payers. And that courtesy has only just begun, beeause the foreignrnaid Haiti receives will quickly reach a half-billion dollars,rnand go up from there.rnThe isolationists on the paleoconservative right condemnedrnthe Haitian outrage from the beginning. Like Albert Jay Nock,rnthey know that “Every State, from the eariiest to the mostrnmodern, is a robber-State. Of its instruments for effecting robbery,rnthe most primitive, and now most costly, are armies andrnnavies. These are used chiefly in safeguarding the economicrnexploitation of weak alien peoples by the State’s beneficiariesrnat home.”rnIt will take years to sort out the corrupt network of interrelatedrninterests that made this Haitian operation possible. Wernknow the Mevs family of Port-au-Prince and Miami wasrninvolved, along with its Washington hired gun, a former roommaternof Clinton’s. We know that each member of the congressionalrnBlack Caucus was paid off to give the invasionrnthe proper racial cover. We know that Mena, Arkansas, is nornlonger a major drug transshipment point, and that Portau-rnPrince now is. Beyond that, we will have to leave it to thernrevisionist historians.rnBut what of the neonationalists? Once the American troopsrnhit the ground in Haiti, they fell silent. Not a peep was heardrnfrom the Journal’s editorial page for two weeks, althoughrnplenty was said about Saddam Hussein moving a few patheticrnsoldiers around his own country as a protest againstrnsanctions still starving women and children years after therntank-bulldozers finished burying Iraqi troops alive in therndesert.rnIraq’s movement of its pitiable “elite Republican guard”rnoffended the Czechess Madeleine Albright, somehow ourrnambassador at the United Nations, and the Ukrainian JohnrnShalikashvili, somehow chairman of the joint chiefs, so the editorsrnat the journal started flashing their little pocket knives. Ofrncourse, neocons of every stripe were relieved when Clintonrnproved himself willing to go to war on behalf of an arbitraryrnline in the desert sand drawn by British imperialists. Mondayrnof the next week rolled around, and the other shoe dropped.rnAt the top of the journal editorial page was a flattering pencilrnsketch of “Father” Aristide, minus his thousand-mile stare.rnThere was “widespread skepticism about Mr. Clinton’s adventure,”rnthe journal wrote, “which we ourselves expressedrnbefore the troops started to move. Yet we find it hard to rootrnagainst the success of U.S. arms. . .. The people of Haiti havernknown nothing but repression, it’s true, [so] giving them arnchance at a piece of the modern world can only be a goodrnthing…. We would also reserve the hope that when some futurernPresident intervenes for reasons that include Realpolitik,rn[there will be no] scoffing about world policemen.”rnA “piece of the modern world”? What is that, the chancernto go on welfare so long as you obey the central state? Is thernworld not “modern” enough as it is? In fact, the journal hasrnthe future wars it wants fought, and so decided that it cannotrnoppose other military adventures for fear that it might helprnAmericans think for themselves, and therefore endanger thernentire empire.rnThere is a lesson here. At the domestic level, consistent andrnprincipled opposition to the central state and all its domesticrnworks is the most moral and effective stance we can take forrnreviving our rights and liberties. It is no different on foreignrnpolicy. We must be consistent isolationists, and oppose everyrnmilitary adventure—a priori—of this or any other administration.rnThere is no need to palaver over whether an interventionrnis or is not in our national interest. War sustains thernLeviathan, and so is against the American people’s interest. Sornis every Roosevelt dime of foreign aid, every CIA killer-spook,rnand every international managed-trade racket like NAFTA andrnGATT.rnIn this effort, the Republican agenda is worthless, since itrndocs not confront the state’s war-making power. This meansrnwe must also oppose Newt Gingrich’s call for vast increases inrnmilitary spending. Republicans, however, were not alwaysrnworthless. Warren G. Harding, the best President of this century,rnpromised: “If I am elected, I will not empower any assistantrnsecretary of the navy to draft a constitution for helplessrnneighbors and jam it down their throats at the point of bayonetsrnborne by United States Marines.”rnThis is our tradition. Let the social democrats call us isolationists.rnIt is a name wc should bear proudly, for it representsrnthe only moral foreign policy.