Ivan Eland on America's Entangling Alliance With South Korea

The best anti-imperial arguments come from the libertarian right, not the humanitarian left, and this gem from Antiwar.com is one of the best arguments ever written for us to chuck this fool un-American empire business — Ungrateful Allies.

"The accusation that the American beef is so tainted is a protectionist and nationalist canard," he says, "because it has long been certified as safe." He points out that "South Korea has not fully opened its auto market to U.S. exports, while its own car sales to the United States have soared." He reminds us that "under the protection of the U.S. shield, South Korea has grown from a poor, backward country into one of the world's economic powerhouses." He notes that "the formal empires of old were not cost-effective, according to classical economists," and that the "informal U.S. Empire that defends other countries abroad using alliances, military bases, the permanent stationing of U.S. troops on foreign soil,, and profligate military interventions is even more cost-ineffective." Here's something I've been saying for sometime now:

South Korea is not the only wealthy U.S. ally to reap the rewards of a U.S. security guarantee, while not fully opening its market to the United States. Japan and most of the European NATO allies also do the same. The foolish U.S. policy of continuing to subsidize the defense of these now rich countries – all economic competitors of the United States – allows them to reduce the drag that added defense expenditures would impose on their economies. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has to bear the costs of defending the world.

Mr. Eland suggests "the radical step of abrogating these outdated formal and informal alliances and security guarantees and gradually withdraw all of its forces from South Korea, Japan, and Europe." I only take issue with the adverb "gradually."