against ron paul, part i: ron paul’s immoral foreign policy
This is the first in a 5-part series critically examining the platform of Ron Paul, the much in-vogue Republican candidate for President. In this installment, I plan to make the case against Paul’s foreign policy platform, which I intend to show is 1)immoral, 2)unrealistic/outdated, and ultimately 3)bad for America and its allies. (As a sub-point, I would also note that, despite claims to the contrary, it is also isolationist). Were Ron Paul to be elected, I posit, his foreign-policy positions alone would mean a world that was significantly less safe and hostile to the United States– even more so than today.
Before I begin addressing the 3-point criticism of his actual platform, I feel it is incumbent to answer the childish and inaccurate claims that Paul makes about the Iraq war, and to examine how Paul manipulates the current discussion to over-emphasize them. To begin, I would recommend visiting Paul’s foreign-policy page, wherein he opens with the following screed:
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Paul makes 4 points in this paragraph:
- The Iraq war was “sold” by false information
- Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it
- We have created “blowback”, spawning more terrorists than before
- It has cost too much, both in lives and money
Assertion 1) is a blatant attempt to accuse the Bush Administration of lying without actually coming out and saying it– after all, were one to point out that the information that the war was supposedly “sold” on was agreed upon by every major U.S. ally would no doubt engender a response from Paul supporters that it claims merely to be “inaccurate”–regardless of who believed it to be true.
And yet this removes completely the context of the causus belli Iraq war– after all Saddam’s own generals were dismayed to discover that he in fact did not have a sprawling, secret WMD program, and Israeli, French, English, Russian, Chinese, and German intelligence agencies all concurred with the CIA’s assessments of Iraq’s WMD program. The implicit claim of Paul’s platform is that the information needed to be “sold”– when in fact, it stood on its own merits by any reasonable standard. By attempting to avoid this critical context, Paul in effect lies in the opening sentences of his foreign policy position by quite clumsily stealing a page directly out of the MoveOn.org playbook.
The second assertion, that Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it, is not only a red herring, it is debatably false– that is, depending on how one defines “dangerous”. Indeed, prewar sanctions on Iraq were killing thousands of civilians each month, and his brutal regime was being allowed to oppress the entirety of the population.
To be sure, in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, there remains an incredibly unsafe environment in Iraq– but one must ask themselves which environment is inherently “less safe”: one where jihadists are actively challenged by the most powerful military on the face of the earth, or the environment wherein an oppressive government is allowed to murder unchecked. While less people may have been killed by the Saddam regime daily than are killed in Iraq by militant jihadists, there is a discernible difference between both situations.
Indeed, even if one agrees with Paul that Iraq is less safe now than it was under Saddam, that says nothing about the inherent morality or sustainability of the war itself– after all, the Allied landing at Normandy made the whole of Europe less safe than it was under the iron grip of Nazi rule, but very few people would pen breathless treatises against the liberation of that continent.
The third assertion– that we are spawning more terrorism by our presence in Iraq (the so-called “blowback” theory) is easily defeated by the simple fact that terrorists existed and harmed the United States external to, and before, our troops were in Iraq. Indeed, the long-winded explanations that Bin Laden gave as justification for 9/11 may have mentioned the U.S. military, but were far more directed against American (specifically, globalized and capitalist) culture.
Indeed, the recent success of the “surge” in Iraq– which in some areas has reduced violence by 70%, shows that the inevitable consequences of military success are less– not more– terrorist actions. Simply put, Paul cannot simply dismiss the argument that the United States should fight terrorists in Iraq rather than in the streets of New York city by claiming that the invasion of Iraq lead to more terrorist action. Terrorists do not need an excuse to kill Americans– and while we may be facing significant opposition in Iraq and elsewhere, to suggest that such realities mean that we should pullout of Iraq wholesale is an exceedingly weak, and I might add, dishonest argument.
If one agrees with the first 3 assertions, the 4th follows quite nicely. If, however, one disagrees with them, than the fourth is somewhat moot– after all, what is the price of American security? I would wager that, given that less soldiers have died in Iraq than in single days in the Second World War, those who believe in the inherent justification of the Iraq war certainly believe that it is worth the cost in lives and money to ensure American– and global– security.
It is worth noting that the fact that Paul opens his foreign-policy statement with such a detailed critique of the Iraq war is evidence itself that he is using this one particular stance to garner support from factions that most likely disagree with the rest of his political positions. It makes no sense that he would define his entire foreign policy on one particular sticking point– the war in Iraq– unless he realized that it would somehow benefit his political position. I, for one, believe that Paul is smart enough to realize that if he continues to overemphasize his very chic opinion vis a vis Iraq, he can manipulate the media– and fringe elements of the right– in order to say, raise $4 million in a single day.
But that’s a different story.
With that out of the way, lets move on to a larger critique of Paul’s foreign policy, which I outlined in the opening paragraph:
1. Ron Paul’s platform is immoral
Ron Paul stands staunchly against what he considers to be “police” actions– which presumably are those wherein the United States works with international partners to help secure troubled areas of the world external to an actual war. The difference between a “police action” and an actual war is famously thin, however, the validity of a police action is nonetheless obvious when one examines examples throughout history.
One of the most famous “police actions” in the past few years was the NATO intervention in Kosovo, wherein military action was used to halt what amounted to genocide. Indeed, when one views the world in context, one wonders why there aren’t more “police actions” in places like Darfur, where millions have been displaced or murdered by vicious militants. Would Paul have supported a “police action” in Rwanda, where the world sat by and watched while millions of people were slaughtered wholesale– on the basis that the United States had no interest– economic or otherwise– to stop that horrific example of widespread ethnic cleansing?
Ron Paul notes in his platform that Kosovars have turned on the United States and supported Islamic militants– gleefully asking whether we should regret saving them. I respond thus: who cares? The United States saved lives in Kosovo, and no matter the “blowback” it was nonetheless a moral response.
It is worth noting that this is the major departure that Paul has with so-called neoconservatives, who believe that military action has the power to solve a wide array of problems– many of which would constitute the “police actions” that Paul describes. It is also worth noting that no one should be compared to Reagan who does not believe that America is a force for good in the world, and that we have the responsibility to intervene militarily in situations where the helpless are being oppressed. Ron Paul’s isolationist platform– and it is isolationist, no matter how many times he and his supporters claim that it isn’t– is, in effect, an implicit endorsement of genocide.
2. Ron Paul’s platform is unrealistic and outdated
Ron Paul claims to want to see support and goodwill toward America fostered around the world. And yet, in the same breath, he advocates ignoring military resolutions of international bodies such as the United Nations– a move that would surely cause consternation and incredibly dislike of America and her policies around the globe– possibly even moreso that what George W. Bush has supported. Indeed, even his opinion on Iraq– which, of all things, claims to bolster the security of the United States (presumably by allowing jihadists– including Al Qaeda– to consolidate power in the ensuing chaos, and giving them a have wherein to plot attacks against the United States). In a globalized world, it is incredibly unrealistic and foolish to ignore resolutions by one of the most powerful (and, I might add, deeply flawed) organizations in the world.
Please don’t think this is an endorsement of the United Nations– Google this site for “Oil for Food”, and you will see that I support wholesale reform of the organization– I merely believe that destroying our relationship with this body would be one of the most unwise unilateral actions the United States has ever taken. Why does Paul not call for reform of the manner in which military resolutions are passed– to work with the U.N.? Because his platform is not based in practical considerations.
3. Ron Paul’s Platform is bad for American and her allies
The mere fact that Ron Paul wishes to engage in an action that would create a haven for terrorists (Iraq) should be evidence enough of how poorly he would protect the interests of the United States abroad. But consider his other positions. Paul favors– among other things– that America withdraw from NATO, eroding immensely one of the strongest pro-Western military alliances– in the face of, I might add, one of the strongest anti-Western movements: jihadism. Paul also opposes the very notion of the draft (while, in a clear example of fear-mongering claiming that it is soon to be called up), which was one of the main tools the United States used to defeat Nazism in Europe. All in all, he seems to be against military alliances– does anyone think that this would at all strengthen the position of the United States in international relations?
Ultimately, it is Ron Paul’s success that his driven him to hold such radical positions– capitalizing on the resounding success of his anti-war message, he has made himself into the quintessential anti-war candidate. He may have held the same policy positions for 30 years, but that says nothing about the relative strength of those positions– especially when they are masked by a comparatively contemporary one– the Iraq war. His platform as a whole would erode the already threatened strength of American foreign-policy by isolating us away from critical alliances such as NATO, and harming our relationship with the U.N., which would greatly hamper attempts to reform it.
Ron Paul is wrong for America. He promises to isolate us from the rest of the world, and to make it a significantly more dangerous place. His platform would hamstring America’s efforts to prevent oppression around the world, and, in the short term, he would create a terrorist haven in Iraq. Ron Paul does not offer “hope” for America– or anyone else.
You’re being disingenuous. I actually stopped reading after your point 1, when the angle became obvious.
To claim that “The Iraq war was “sold” by false information” is not equivalent to claiming that Bush lied, and I’m sure you know this.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that the Bush government lied (exaggerated if you prefer) to promote the war, such as the false uranium claims, or ask Colin Powell. Ron Paul has not claimed that Bush and crew didn’t really believe, as apparently did Saddam’s generals, that Saddam had WMDs, all Paul’s statement infers is that there was no evidence for WMDs so known false intelligence was presented as accurate intelligence, which imo is spot on.
Mike
November 12, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Firstly, I think its far more disingenuous to be so angry that you stop reading when I claim that Paul asserts (in so many words) that Bush lied, and then to proceed to make an argument that Bush did lie. “Sold” implies lying– I’m sorry, it simply does.
Secondly, your evidence about that apparent “exaggerations” are all easily answerable– and have been on multiple occasions, not the least of which is certainly the post that you admit not having read fully. (The uranium case is far stronger than you characterize).
Thirdly, if Paul’s statement infers that there was no evidence for WMD’s, surely my evidence refutes this entirely. (It doesn’t, by the way vindicate Bush at all)
Your comments, in short, are, like most of the criticisms of Iraq, wholly divorced from the context in which the war was started, and it is telling that you continue to refuse to fix this rather glaring error.
curtisschweitzer
November 12, 2007 at 5:07 pm
If liberals want to vote for a candidate who will bring our troops home, they may vote for Ron Paul. If they want more of the same old thing, they have a myriad of candidates from which to choose.
By the way, Paul has stated that he does not know if Bush and Co. falsified any information. In short, your assertions are erroneous,
If you believe that it is our job to police the world, that is your privilege. No need to be so verbose about it.
crackerjaxon
November 12, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Sold-to persuade someone of the merits of
False – incorrect
Ron Paul neither implies Bush lied or has ever said he did. In fact, Paul places far more blame on congress for giving up its responsibility to declare war.
As for his policy being immoral, how is your idea of using my tax-dollars and my children’s savings to run around the world nation-building a moral policy? The US government has a moral responsibility to the taxpayer. It is supposed to be a government of us, by us and for us. The policies you advocate are nothing short of being the same type of “national causes” so many authoritarians, socialists and fascists have declared. Not only is your essay bereft of the ideas that America was founded on, it also operates under the intellectually bankrupt assumption that our interventionist policy gains us friends. It doesn’t. Not even do the advocates of such policy (i.e see Norman Podhoretz on bombing Iran) make such asinine presumptions. Our policy, as is, does far more to isolate us than Paul’s policy ever would. If isolation and popularity is your primary concern, then you are barking up the wrong policy platform.
Ron Paul has been saying the same things for the last 30 years and he has been correct. He predicted the war we are currently in, he predicted problems with Iran. In fact, he has been prescient to nearly every policy development that has occurred under his tenure in the congress. He warns, but no one listens. One day soon, you and your ilk will be dismissed to the fringes when it is realized how morally, intellectually and historically debased what you advocate is. While you believe you know everything, Ron Paul knows he does not and dictates from this historically entrenched modus operandi.
hotchney
November 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Curtis, all four of Paul’s assertions you list are correct.
But don’t take my word for it; let’s let the American people decide. #4 is a belief that I think is especially self-evident — and popularly held.
FZappa
November 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Sorry your wrong about everything…Point 1 for example, did you see the 60 min special about CURVEBALL? They absoultly knew six ways to sunday there where no WMDS. The War was planed back in 98 and the very first day of his presidency the tone set was to find a way to do it- Witnessed by multipul first hand eyewitnesses FACT!
How about Hanse Blix???? Says on youtube Cheney threatened him….
How about the other Weapons inspectors all on the net, pissed about it all.. and whisltle blowing….
How about the 500 plus count of former officials of the whitehouse fed cia fbi translators “Sibel Edmonds” and on and on, you need to get your news somwhere else besides Fox and Rush……
All Neo Cons should be rounded up like the Nazis……….
How about more donations to Ron Paul for President from Soldiers in Iraq than any other Canidate!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
You Neo Con Hannity clones Piss us off and you wonder why we are so aggressive- it’s because you people don’t know what the hell your talking about…
Here’s some real facts,
1. America is going Bankrupt we borrow 3 billion a day from Communist China- Who now shadows our Navy and shoots satelites out of Orbit!!
2. Most terror attcks come from Sadui Arabia…Hmmm just like 911!
3. It’s the soviets who supply the Nuke equipment to Iran and is even help building them…HMMM
And also supply penatrating grenades…Hm,mmmm There is no hard evidence that Iran is supplying sqwat!
Hillary will join us with Mexico RudyMcRomney will be bush part 2
4. The world would respect a Ron Paul Presidency and would look to us with the eyes they once had and there would be peace even if there is a blood bath it’s what the Iraqies want and will be less of a number of deaths than we cause in Iraq and Afganistan!
5. The abolishment of the IRS and Income taxes would help the middle class more than anything else proposed.
6. There are more terrorist now- the kids of the parents that died at the hands of us and our allies.
7. Most importantly Ron Paul is the ONLY one that cab beat Hillary!
In a one on one debate she would be exposed in front of the entire Country…
It’s there OIL not ours they will always sell it because thats all they got!
WAKE UP PLEASE besides you people have been wrong about EVERTHING you’ve been saying since 2001! It’s almost 2008 we are sick of your B.S!
We now understand That for the most part Dems and Rep are just two arms of the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate Elites……
We now have these insane Myopic Freaks Torturing and passing Bills like HR 1955! Just the other day redefining the definition of the word Privacy!
We are not hearing you anymore- Plus your in the minority now- So Shut up with your crap!!!!!!
Immoral foreign Policy- Please!!!!!!!!!! Wake up your wrong sucks to feel wrong- but you are dead wrong- GWB has the most Immoral Foriegn Policy since Adoplh Hiltler which by the way was where the Bush family got the familys seed capital- Fact!
Paul Revere II
paul revere II
November 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm
“Genocides” have been going on since time immemorial. It is not the moral responsibility of the United States government to sacrifice the young children of its own citizens to stop the killing of people in other nations. To do THAT is a truly immoral reversion to the practice of sacrificing some humans for the alleged benefit of certain others.
Some cultures can’t handle “democracy.” This is especially true of the perpetually infighting Arabs. Moreover Islam does not WANT democracy, and Muslims will never allow what is to them an alien form of government to be shoved down their throats by military force. If Ron Paul is not allowed to stop the insanity now, we will be fighting this war against Islam for centuries to come, until by the year 2500 the national debt will have risen to hundreds of quintillions of worthless Federal Reserve Tokens.
What is also immoral is supporting the United Nations’ futile efforts to interfere with nature’s natural population control mechanisms of famine, plague, and civil wars. Such short-sighted efforts may prevent the immediate deaths of a few millions, but in the long term they will result in facilitating even more unsustainably astronomical population increases among primitive peoples. There is no way that the “developed” world can possibly sustain, or elevate to a level of self-sustainabililty, the resulting additional tens of billions added this planet’s human load. Especially when the accessible deposits of those mineral resources vital to an advanced civilization are all estimated to be virtually exhausted within the next century, many within the next 50 years.
Richard Brodie
November 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Thank you for providing a detailed and thoughtful critique of Rep. Paul’s foreign policy positions. It is a good to see that those who disagree with him can do better than simple name-calling of the man or his supporters.
I will try to be brief:
First. The line about it being ’sold’ to us does not merely apply to the WMD case (though there were those did argue AT THE time that the evidence was overblown). The fact is that there was a powerful contingent within the WH that wanted to attack Iraq well before 9/11, and then used the attacks of 9/11 as the real causus belli you refer to. I’m sure that if you are objective, you know that there is no way that we would have invaded Iraq without the backdrop that 9/11 provided. PNAC had been rattling sabers about Iraq as far back as the 90’s. So, basically the WMD evidence was ‘carefully selected’, and even more so, the actual threat to the US from Iraq was wildly exaggerated.
Second. The safety of the region is certainly no red herring. From a macro perspective, we have removed the primary secular road block against Iranian hegemony in the region. We have made it even more in Iran’s own self-interest to work towards the goal of nuclear armament. If our goal was truly the eradication of al Qaeda, we would have maintained our focus in Afghanistan until that job was complete. Instead, our actions in Iraq have engendered a whole new generation of dislike in the region for our policies. The safety of the region is purely a matter of perspective depending on where you happen to be living. But it is incontrovertible that the region is far less stable than it was before 2002.
Third. Yes, I would agree (and actually part ways with Dr. Paul) that the surge has worked. But it is practically meaningless. If your local police decided to start aggressively patrolling a neighborhood every day, we would expect that a) crime in the area would be reduced, b) some crime would move to the next neighborhood and c) the crime may very well move back into the neighborhood once the police relax their presence. It is entirely reasonable to believe the same is happening with the surge. Basically, Bush has played his trump card. If we leave and violence erupts, he can say it was our fault because we left too soon for it to work. If we stay forever in surge-mode, well, I guess that would be ok with him, too.
Fourth. Good question: what is the price of American security? I think Americans are willing to pay what is necessary to maintain our security. However, I think what you may be unwilling to recognize is that Iraq had nothing to do with our security. So, from that perspective, any amount of lives lost or money spent was too much.
1. Is it immoral? The purpose of the US government (and by extension) its military is to protect and defend the United States. Is it truly the obligation of this same military to guarantee the freedom of every human in the world? Is it the obligation of the US taxpayer to be forced to foot the bill of the police actions? Did you feel the same way when you voted for Bush in 2000? He certainly claimed to be against policing the world?
2. Unrealistic and outdated? Alliances of one sort or another have been in existence since before there were nation-states, so referring to Rep. Paul’s position as outdated just means you have been listening to someone else’s lines. The fact that you are concerned about the ‘consternation’ of other nations seems a bit misplaced: quite simply there is nothing that has cost the US more respect or caused more ‘consternation’ than what we have done in Iraq. The fact that you would like to see the US military as the fist of the UN sets a very bad precedent. Again, the US military is responsible for the defense of the US, not to enforce UN resolutions.
There is no way to be sure (short of it actually happening), but I think most nations would do just fine without the US trying to meddle in their internal affairs. That you feel otherwise betrays an unfortunate level of hubris.
3. Please do not forget this: GWB’s actions in Iraq created the ‘terrorist haven in Iraq.’ Rep. Paul warned against this. Others warned against this. By leaving, yes, there will be a period of further instability. But we have become a crutch for the Iraqi’s, much as most conservatives view the long-term use of welfare. Now, they must learn to walk on their own.
If by isolation, you mean that we can bring our boys and girls home from Iraq, and from Korea, and from Japan, and from Germany, then call me an isolationist. If by isolation you mean that we will stop propping up bad regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iraq (as we did throughout Saddam’s reign), Pakistan, and overthrowing democratically elected leaders (as was done in Iran), then call me an isolationist. If by isolation, you mean to stop the flow of foreign aid from our tax receipts to other nations, then call me an isolationist. If by isolation you mean the free flow of goods and services and tourists and ideals, then call me an isolationist. And, if by isolation, you mean an America that acts as the City on a Hill providing the beacon of freedom as an example for the world accept, or reject, then yes, call me an isolationist.
Thanks for your time. Peace be with you.
Chris
November 12, 2007 at 6:56 pm
My apologies…I was certainly not brief.
Chris
November 12, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Well, a new smear phrase for Ron Paul’s program: “An implicit endorsement of genocide” — A refinement on the simple term “Nazi”. Well, in any case, the people who support Israel are implicitly endorsing the genocide of the Palestinians, and those who support Bush’s war are implicitly endorsing the genocide of Iraqi people (next in line, the Iranians). Threats of WWIII from our Texas boy is indeed “an implicit endorsement of genocide” — this time the whole world. Ah, look forward to the next four episodes of your rant.
L. Step
November 12, 2007 at 8:52 pm
To your first point:
“‘Sold’ on false information” is not the same as lying. For instance, I may try to convince you of something for which I have incomplete information yet make it seem as if I have the information necessary to confirm my position. This is not lying, but relying on a position of authority to convince. I don’t think that you are in a position to know to what extent this use of authority was overused, but many people feel like this did occur to some extent.
To your second and third point:
While it is true that the contention that a less safe Iraq, “says nothing about the inherent morality or sustainability of the war itself–” It is hard to reconcile the conflicting view that we are in Iraq to liberate Iraqis and we can’t leave because there are terrorists to fight. It hardly seems like an act of liberation to engage in ‘War on Iraq’ to remove Saddam from power and enforce UN resolutions, yet once these objectives are accomplished, to stick around and subject the Iraqi people to our “fight [with] terrorists in Iraq rather than in the streets of New York city”. In fact, we have ‘liberated’ them from Saddam only to impose our battle with terrorists on them – hardly liberation. And the fact that we were attacked by terrorists before we invaded Iraq cannot be construed as evidence to support our attack or occupation of Iraq since even Bush himself has admitted that Iraq was not, nor was ever seriously considered, a direct source of the terrorism that we faced on 9/11.
To your fouth point:
‘…after all, what is the price of American security? I would wager that, given that less soldiers have died in Iraq than in single days in the Second World War, those who believe in the inherent justification of the Iraq war certainly believe that it is worth the cost in lives and money to ensure American– and global– security.”
If this were indeed the Second World War, I might be inclined to consider your point, but the fact that more American die every year from accidental suffocation or strangulation while in bed than from terrorist attacks, makes me think that we have already spent too much. I am as concerned about security as the next guy, but every morning I get in my car and drive to work. I do this despite, at my age the most likely way I will die is from a traffic accident. Now I could work closer to my house and sell my car, but the benefit of driving outweighs the cost to my security. Likewise, we could spend, what looks like, trillions of dollars overseas, but the benefit of economic freedom outweighs the cost to our security imposed by terrorist organizations. I think there is a place in our defense spending to aim our police efforts at Osama bin Laden and other al-Queda members, but driving the country into recession to alleviate your sense of hyper-sensetivity seems like a waste of resources.
rhys
November 12, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Chris– I appreciate very much your civilized and carefully thought-out critique. As you can certainly understand, drafting a response will take some time, but I hope to be able to dialog with you on this issue, but I wanted to commend you for what is, all in all, a light in an otherwise dark, dreary, and drunkenly partisan comments section.
curtisschweitzer
November 12, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Thank you for not being as brief as you intimate– I was glad to see a provocative and civilized response!
This, of course, asks the question as to whether 9/11 and Iraq do indeed have a connection– and I think they do, if not the one that is consistently maligned in the press and on leftist treatises against the Bush Administration.
In the ensuing sociopolitical environment fostered by 9/11, the invasion of Iraq is, from a neoconservative standpoint, already justified in the sense that Iraq represents a decidedly anti-US, anti-Western ally who had repeatedly engaged in terrorist activities (mostly against our staunch ally, Israel), and who threatened daily to destabilize the entire middle east, and stood as a threat to the poorly-named “War on Terror”.
That WMD were used to sell the war only underscores this fact. I continue to posit that the war was not and did not really need to be “sold” in any way, shape, or form, given that almost all parties agreed that the causus belli– which were more than WMD were sound. Simply put, most of the inaccurate intelligence used to bolster the WMD claim was no controversial, and did not need to be “spun”– take a look at British (or for that matter, Mossad) intelligence reports that have been released in the aftermath– all pointed to an active WMD program in Iraq quite clearly.
Also, one cannot ignore the Oil-for-Food scandal, which was reaping enormous harvests for interesting parties– including the members of the security council who voted against the Iraq resolution.
Which would, it would seem, necessitate a hard line on Iranian aggression. It is also worth noting that several thousand U.S. troops remain on Iran’s doorstep– a very “big stick” to take to the negotiating table.
(Note: I do not support war with Iran, at least in the near-term.)
Certainly– even the most ardent neocon would agree with this assessment. The difference in thinking lies in the notion that the long-term stability of the region would be greatly enhanced if a strong democracy can be built in Iraq. So while suggesting that the short-term stability in the Middle East might be significantly threatened, the notion that this matters in the broader argument is a red herring in the sense that it only suggests that more– not less– U.S. troops should remain to stabilize Iraq.
Firstly, I think this is a bit disingenuous given the fact that one of the explicit goals of the Bush administration has been the removal of troops from Iraq once it is stabilized. Indeed, the notion that violence has gone down with a significant increase in troop levels suggests that the corresponding withdrawal would provoke the opposite response. It remains to be seen whether or not the surge’s success can become long-term without the presence of a massive force, however, I think it is far too premature to make this sort of judgment.
This is at the very heart of the debate we are having– by suggesting that “Iraq had nothing to do with our security” you are in effect simply saying “I am right because I am right”. There is a broad argument to be made about Iraq increasing U.S. security– starting with the obvious benefit of a peaceful and stable democracy in Iraq.
It is interesting to me that people who would at once promote the notion of “blowback” by suggesting that U.S. “imperialism” and “oppression” in foreign situations only creates a retaliatory response would also be so quick to dismiss the notion that a stable, and hence prosperous Iraq would not reduce violence. If economics really do matter so much, why not create a stable, wealthy Iraq?
Just as foreign aid is the only moral response to problems in the world, so engaging in police actions that save countless lives is, I would argue, a very large moral imperative. I would also note that the burden of proof is on him who would suggest that it is not to justify said position.
I did not vote for Bush in 2000, because I was too young to vote. And I would have disagreed with him that it was not the job of the U.S. to police the world– just as I would have disagreed with him on many other issues, and continue to. See my subtitle of “the fascist apparatchik” to see how much I’ve pissed off liberal and conservative alike. (Although I would remain staunchly of the opinion that I am indeed a conservative)
In actuality, I was referring to the fact that Ron Paul is following the advice of George Washington, who, though a great man, could not possibly have envisioned our sociopolitica/geopolitical environment when he made that piece of advice. And yes, I think that following this particular bit of George Washington’s advice is unrealistic and outdated– just as I would not follow Jefferson’s example and own slaves.
Indeed there is something that could possible alienate the United States further: leaving many of our commitments by pulling out of NATO and other like organizations. That was precisely my point– even though we are already disliked in many regions, this would no doubt make is even further unpopular.
I dislike the U.N. very much, however, I am forced to admit that they are not without merit as an organization. In Darfur, to name one particular example, U.N. peacekeepers often awake to find literally thousands of refugees sleeping in and around their camps for fear that otherwise, they will be killed by roving bands of militia. I support the U.S. being the “fist of the United Nations” when they are working to kill genocide-loving, bloodthirsty dictators.
I entirely disagree– indeed, look at situations where the U.S. doesn’t intervene (either diplomatically or militarily): Darfur, Rwanda, Chechnya, post-Gulf War I Iraq, etc. While certainly one can point out examples of the U.S. making decidedly idiot mistakes (can you say Iran-contra?), this points, in my opinion, to the notion that we should simply make more good ones, not stop international engagement altogether.
This is, I think, the only instance of vitriolic name-calling in an otherwise civil and lucid post. I don’t view the U.S. as a shining, perfect nation, and I have very rational reasons for my beliefs.
This statement once again fails to answer what was a “meta” argument about the future of Iraq. Whatever one believes about the initial invasion, I think it is more than obvious that leaving now will embolden terrorists and create a base for further attacks– worldwide. We owe it to ourselves and our allies to ensure that such an environment is not created.
This is utter, and complete disengagement in world affairs, and it is isolationist, and it is unwise. If destabilizing Iraq is such a terrible crime (which it very well might be), why is destabilizing Korea any different? Also, note that I support removing troops from Europe, as does George Bush/Donald Rumsfeld– even the PNAC suggests this.
One of the unfortunate side effects of taking a stand in modern politics is that you are often lumped in with people who happen to be of the same opinion about one issue. Regarding Saudi Arabia: preach it, brother! I very much dislike Bush’s stance in that nation. Iran-contra? Stupid. Don Rumsfeld delivering military aid to Saddam Hussein? Idiotic. I do, however, take a realist view, and I think that Paul’s extremist notions of how to deal with many of these situations to be far, far overboard.
As the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth, I continue to believe that we have a moral imperative to better the lives of others where reasonable and sane– what you and I disagree on is what “reasonable” constitutes. I believe that we can do more than set an example at home– I believe we can do it all over the world. I believe in grain that says “a gift from the people of the United States of America”. I believe in removing fascist regimes and freeing peoples. I do not believing in propping up dictators with tax dollars, or allowing the Oil-for-Food program to enrich people like Saddam. In short, we disagree in means, not in ends.
It has been lovely having a dialog with you– once again, thank you for your exceedingly civil response. Glad to see that Paul isn’t only represented by the frothing that has characterized much of the comments on this post.
Oh, and:
And also with you.
curtisschweitzer
November 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm
[...] 15 11 2007 In this series, I have spent a great deal of time criticizing Ron Paul– from his immoral foreign policy to his outdated thoughts about the gold standard, and most recently to his dishonest and [...]
against ron paul, part iv: paul is the wrong choice for the gop « empty rhetoric
November 15, 2007 at 10:15 am
“The Iraq war was “sold” by false information”
Clearly, the war was “sold” to Congress and to the American people. I was one that bought in. I watched the presentation by Gen. Powell and said, “My God we better do something.” It was really the intellgience on unmanned drones that could spray chemical weapons over San Francisco that hooked me. Since I was in the Air Force at the time you would think I would have been wiser and realized that our defenses here at home would have prevented anything like that from occurring. So they sure “sold” me on the war, and later I found out I got a lemon without a warranty.
Iraq is more dangerous than when we entered it
This is misleading. Who cares if Iraq is more dangerous? Are any of us going to visit Iraq anytime soon? What he meant by this statement is that Iraq is now more dangerous to us. Or the area is now more dangerous to us. Before we attacked Iraq, the odds that a group or Iraqis were planning attacks on the US were low. Now that risk is greater. They have a motive.
We have created “blowback”, spawning more terrorists than before.
Blowback is real. And there are many other capitalist western societies that Bin Laden hasn’t attacked. Namely Austrailia and Canada. But the claim that we have created blowback is again a distraction from his defense platform. Its a simple argument: what is more affective? Attacking multiple Muslim countries and attempting to develop democracies or bring our troops home and change our port and immigration policies here at home? They can’t kill us here if they can’t get here. Thats where non-citizens shouldn’t have the same right to privacy as citizens. Its common sense. This advice is free by the way.
It has cost too much, both in lives and money
It has cost too much in lives an money, because the method I describe above accomplishes much more with less sacrifice.
Also I just wanted to add a comment about the morality of his foriegn policy. While the policy may be moral, out military was created to defend this country against all enemies foriegn and domestic. Nothing in the mission of the different military branches nor in the Constitution allows us to police and/or build other nations. While the examples of genocide throughout history are horrific, it has nothing to do with the security of this nation. Don’t confuse morality and the Constitution.
Jason
November 15, 2007 at 3:10 pm
If you believed that Powell was suggesting that Iraq was poised to attack the United States, I think you misconstrued what he was attempting to paint. This is an issue of significant complexity, the notion that a single nation that had destabilized the middle east on more than one occasion was actively pursuing ways to do so again, and in a manner that was unheard of in its scale and brutality.
The left– champions of the notion of “nuance”, would like to point this as a simple matter of George W. Bush lying about WMD to sell a war for various (conflicting) reasons. In reality, the argument was different: Iraq is pursuing (and, any conservative must admit, has) WMD and is a danger, especially in a post-9/11 world, where destabilization can and will eventually lead to death at home.
In the end, it was shown that Iraq had no WMD. It was also shown that Iraq was nonetheless pursuing it. It was shown that Iraq was a dangerous rouge state. It was shown that the Saddam regime was robbing billions in aid from his people. It was shown that Russia, China, and France were complicit in funneling enormous amounts of money into Iraq– and, it seems, Iraq’s military.
Indeed, after more than a decade of violating post-1991 agreements (and, I might add, firing on U.S. patrols of the no-fly zones every day for years) and throwing to the win any of obeying the standards set out by the international community, Saddam had already given the United States legal cause for war.
You’re misconstruing the argument. The notion that Iraq is more dangerous is indeed talking about the nation itself– as in, it is more dangerous than before we invaded. This is a big problem that many people have with the invasion– instead of liberation, we have conflict, instead of freedom, we have fear. I think I’ve made the case why it is worth struggling through the danger and fear in order to create a safer Iraq, both for Iraqis and for the United States. Ron Paul would abandon this, and allow Iraq to fall into violence and chaos, which has shown time and time again throughout recent history to spawn more violence against the United States, not less. (Indeed, see Ron Paul’s own platform for examples– it is ironic that he cannot see that many of his criticisms of neoconservative policy do not bode well for his own views on Iraq)
You ignore the fact that Bin Laden has attacked and indicted many other nations, and that Al Qaeda has openly called for violence against them. In addition to this, you once again beg the question by assuming your premise– that we will be safer if we with draw from Iraq– in your conclusion, which is, go figure, that we will be safer if we withdraw from Iraq. Indeed, this entire paragraph is one giant tautology that doesn’t really advance a line of argument, but instead childishly repeats a worn and tired line from Paul’s playbook.
Again, you’re begging the question here, as my assertion is that Paul’s platform will accomplish nothing beyond making the United States less safe. There is an argument to this, based on the notions that withdrawing from Iraq will embolden terrorists as well as give them a safe have from which to launch further attacks. Accomplishes more? Certainly. For terrorists.
Again, you completely sidestep the argument that it should be the job of the military to secure peace throughout the world. I would also note that so many of the police actions that Paul and his legions of thoughtless zealots decry area actually a function of protecting the United States by fostering a safer world. So I’m actually arguing that the military should protect/defend/etc. by engaging in police actions– and thus I’m not even violating your own view of the Constitutional role of the military. Its up to you to argue against that, not simply state the same opinion again and again. (Namely, “Paul is more constitutionally based… because Paul is more constitutionally based…”)
As you can see, I’m not confusing morality or the Constitution for either. I’m actually arguing for a moral enforcement of it. That it disagrees with what you believe to be the Constitutional role of the military is obvious– what you haven’t done is show why, and instead allowed your rhetoric to descend into simple, childish, name-calling.
Which, to be fully honest, is pretty much the only thing I’ve actually received from most Paul adherents (notable exceptions above) who have by in large have reduced this discussion to simple name-calling and Paul worship.
curtisschweitzer
November 15, 2007 at 3:42 pm
And the neo-cons approve of water boarding while our own army refuses to use such methods AND regardless of the fact that we sent others to forced labor camps as war criminals for water boarding. I’m sorry, how can you take the moral high ground here and say Paul is immoral for opposing coercion? Non-profits and churches used to help with these humanitarian issues until they were regulated into unimportance by the government and the government started taxing us and deciding exactly where our money deserved to go. I’m sorry, but how can you argue that war helps prevent genocide while we facilitate tens of thousands of civilians being killed in Iraq. The U.S is acting like the strongest mob boss on the block who behaves like all ends justify the means. You really have a lot of balls calling Ron Paul immoral.
Hooser
November 15, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“what you haven’t done is show why, and instead allowed your rhetoric to descend into simple, childish, name-calling.”
I enjoy having a dialogue with you on this subject and I am a very reasonable guy and would never resort to childish name calling. Read my post again, I never called you a name nor did I attack you for your beliefs. I was simply stating what I believe. SInce I am at work and should be working I took the risk of giving a breif response to your blog without any objective evidence to support my opinion, but in no way was attempting to use the same old tired rhetoric. When I get home I’ll try again with a little bit more objective evidence for my opinion.
I find it frustrating though that when someone comes along like Ron Paul that conservatives has been dreaming of (with the exception of his antiwar stance) and then they attack him for all these things they’ve have been preaching about for the last 10 years, just because they want to continue the war in the middle east. I’d be willing to sacrifice my security (even though I don’t believe what were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan keeps me safe) for true liberty. I think with my gun I can defend myself.
Jason
November 15, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Who knows on what your dislike for Ron Paul is based, but it has blinded your objectivity and ability to discern reality from fabrication. Or, perhaps you’re just an idiot.
One thing is for certain. On the debate floor, nine out of ten Ron Paul supporters would embarass you beyond belief.
Do yourself a favor… stop wasting your time blogging. You can’t spin worth a crap.
USAF Vet Dan
November 16, 2007 at 9:49 am
Jason–
What I call name calling is the insistence that no-one respects the constitution except Ron Paul. What respect for the constitution means is precisely what we’re debating, and so I think vilifying your opponents is name-calling.
USAF Vet Dan–
Clearly, the Ron Paul debaters that you think would “embarrass” me don’t include you. Sadly, I can’t say that I would embarrass you– at least, any more than you already embarrass yourself.
curtisschweitzer
November 16, 2007 at 6:48 pm