In foreign policy, 'we must deal with the real world'
[Letter to the Holland Sentinel, 11 February 1987]
The United States as a whole has no comprehension of what foreign policy even means.
We put out feelers to Iran? Of course. Iran is the buffer between the Soviets and the oil of the Persian Gulf. Iran may have influence over the Moslems in the Soviet Union itself. A rapprochement with Iran is in our long-term interest.
We quietly helped Iraq in its war with Iran? Of course. Iraq is a dike between Khomeini's Moslem fundamentalism and the pro-Western states of the Saudi peninsula. It is in our interest to keep Iran from conquering Iraq.
We assist the "contras" in Nicaragua? Of course. We cannot keep millions of Mexican migrants from crossing our borders. Do we want to face an armed threat south of that same undefended border? (Southern Texas is closer to Nicaragua than to Washington, D.C.) It is in our interest to undermine — and, yes, overthrow — the Marxists in Nicaragua.
The Second Coming of Christ will bring true peace. Until then, the purpose of American foreign policy must be to protect our security interests. We must deal with the real world, we must consider the long term, we must sometimes play both ends against the middle, and we must use the tools which optimize gains, costs, and risks. Secret diplomacy and covert action are sometimes appropriate. In fact, a foreign policy without secrets is not a foreign policy at all.
Perhaps the way in which we flirted with Iran was unwise. Exposure of the flirtation, however, is doing more harm than the flirtation itself. In response to the original Iranian disclosure of the arms sales, the U.S. government should have closed ranks and "lied like a trooper" to the outside world. Any investigations should have stayed behind closed doors. The public's right to know should be balanced by the public's right to an effective foreign policy.
Instead, we have hearings, Congressional committees, press conferences, and leaks. And leaks. And more leaks. With the honorable exceptions of Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North, our entire government seems determined to prove that it cannot keep its mouth shut. Our media seem resolved to demonstrate that there are no limits to their indiscretion. Both those in the government who disclose secrets and those in the media who publish them are abusing freedom of the press and, directly or indirectly, giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies. That is treason.
This is not the investigation of a foreign policy mistake. This is not even a foreign policy debate. This is a hysterical orgy of hairsplitting legalism, vindictive partisanship, irresponsible sensationalism, and juvenile ego-gratification. The stupidity of it is contemptible.