is wrong.
It is not done to "spread democracy".
That is merely the jingoist fabrication for a gullible publlc.
Buchanan would do better to look at who benefits, by the petrodollar finances, the "Shock Doctrine" acquisition of resources, the so-called drug war, and global military spending.
WTE
September 25th, 2012 at 9:22 am
The drug war has been a complete disaster and waste of money
musings
September 25th, 2012 at 9:40 am
There's still a little problem: the oil is running out and countries which never did are now competing for it. Whatever brush one uses to paint over that fact – and the brush may come in cheerful colors – be they about removing horrible dictators who shred their enemies or about self-determination and taking the power away from corrupt regimes like Libya's or about claiming you are going to fight drug trafficking in the county you invade (what Labour leader Tony Blair told his party about Afghanistan' s Taliban as a threat to the streets of London), there are real energy concerns in our type of expansionist economies.
Yes, good sense would bring everyone home because the original rhetoric failed. But rhetorical points are a dime a dozen. New ones can be constructed on a moment's notice. What is harder is to face the underlying purposes behind going there in the first place, purposes not shared with a despised electorate of "victims" and penny-slot gamblers.
LRusin
September 25th, 2012 at 9:51 am
Pat Buchanan is brilliant. He observes that " some countries are unfit for democracy. As Edmund Burke remonstrated: “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” " There is so much food for thought in those lines.
My question is, just as we assume a person grows out of his intemperate mind by the time he reaches voting age, can a country evolve likewise?
Canuck
September 25th, 2012 at 9:56 am
"What now should be the great goal of U.S. foreign policy?"
How about adhering to your own constitution.
Tonyandoc
September 25th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Our mounting deficits and debt is not the only price we are paying for the counter-productive policies pursued by successive administrations. With Congress now in the pocket of global business and more interested in plausible deniability than representing American citizens we are also trading in our democracy and, in effect, becoming a client for nation building ourselves.
jeff_davis
September 25th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
"The American people gave up any real desire to make democracy work a long time ago and have since forgotten how to get it back."
They will soon be poor again, very poor. Then they will have to work ***just to survive***. But once they are as poor as the average Chinese or Indian worker, they will be competitive again, so the jobs will return, and there will be abundant work once again,… only it will all be ***at Chinese wages***. Then they will begin to relearn what they were striving for, and lost.
The 1% will have no problem. They never have, because wealth (ie capital) has no national loyalty. It goes to where the profit is.
masmanz
September 25th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Is US the country least fit for democracy? The people voted for Bush even after he started the two disastrous wars. As for the 'intemperate minds' one only has to read the various comment sections of news blogs — excluding antiwar of course.
Eileen Kuch
September 25th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
You are so right, Canuck. The US Gov't should be adhering to the Constitution; but, it hasn't done this in over a century. From 1861-1865, Abraham Lincoln trashed the Bill of Rights, imprisoning several dissidents and journalists for daring to criticize his policies. Woodrow Wilson was the first US President to not only drag the nation into WWI; but, to push the "Federal Reserve Bank" – a private, foreign institution owned by the Rothschilds of London – onto an unwilling nation, along with the illegal INCOME TAX on the fruits of the people's labor.
To go on, FDR provoked Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, dragging an unwilling populace into an unwanted war against Germany (the people supported one against Japan). He also instituted the only concentration camps of the 20th Century to incarcerate Japanese-American civilians, a gross violation of their human rights.'
For his defense of the Constitution against Zionist and other enemies within government, John F. Kennedy paid the ultimate price on 22 November,
Outsider
September 25th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Curmudgeonvt: I couldn't agree more with your sentiment that we need to change the way we elect people. You didn't say what you mean by that, so let me add two. First, we need to get rid of the obsolete Electoral College or at least make it proportional to the vote. Take Florida 2000, where Bush won by a thread. He received all the Fla electoral votes, and thus the election, even though he lost by 500,000 votes nationwide. Granting all the votes to the winner totally disenfranchises the half of the people who voted for the other guy. It takes many states, red and blue, totally out of play.
Second, make it easier for 3rd party candidates to get on ballots. In my home state of PA, the Repubs are currently trying every trick in the book to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot, even though the Libertarians had at least double the amount of votes needed to qualify. Other successful democracies have multiple parties in their parliamentarian systems. Why in a nation of over 300 million are the voters here stuck with two?
Outsider
September 25th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
BTW, Mr Buchanan, I'm glad I found you here at Anti-War. I've been getting my twice weekly Buchanan fixes at Townhall, where you are basically the only writer who doesn't tow the War Party's line. I keep wondering if they will axe you, like cowardly MSNBC did after you wrote the truth in "Death of a Superpower." 'Morning Joe' has never been the same. Also, the commenters here at least usually present intelligent arguments, which cannot be said for most Townhall posters.
stuff democracy
September 25th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
I DON'T WANT YOUR DEMOCRACY! Because I don't care what you think!
Strider55
September 25th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
A complete disaster for We the People, yes. But for the judicial-industrial complex (which is even more pervasive and evil than its military counterpart), it has been a roaring success.
peace
September 25th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
You're wrong and the debate has never been about those two things. Federalism in the Hamiltonian type like communism is those with control those without. Communism was never about the little man, it was about controlling man, the ones without. As long as you put another man above you, you will always be a servant. To find peace is to put no man above you.
peace
September 25th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
You are wrong as usual. The whole point of the Geneva Convention and other such ideas was not to make war less humanitarian but more so. Kinder gentler war. You can go back to writers like Orwell and others to see it. Humanitarian wars, The world wars were the wars to end all wars, after them would be police actions and humanitarian interventions. There are no more grand wars. There is no more one great movement of an army overtaking the forces of the other. No grand empires building pyramids of those which we still admire today. Just police actions and death. We build an army for the protected government of choice and you the pawn eventually will never rise again.
Pro-Israel think-tanker urges next U.S. president to prioritize Middle East democracy « The Passionate Attachment
September 25th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
[...] charged with making U.S. policy, they should ponder the astute question posed in a recent column by Patrick Buchanan: If the probable or inevitable result of dethroning dictator-allies is to raise to power Islamist [...]
WTE
September 26th, 2012 at 5:50 am
Agreed!