Grassroots Commentary
Ron Paul's Folly
Ron Paul errs in his foreign policy, but it is false to call him an isolationist. For example, he promotes a strong foreign trade policy. The confusion comes from his "non-interventionism," a policy he summarized before Congress on September 16, 2003:
"We have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us."
He has also said, "We can achieve much more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars" (Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa, August 5, 2007); that, as a Christian, he chooses peace (Values Voter Presidential Debate, September 17, 2007), and he titled a 2007 essay, "I Advocate the Same Foreign Policy the Founding Fathers Would."
Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." This is apparently Dr. Paul's model. But while "Peace, commerce and honest friendship" are certainly worthy ideals, when reality and ideals clash, the idealist usually loses. It's like a pacifist confronted by people sworn to his or her destruction; s/he will soon be a dead pacifist.
Jefferson's vision was far more realistic in 1801 than now. Never minding that strong commerce by nature intervenes for our benefit, two crucial forces exist today that Jefferson never envisioned: Technologies capable of annihilating millions, and fanatics committed to their use.
Dr. Paul is right in saying that Islamic radicals want to destroy us because of our foreign policy and because of our attacks against them. But that is only part of the picture. The whole is that they seek to bring us down because of the freedom, especially religious and cultural, that we represent. It is not just our use of force; it is who we are and what we represent that motivates them to war against us.
Yet Dr. Paul considers terrorism to be a crime, not warfare. Bill Clinton took that exact approach in response to the terror attacks of the 1990s, and the result was 9/11. It wasn't our strong foreign policy that convinced Osama bin Hidin we were weak as he planned the 9/11 attacks; it was our insipid response to earlier strikes.
The terrorism-is-a-crime approach fails to account for the Islamic radicals' suicidal intentions. With all respect for Dr. Paul's commitment to the rule of law, trying to stop suicide attacks with prosecution is like Wile E. Coyote brandishing a parasol to deflect a falling boulder. Suicide bombers don't want to live, thus making themselves available to the law. They seek death; and how does one prosecute a dead terrorist?
More critically, what good does such a policy do after an attack? If, God forbid, a city is laid waste by a terrorist nuclear or biological weapon at the loss of a few hundred thousand lives, would a President Paul be as gleeful that he had followed his principles as he callously claimed that Bush administration officials were at the opportunity to go to war in Iraq?
We can dedicate ourselves to setting a peaceful example -- but it will be to no avail against an ideology committed to our destruction. And how on earth does one reconcile an advocacy of peace as a foreign policy with the violence that will follow once a President Paul completes President Obama's betrayal of Israel to her sworn enemies?
Moreover, with the globalization of commerce, attacks on our allies are far more injurious to us now than in 1801; how will President Paul's foreign trade fare when we leave trade partners open for destruction?
Is it of no moment to Dr. Paul that Islamic radicals who are sworn to the destruction of liberty, including ours, are gaining power in multiple nations? How will American interests be helped if they succeed in establishing a caliphate of sharia law throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East?
Iran is undeniably committed to rejecting a President Paul's examples of peaceful conduct; how are our interests protected if they succeed in developing and using nuclear weapons? What city has to be vaporized before we protect ourselves? Tel Aviv? Manhattan?
It intrigues me that Dr. Paul advocates withdrawal from the United Nations while falsely citing the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency report as evidence that Iran is not arming itself.
I concur with Glenn Beck: Dr. Paul would be a wonderful Treasury Secretary. But as President, his foreign policy would be Obamian in its catastrophic results.
24 Comments
Mike Parent
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Here's a CIA Expert who endorses Dr Paul's Foreign Policy. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10420-top-cia-terror-expert-endorses-ron-paul-in-gop-raceAll the Chicken Hawks are itching for another fight, as long as they or their children don't have to get their hands dirty!Like Newt who married his babysitter to avoid the draft, and Romney who decided his services were better used in France than in Viet Nam.
Woody
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM
"It intrigues me that Dr. Paul advocates withdrawal from the United Nations while falsely citing the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency report as evidence that Iran is not arming itself." Huh? That's like saying that I'm a hypocrite for firing my lawn guy because he tells me I have dandelion problems.
1776liberty
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM
Your article is wrong. He is not suggesting that the US being pacifistic just not being bullies. He suggests that we be well armed and very vigilant peaceful people. It seems since your voice Bachmann is no longer able to spew this garbage you have to take her place. Please learn to read and study history listen to the 911 commission, CIA, FBI, Mossad and Israelis prime ministers because they say EXACTLY the same thing Dr. Paul does. warmonger. "Blessed are the Peace makers for they shall be called the Sons of God". (Sermon on the Mount) What god do you follow? The god of war and destruction? Lucifer.
1776liberty
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 7:34 PM
I read your Mission Statement and after reading your article and boy ole boy what a disconnect. Dr. Paul advocates following the Constitution (to the letter) and has a long history of doing just that. Dr. Paul advocates Peace and Trade as the founding Fathers did.Dr. Paul advocates personal liberty and according to your mission statement the Patriot Post does as well but this article is all about abandonment of the Constitution as it has specific rules the Government must abide by and this article is very different as it advocates undeclared wars of aggression which is a crime against humanity and also the UN Charter. Have the editors lost their way? How can you call yourselves Patriots when you advocate violation of our most precious constitution and the rule of law? You have mischaracterized his positions and his intent you should apologize. SHAM UPON YOU!!
Hugo Longbone
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM
1. Using nuclear weapons as a fig leaf to justify preemptively attacking any country is utter non-sense. Man has had for Centuries the power to kill thousands, if not millions with little effort. On numerous occasions, small pox, bubonic plague, and other diseases were used to break sieges and rebellions; as early as 1763, the British crushed the Otawa tribe rebellion by distributing small pox infected blankets. And trust me if the choice were vaporization by atomic fire or death by hemorrhagic illness, i'll choose the vaporizing. You are absolutely correct that some portion of the Islamic radicals will forever hate America, no matter how the US changes policy. But the more important question is how many people like that exist? I doubt it is more than a plurality of the entire movement. Much more likely are people who have lost something and believe that directly or indirectly the US is responsible. Perhaps even these people are beyond rehabilitation, but unless the US wants to continue a vicious cycle of demagogues able to play on the privations of the United States, real or imagined, to garner support, the US needs to take a less invasive role in the world. The president has absolutely no power to wage war or not. If Congress decides that going to war to protect an "ally" (I use the word loosely because all I see are a bunch of wogs that lend the US money for the privilege of protecting their countries) is in America's best interest, they need to declare way, not write blank checks like those idiots did in 2002. How is Iran rejecting Paul's principles. As much of a theocracy as Iran is, the US and its "allies" have put Iran in a catch 22. If it refuses to negotiate, its being belligerent; if it wants to negotiate, it's stalling for time. Honestly, whats the difference between Iran and North Korea: Red China likes North Korea.
Mark
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Obamian foreign policy? You mean the one where Obama continues all of Bush's policies. Before you try denying it, remember Cheney went on TV stating Obama should apologize to Bush for doing so after Obama had criticized him so much in the campaign
James Parsons
Thursday, January 5, 2012 at 11:42 PM
"With all respect for Dr. Paul's commitment to the rule of law, trying to stop suicide attacks with prosecution is like Wile E. Coyote brandishing a parasol to deflect a falling boulder. Suicide bombers don't want to live, thus making themselves available to the law. They seek death; and how does one prosecute a dead terrorist?"As if trying to stop suicide attacks with military occupation has helped any? They hate us because we meddle in their affairs. No other reason.
Sapient
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 3:52 AM
ThomasRon Paul likes to wrap himself in the cloak of the Constitution and Founders but he is far off. FAR OFF.Seems like he conveniently forgets about the War with the Barbary Pirates that Jefferson jumped into that was never declared by our congress. Why, because it was common sense that hostilities already existed from the other side, and didn't need to be declared by us.George Washington paid tribute to the miscreants because he had no navy to do anything about it, but he made his sentiments known:""Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence."Hmmm...same people attacking us now as then. Must have been our foreign policy of having ships on the open sea. If someone is of that mindset,one excuse is as good as another.God bless"It is a principle incorporated into the settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute." --James Madison, letter to the Dey of Algiers, 1816
John Frary
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 7:02 AM
Foreign Policies derive from assessing a nation's national security interests. Rep. Paul provides no such assessment He has not foreign policy, properly speaking. There are reasons to argue that American policies over overstretched and and over-ambitious; reasons to be skeptical of the F.P. establishments ambitions and reasons for examining the constitutional constrains, but these objections don't constitute foreign policy.
Mr. Econotarian
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 8:16 AM
Bin Laden did not order 9/11 because "Bill Clinton treated terrorism as a crime". Read Bin Laden's own words:"Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998 Al Queada folks bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 - just after Bush's first Gulf War. That didn't seem to help much.Terrorists will continue to come. I think we can all agree that governments that support terror deserve attack, and indeed the Northern Alliance took the Taliban out of power. But that only slows down terrorists. They need to be tracked globally by police forces. Killing people's grandmothers with wars will not lead to fewer terrorists. And there are a lot of dead grandmothers in Iraq and Afghanistan.The military is the ultimate socialist government organization. Huge, unwieldy, inefficient, centrally run, indifferent to cost/benefit analysis, and costly. It is like a public school system, but with bombs,
LongPaulTexan
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Every warmonger assumes that Iran is willing to commit national suicide and have its 5000 year old culture wiped from the map if they can just get in a lick against Israel.
Eric5139
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 9:31 AM
Iran has been targeted, bombed, had their government manipulated by the United States. Why, because of control of Iran's vast oil fields. Our involvement in Iran has NOTHING to do with national defense or the American People. It has to do with special interest. If we followed Ron Paul's foreign policy and Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon Israel would destroy the facility. Ron Paul fully support Israel's right to defend themselves as they see fit. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and—unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration—defended its right to do so. I recommend that everyone research the relationship with the United States and Iran from 1950 to present day. Understand the relationship and you will unequivocally understand why Iran does not hate us for our freedoms but it is blowback from our involvement.
wjmccrindle
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM
@Mike ParentYou need to go have a delusional group hug over at the Huffington Post. Islam only knows peace through being totally anihilated, get a clue, the "religion" of peace only wants your death. The politial system of Islam is an enemy of the state, and should be abolished with extreme prejudice.
Mike Parent
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 2:08 PM
@wjmccrindleWhat exactly are you looking for? Are you in favor of an attack on Iran? Really, I'd love to hear your answer! Did you even hear China's and Russia's view on that? Go back to your video games.AND why is it the onus of the U.S. to take action? Nearly all the oil coming out of the Straits of Hormuz goes to Europe, and NO WEAPON the Iranians have, none of which are Nukes, can reach us here. If you want to be concerned, be concerned about Pakistan, who actually does have Nukes, is an Islamic Nation and has crazies waiting in the wings.
Sapient
Friday, January 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM
1776 LibertyRe: "Dr. Paul advocates following the Constitution (to the letter) and has a long history of doing just that."I would be pleased to know just where he does that. Here is what I have found so far:John Adams said: Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. --John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776Ron Paul: “You wanna get ride of drug crime in this country? Fine, let’s just get rid of all the drug laws.”The Founders said: "We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution." -- Daniel WebsterRon Paul, End the Fed: In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.Interesting you brought it up though.God blessWizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."Graham Wright re his video "Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist:""In this video, using Ron Paul's own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul's goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State."