Non-interventionism and the Republican Party

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Traditionally, the liberal media and totalitarian Democrats have smeared the Republican Party as the Party of War and Warmongers.

On September 14, 2001, three days after the 9/11 terror attacks, Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the resolution (S.J.Res. 23) which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives 420-1[1] authorizing the President to use force in response.[2]

The Start of the Anti-War Wing on the Right

Sen. Joe Biden advocating for boots on the ground and nation building at the Council on Foreign Relations, October 22, 2001.

While not the only Republican to vote against the Iraq War as a handful of liberal Republicans did, one prominent voice came to the spotlight in the party. That was none other than former representative Ron Paul.

Three weeks after the 9/11 attacks, on October 3, 2001, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware proposed on the Senate floor a billion dollars in aid to a yet-to-be-formed Afghan interim government. The amount was almost twice as much as U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan proposed,[3] and more than triple what the Bush administration asked for.[4] Sen. Biden, who spoke for the Democrats in Congress, wanted more than just removal of the Taliban and degrading al Qaeda. Biden wanted nation building. Biden wanted to flood the new government with cash, which ultimately corrupted the new Karzai regime, and created an anti-Western, anti-corruption, pro-Taliban resurgence and backlash.

On October 22, 2001, Sen. Biden, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations insisting that U.S. goals—rooting out al-Qaeda and helping establish a friendly successor government to the Taliban—would require U.S. boots on the ground far beyond the small number of Special Forces that the Pentagon had recommended. Biden said, "There is no way that you can, in fact, go after and root out al Qaeda and or Bin Ladin without folks on the ground, in caves, risking and losing their lives. And I believe that the tolerance for that in the Islamic world is significant, exponentially higher, than it is for us bombing."[5] Under pressure from U.S. military and anti-Taliban forces however, the Taliban disintegrated rapidly, and Kabul fell on November 13, 2001.

The Anti War Wing of the Right Rising

Before 2016, two Republican senators were often regarded as the faces of the non-interventionist wing. Those two senators are Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah. While, Mike Lee may not be the strongest on domestic issues, Lee has consistently taken an Anti-war approach.

In 2016, media personality and businessman, Donald Trump would run with what started the America First Agenda. One of the biggest principles in this policy was to end forever wars and to prevent future ones from happening. This policy was super unpopular with the main-line Neoconservative faction.

Before Trump, the House Freedom Caucus formed which consisted of a handful of representatives. Many policies in their group and policies of Donald Trump overlapped and the two worked together to push the America First Agenda.

In 2019, President Trump withdrew from Syria. The US House voted to condemn the action 354-60. While a few America First Republicans were misguided and made a poor vote, and others who eventually betrayed the president, voted on the side of the president.[6]

Also in 2019, only Justin Amash a Libertarian Conservative turned Never Trumper and 21 Republicans (most of whom have an America First Agenda), were the only ones to vote against the NATO Support Act.[7]

In 2021, Andy Biggs and a handful of Republicans including, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Mary Miller, Matt Gaetz, and Lauren Boebert voted against a resolution condemning the military coup in Myanmar. While the resolution was nothing more than a simple condemnation, Biggs and the group voted against it due to fears that the Neo-liberal agenda would push for conflict in the region.[8]

The Decay of the Anti-War Wing on the Left

Democratic Congressman from Colorado, Jason Crow sponsored a bill on the House Armed Services Committee with Neoconservative, Liz Cheney. The vote was 45 in favor of limiting President Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan and only eleven voted against it. Of the Democrats, only three out of the thirty-one democrats voted in favor to support the President's plan to withdraw. These three Democrats were Tulsi Gabbard who is notable for having a strong non-interventionist record, Ro Khanna and Anthony G. Brown. Likewise, Eight out of Twenty-Six Republicans supported the President's initiative. Some of the most prominent America First Representatives voting with the President on this issue were Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Trent Kelly, and Jim Banks

In 2021, when Biden issued an airstrike on Syria, Representative Ro Khanna expressed major disappointment, giving a huge loss for the Anti-War Wing of the Left.[9]

Notable Non-Interventionist Republicans

Not Currently Holding a Public Office




  1. Congressional Research Service, Authorization For Use Of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks (P.L. 107-40): Legislative History, retrieved 11 May 2007.
  2. An Enemy Within, David Horowitz,, September 19, 2001.
  3. Sen. Biden: "U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has issued an appeal for $584 million to meet the needs of the Afghan refugees and displaced people, within Afghanistan and in neighboring countries. This is the amount deemed necessary to stave off disaster for the winter, which will start in Afghanistan in just a few weeks. We must back up our rhetoric with action, with something big and bold and meaningful. We can offer to foot the entire bill for keeping the Afghan people safely fed, clothed, and sheltered this winter, and that should be the beginning....We can kick the effort off in a way that would silence our critics in the rest of the world: a check for $1 billion, and a promise for more to come as long as the rest of the world joins us. This initial amount would be more than enough to meet all the refugees’ short-term needs, and would be a credible downpayment for the long-term effort. Eventually the world community will have to pony up more billions, but there is no avoiding that now, not if we expect our words ever to carry any weight.
    If anyone thinks this amount of money is too high, let me note one stark, simple and very sad statistic. The damage inflicted by the September 11 attack in economic terms alone was a minimum of several hundred billion dollars and a maximum of over $1 trillion. The cost in human life, of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, is far beyond any calculation." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE—Wednesday, October 3, 2001, Pg. 18464.
  4. The Original Sin of the War in Afghanistan, By Jonah Blank, The Atlantic, APRIL 20, 2021.
  5. Sen. Biden: "I think the American public and the Islamic world is fully prepared for us to take as long as we need to take. If it is action that is a mano-a-mano. If it's us on the ground going against other forces on the ground. The part that I think flies in the face of, and plays into every stereotypical criticism of us, is where this high tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever you want to do. And it builds the case, for those who want to make the case against us, that all we're doing is indiscriminately bombing innocents. Which is not the truth. Some innocents are indiscriminately bombed. But that is not the truth. I think the American public is prepared for a long siege. I think the American public has prepared for American losses. I think the American public is prepared, and the president must continue to remind them to be prepared, for American body bags coming home. There is no way that you can, in fact, go after and root out al Qaeda and or Bin Ladin without folks on the ground, in caves, risking and losing their lives. And I believe that the tolerance for that in the Islamic world is significant, exponentially higher, than it is for us bombing. That's the generic point I wish to make. I am not qualified enough to tell you. Although I can tell you what the military guys have said to me. This is not 1948. This is 2001. I'm not at all sure they're correct." @59:43