The American Center Party believes there are three major fundamental foreign policy positions, but in this ever-changing world the American Center Party sees only one rational choice for a foreign policy.

1. One policy alternative is what for years was called “isolationism”, such as advocated by Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul and the recent nominees for President and Vice President of the Libertarian Party. While the American Center Party respects the consistency with which Congressman Paul and Senator Paul stand by what they and their supporters call “non-intervention”, the American Center Party believes this to be isolationist, and doesn’t believe this to be a sound or reasonable policy in this global economy and ever expanding war of terrorism. The United States cannot stand idly by as its interests and safety, and that of its citizens are impacted globally. Appropriate action at some time is essential to protect our citizens and our way of life. To wait until it’s on our doorstep is unacceptable, not to say dangerous.
2. The other side of isolationism or non-intervention, is to be the Policeman for the world and respond militarily to every crisis in the world. While this may be appealing to some who believe the only way to protect ourselves is to counter every action with a reaction, this is financially, fundamentally and militarily inappropriate. We have seen already the great strain on our military and our economy trying to fight even the small wars we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to speak of the toll it takes on the men and women in our armed forces. A significant cause of our present deficit and debt crisis is due to the cost of these wars. We must manage this better. Thus, being Policeman for the World isn’t the answer nor our responsibility.
3. The American Center Party believes the only rational foreign policy in this day and age is to evaluate each and every conflict or crisis and decide which affect the national security of the United States or its allies. Only if we determine that the crisis demands our response to protect our national security interests or those of our allies, should the United States become involved militarily. Applying this policy to certain recent conflicts leads us to the following conclusions.
   1. To start with, regime change should not be part of our foreign policy, unless we are attacked. As an example, Iraq did not pose any threat to this country and was ruled by its elected leader, even though he was a brutal leader and the fairness of his election is admittedly open to question. Iraq had not attacked the United States and any objective evaluation could only lead to the conclusion there was no credible evidence there were WMDs in Iraq, nor was there credible evidence of a plutonium connection between Niger and Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, to suggest a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ignores the fact that Hussein was secular in nature, while Osama Bin Laden was from a radical branch of the Sunni sect of the Muslim religion. Indeed, Winston Churchill, as long ago as 1930 pointed out the ongoing hostility between the various sects of the Muslim faith. Why the United States didn’t comprehend that in 2001 is difficult to understand. After what is going on in Iraq and the entire Middle East, we now should understand what he meant.
   2. Once again, regime change should not be part of our foreign policy. Why we didn’t learn anything from our misguided venture into Iraq, is beyond comprehension. A look at Libya raises the question of what our national security interests were and the logical response is there were none. Admittedly, we lost no military personnel in this encounter and a despot is now gone. However, we did lose four Americans, including our Ambassador. Thus, to say there was no cost is playing the ostrich game with your head in the sand. In addition to the human cost, the billions spent with our air cover doesn’t take into account the full cost because the United States pays approximately 80% of the military costs of NATO and did so for the war in Libya. This doesn’t even take into account we have no idea who the new rulers will be and what tact they will take in government or in foreign affairs. It is the proverbial crap shoot, as was all of the Arab Spring. While we wish freedom and democracy for all, we have no idea the ultimate outcome in these countries, as is evident with the rise to power in Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood and the continuing unrest there. Today we have even seen the rise of ISIS in Libya, setting up a base for a massive expansion into a vulnerable African continent.
   3. We believe an evaluation of the uprising in Syria raises a serious legitimate national security interest. Syria is known to be a conduit for military aid to both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Both are known terrorist organizations determined to destroy Israel, our long time friend and ally, as well as, the only true and stable democracy in the middle east. Furthermore, Syria is also a vocal opponent of Israel and is supported by Iran, which is on record to destroy Israel and remove all Jews from the face of the earth. The American Center Party believes all of this impacts our national security and we should have attempted, immediately, to identify that organization of Syrian protesters we could support and provide military hardware to assist their rebellion. Our failure to do so has opened a venue for Russia and maintained Assad in power.It should also be noted that Syria is currently ruled by President Assad, a member of the Alawite branch of the Shite sect of the Muslim religion. The removal of Assad and the takeover by the Sunni sect, would of necessity change the relationship with Iran, a Shia theocracy.As for current policies the American Center Party believes America has abdicated its position as the moral, economic and military leader of the free world, which is totally unacceptable. As the moral, economic and military leader of the free world, we have an obligation to express and demonstrate that fact.
   4. When Russia invaded Crimea, we should have immediately provided to Ukraine those weapons they needed to adequately defend themselves, such as planes, tanks, helicopters, surface to air missiles and anti-tank weapons. The same should be done for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, since there is every indication those countries are the next in the sights of Vladimir Putin, who is trying to restore Russia to its former position of influence. We must be wary of that and do all that can reasonably be done to prevent it. Finally, we should restore the missile defense system in Poland, which should have never been removed in the first place. While some action has been taken recently on these issues, it is not enough and should have been done sooner.
   5. Lastly, we should have reacted with vigor and conviction to the rise of ISIS. In that regard, we should have immediately provided weapons to the Peshmerga, which has proven without question their strength and their commitment to this war, as well as their ability to conduct it. We should provide tanks, surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons and if they have the training, helicopters. We should then gather our Middle East allies, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, U.A.E. and Bahrain to ask for troop commitments from each in putting together the necessary coalition to fight ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other such terrorist organizations. We should imbed our troops as needed to provide assistance and forward spotting for an air campaign. We should then significantly increase our drone and plane strikes to provide support for a ground assault that will totally destroy ISIS. If this campaign is to succeed and be sustainable, our allies need the knowledge that they have the ability to confront and defeat ISIS or any other such terrorist organization. In addition, it is important ISIS realize the Arab countries are prepared to fight and capable of defeating them. Winning the war against ISIS would be a beginning in that education. Once again, while much has been done recently, it is not enough and should have been done sooner.
   6. Since our military preparedness is critical to our foreign policy, as well as the future of the free world, no matter what some may think, the re-building of our military is essential. Reliance on our military leaders is essential if this rebuilding is to take place, just as reliance on them for military advice in conducting any war or military engagement is also essential. This does not change the fact all decisions ultimately rest with the elected civilian leadership. However, that has failed miserably in recent years in the opinion of the American Center Party. With the emergence of ISIS and other terrorist organizations, as well as the aggressive behavior of both Russia and China, a strong United States military is essential to help constrain and provide second thoughts for both countries. It is also necessary for our safety and our future, as well as that of the free world and our allies. The military strength during the administration of President Reagan did not result in a war, but did result in the destruction of the Berlin Wall coupled with the fall of Communism and a unified Germany without a shot being fired. Peace through military and economic strength is a worthwhile goal, with a full recognition of the warning of President Eisenhower, a Five Star General of the Army, about the military-industrial complex. We should heed that warning, but utilize it to our advantage today and for future generations.
   7. Finally, we will address a subject which seems to have gained much attention lately. The American Center Party strongly supports NATO and its members, as the United States always has. There should be no question about that. In addition, the American Center Party believes the United States support for Article 5, which calls for the members to assist one another if a member is attacked, should never be in doubt and we support it fully. While we agree all members should pay their fair share for NATO, money should not be used as an excuse to place our NATO partners in jeopardy.