Posted on 02/04/2012 5:31:16 AM PST by IbJensen
After his fourth-place showing in Florida, Ron Paul, by then in Nevada, told supporters he had been advised by friends that he would do better if only he dumped his foreign policy views, which have been derided as isolationism.
Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?
Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul's views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain's seem to belong to yesterday's Bush-era bellicosity.
Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.
The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.
The defense budget for 2013 is $525 billion, down $6 billion from 2012. The Army is to be cut by 75,000 troops; the Marine Corps by 20,000. Where Ronald Reagan sought a 600-ship Navy, the Navy will fall from 285 ships today to 250. U.S. combat aircraft are to be reduced by six fighter squadrons and 130 transport aircraft.
Republicans say this will reduce our ability to fight and win two land wars at once — say, in Iran and Korea. Undeniably true.
Why, then, is Ron Paul winning the argument?
The hawkishness of the GOP candidates aside, the United States, facing its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit, can no longer afford to sustain all its alliance commitments, some of which we made 50 years ago during a Cold War that ended two decades ago, in a world that no longer exists.
As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, we must think and act anew.
As Paul argues, why close bases in the U.S. when we have 700 to 1,000 bases abroad? Why not bring the troops home and let them spend their paychecks here?
Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?
U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.
But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?
Answer: They are on the DMZ as a tripwire to bring us, from the first day of fighting, into a new land war in Asia that many American strategists believe we should never again fight.
Consider Central Asia. By pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and building air bases in nations that were republics of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the United States generated strategic blowback.
China and Russia, though natural rivals and antagonists, joined with four Central Asian nations in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to expel U.S. military power from a region that is their backyard, but is half a world away from the United States.
Solution: The United States should inform the SCO that when the Afghan war is over we will close all U.S. military bases in Central Asia. No U.S. interest there justifies a conflict with Russia or China.
Indeed, a Russia-China clash over influence and resources in the Far East and Central Asia seems inevitable. Let us get out of the way.
But it is in Europe that America may find the greatest savings.
During the Cold War, 300,000 U.S. troops faced hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops from northern Norway to Central Germany to Turkey. But not only are there no Russian troops on the Elbe today, or surrounding West Berlin, they are gone from Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Between Russia and Poland lie Belarus and Ukraine. Moscow no longer even has a border with Turkey.
Why, when NATO Europe has two nuclear powers and more than twice the population of a Russia whose own population has shrunk by 8 million in 20 years and is scheduled to shrink by 25 million more by 2050, does Europe still need U.S. troops to defend it?
She does not. The Europeans are freeloading, as they have been for years, preserving their welfare states, skimping on defense and letting Uncle Sam carry the hod.
In the Panetta budgets, America will still invest more in defense than the next 10 nations combined and retain sufficient power to secure, with a surplus to spare, all her vital interests.
But we cannot forever be first responder for scores of nations that have nothing to do with our vital interests. As Frederick the Great observed, "He who defends everything defends nothing."
I also have problems with his stand on drugs and prostitution and that he was for open borders before he was against them and has stated that now only drug smugglers want to come across anyway, even if he is running for president to fix our economy and create jobs, which of course add more illegals to the mix of those crossing the border. I also don’t like his association with stormfront and organizations that are primarily rascist. And then there was the remark that said we had nothing to fear from a nuclear Iran because they don’t have an ICBM capable of reaching the US, while ignoring they are close to if not already having one that would reach Israel and him obviously having no insight to ahkaninejad (don’t really care if I spell his name right or not)and his belief that when the 12th Iman comes their duty is to destroy Israel and they themselves will be destroyed and go to haeven with their 72 virgins. They are both NUTS. Paul has so many faults and negatives it is a waste of time and effort to even discuss anything he may happen to be right about.. Any one of these “issues” I have brought up would destroy a serious candidate, of course I don’t consider Paul a serious candidate
I do believe the US should pull out of Europe, not only because they are freeloading but because they are giving aid and comfort to an enemy : Islam
I sure don’t have all the answers to what you stated in your post, but if you think Ron Paul does or think he makes good sense, then you’re nuts.
Some things he has said have merit and I don’t have a problem in discussing them, only not in the context of RP or his campaign.
Romney's track record on gun control is pretty well known: he supports a ban on "assault weapons".
Gingrich voted FOR the Lautenberg Amendment, which means if you were were convicted of a misdemeanor crime of "domestic violence" even before the passage of the act, you can't own a gun (ex post facto gun-grabbing). link
Ron Paul has consistently voted against gun control.
Why is this issue so absent from the discussion?
Every other election, gun control has been a (if not the) deal-breaker issue.
It is now official. Pat Buchanan cares more about isolationism than illegal immigration. He is shilling for Ron Paul, even after Paul compared people who wish to reduce illegal immigration to Nazis.
Whatever he is, he is not a get-it-done conservative. What has the man accomplished, actually? I mean besides the speeches and books?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot, he was chief executive officer of a newsletter.
To be fair we must admit that with the majority of America’s Congress there wasn’t a way in hell that Dr. Paul’s proposals would make it through.
Imagine! Abolish the Fed, the DOE which was one of Jimmie Carter’s greatest achievements. Close up our foreign bases and bring those troops back to CONUS to spend their money at home.
Our devotion is not to Paul, it is to the alternative he represents. My opinion of Paul on foreign policy is that he is right for the wrong reasons.
I appreciate your level headed response and I respect your views although they do not represent mine. I’d like to go a little further and explain the comment on cult behavior I made, because I just came away from a very unhealthy experience.
Sadly, my experience with an individual who passionately supported Ron Paul was the pastor of my former church. His devotion to Congressman Paul was blinding to where he was mocking, openly mocking other GOP candidates in public forums. In December alone, his facebook page was 95% political commentary and 94% supportive of Ron Paul. The other 1% made reference to religion. When called out on it, he’d justify his actions and doubled down. This is why I found him cult like—perhaps I chose the wrong verbiage for this type of behavior. But it is disturbing.
As a private citizen his public mockery of the GOP field and assertions that Ron Paul was the only candidate walking a Christian faith was fine; as the pastor of a church representing his congregation, he crossed a boundary. And this is why he is the pastor of my FORMER church.
I'm sorry to hear it. I'll pray for your pastor, he is wrong if he is allowing his politics to alienate his church.
Although I am a Paul supporter, I also acknowledge that in the unlikely event that he could win, the consequences of his radical actions of reformation could be disastrous.
We can only trust in God, not in men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.