American Policies: The Counter-Containment Racket
11 December 2015
By Jacob G.
The U.S. government is committed to containing ISIS, and ISIS is committed to
containing the U.S. government. The same goes for Russia. The Obama regime is
committed to containing the Putin regime, which, in turn, is committed to
containing the Obama regime.
This counter-containment policy is one in which the respective parties need
each other and thrive off each other. It's all quite a racket, one in which
each party to the containment battle necessarily depends on the actions of
the other party to justify increasing its power and influence and expanding
its own deadly actions.
This containment policy is not new. It's actually just a repeat of the Cold
War containment policy that the U.S. government adopted in the 1950s to
justify the existence of the national-security state apparatus that was
grafted onto our original federal government structure after World War II.
The Soviet Union and the communists were out to conquer the world, U.S.
officials told the American people, and so it's necessary to have a
totalitarian-like structure to ''contain'' the Soviets and the commies, to
ensure that America and the rest of the world didn't go Red.
Consider all the regime-change operations that the U.S. national-security
state engaged in during the Cold War as part of its efforts to contain
communism and the Soviet Union. Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, the Congo,
Indonesia, Nicaragua, Chile, and many more. The idea was that if such nations
were permitted to have communist regimes or regime friendly to the Soviets,
the dominoes would start following to the communists, with the final big
domino being the United States.
It was all one great big racket that was designed for one purpose: to ensure
the rise in power and influence of the entire national-security state
establishment, or what President Eisenhower termed the ''military industrial
complex'' in his Farewell Address in 1961.
It wouldn't have made a whit of difference, insofar as the United States was
concerned, whether any or all of those nations had communists or socialists
as their presidents or even if such presidents turned out to be puppets of
the Soviet Union.
How do we know this? Because today you have regimes all over the world that
are communistic or socialistic and that don't exactly love the U.S.
government. China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile,
Bolivia, Venezuela, and many others. Do you see any of them invading,
conquering, and occupying the United States?
It was never necessary for the United States to abandon its status as a
constitutional republic to ''contain'' the Soviet Union and communism. By
doing so, the U.S. government, in all too many respects, ended up becoming
like the Soviet Union and the communists. Examples include: MKULTRA, secretly
hiring Nazis into the U.S government, germ warfare, coups, assassinations,
invasions, wars of aggression, support of brutal dictatorships, partnerships
with the Mafia, torture, surveillance, and much more.
John Quincy Adams' Fourth of July address to Congress in 1821 is instructive.
Back then there were foreign dictatorships, terrorist groups, and far-flung
empires trying to expand their domain, just as there are today. He pointed
out that America was founded on the principle that the government that
Americans brought into existence does not go abroad ''in search of monsters
to destroy.'' The idea was that the U.S. government would leave them alone,
all the while striving to achieve a free society here at home as a model for
Here is how Adams put it in his famous speech:
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she
goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to
the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only
of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her
voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
Adams went further. He also pointed out that if the United States were ever
to abandon that policy of non-intervention and republic in favor of empire
and intervention, it would have a disastrous effect on our own nation:
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to
force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable
splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be
substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the
murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the
world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
There is only one solution to the counter-containment racket, and it
obviously does not lie with doubling down with more bombs and more missiles
on ISIS and more containment crises with Russia. That only gives rise to
countermeasures by ISIS and Russia. The situation just gets progressively
The only solution is this:
(1) Withdraw all U.S. troops from overseas, bring them home, and discharge
(2) Stop the bombing, killing, torturing, incarcerating, and assassinating
people without trial. That's what totalitarian regimes do, not governments in
(3) Close America's military empire of foreign and domestic military bases.
(4) Dismantle the national-security state, including America's standing army,
the CIA, and the NSA.
Returning to fundamental principles of a constitutional republic and
non-interventionism — the founding principles of our nation — is the only way
to achieve a free, prosperous, secure, and harmonious society. Maintaining
the status quo of empire, interventionism, and a national security state will
only make Americans progressively more unsafe and insecure, and less free and
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in
economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the
University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He
also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught
law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become
director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has
advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the
country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and
he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show
Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full