Ron Paul is a challenge to the Establishment. His position on foreign policy is outlined.
by Fearless Citizen
(libertarian)
Monday, November 7, 2011
This is a blatant attempt by the powers that be to pull enough votes away from the Republican nominee (assuming Ron Paul is not nominated) to make the general election an automatic win for Obama. It's so blatantly obvious that it is laughable. Ron Paul has clearly stated many times that it's not going to happen. When will this die?
However, it is also a subtle game of intellectual dishonesty in which the Establishment wants to put into your mind the false thought that Ron Paul isn't electable enough to be the GOP nominee or the President. Simply, it is perception which is being molded by the media who are, in reality, controlled by the Establishment. You will rarely see any news on the TV, radio, or on the internet that gives a true representation of Ron Paul's ideas, only the all-too-common blanket statement that he "isn't electable". Well, you know what? If you say it, or hear it, or read it enough times and you are uninformed or falsely informed, you begin to take it as the truth.
Let's address one of the more common misconceptions about Ron Paul. Probably the most concerning part of Ron Paul's policies is foreign policy. There is a common misconception that Ron Paul is weak on national defense. It simply is not the case and defies logic. What President in history has sat back and taken a beating from another country? NONE. It simply does not happen and it would not happen if Ron Paul was president. Where does the misconception come from then? Well, Ron Paul is typically forced to keep his message fairly short in media interviews, and even shorter in the debates. It is difficult to explain such a complex position in short sound bites. The media and those who consume that news then take the sound bites and perpetuate misrepresentations of his ideas. It's spin.
Ron Paul frequently states that he would bring home the troops as soon as possible because nation-building is the same as military adventurism and is not a position that promotes national defense. This is usually where the media outlets stop their analysis and many times will lead citizens to believe that he is weak on foreign policy. It simply is not true. What doesn't get through the media filter is that Ron Paul also wants the troops home to strengthen our defenses on our borders, not on the borders of some far-off lands. He realizes that we do not have to be involved in multiple foreign wars to protect the nation. I believe that Ron Paul would take a position of increased border security on both land and the coasts of America. I believe that he would allow the appropriation of money to pay for new military technology as long as it was intended to be used strictly for defense, never for offense.
Ron Paul points out that there is a big difference between national defense and military adventurism. Our current foreign policy is heavily engaged in nation-building operations which do little to serve national defense and in many cases lead to the eventual development of hatred towards the United States. I don't think that anyone would argue that having an occupying force in your nation would eventually lead to animosity towards the occupiers.
The way that we have spread our troops out also weakens our ability to defend the borders of the United States from the covert actions of other countries that would seek to do us harm.
Less frequently, Paul has said that if a country tried to pose a imminent threat to us, that he would use the proper Constitutional channels to have war declared. This is the best position to take as a leader. It inspires confidence in the citizens to know that their President is willing to follow the law. Contrast that with the mess that Obama got us involved in with Libya. If you have a feel for Ron Paul's philosophy you would understand that he would make sure a declared war would be prosecuted as efficiently and quickly as possible, according to the Constitution. I don't think he really likes to talk about war simply because he doesn't like war. I don't think anyone really "likes" war, but some days I have to question that belief. Many people don't know, but shortly after 9/11, Ron Paul proposed that we use the Constitutional device of a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" to specifically target those responsible for 9/11. Nobody else in congress wanted to use this mechanism. At a minimum that should be disturbing to any citizen. Despite this, Ron Paul went ahead and voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan to go after those responsible. He believed in bringing justice to those responsible for 9/11. However, as we all know, Afghanistan later turned into a nation-building exercise that spilled over into Pakistan, and the situation and goals are now much less certain.
Regarding the situation with Iran, Ron Paul wants to take the approach of diplomacy. It worked to contain the threat posed by the Soviet Union, and we should always try diplomacy before we resort to a defensive posture. Many in the rest of the world now see the United States as an aggressor, no better than the Soviet Union of old that wanted to bring communism to the world. Paul wants to improve our relations with the world. He views this as a great opportunity to start the healing process.
If you take a look at the big picture and you link together the economy and our current foreign policy you quickly come to the conclusion that we cannot maintain a continuous military presence in so many countries. We are being defeated via a war on our economy. Taking a position of true defense rather than continuing a policy of military adventurism is the conservative position and will help lead us out of our economic issues at home.
The views expressed in this article are those of Fearless Citizen only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Fearless Citizen is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
