Friday, February 26, 2010

Ron Paul's Conservative Foreign Policy

Posted by Jack Hunter on Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:09 AM

When Ann Coulter praised Ron Paul at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., the right-wing author and provocateur said she supports everything the congressman stands for except foreign policy. This wasn’t the first time Coulter made this point.

Said Coulter at CPAC in 2008, “I must say I love Ron Paul on everything but Iraq.” Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”

Coulter is essentially saying that when it comes to foreign policy-ignorance is bliss. Quite literally, conservatives can no longer afford this willful ignorance.

Being pro-war is to the mainstream Right what global warming is to the Left-an unassailable dogma that is integral to their respective political identities. Like global warming, believing in the righteousness and necessity of the “war on terror” is an act of political faith, and any heretic who holds challenging views is not to be tolerated-hence conservatives like Coulter, refusing to even listen.

And yet questioning government, especially on something as important and expensive as foreign policy, is unquestionably a conservative exercise. Much like conservatives have done when considering national healthcare, cap-and-trade and federal stimulus, is it “liberal” simply to consider a cost/benefit analysis of America’s recent foreign adventurism? Speaking at CPAC this year, retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski noted: “The phrase ‘war on terror’ has been used to justify trillions of dollars in spending, hundreds of thousands of new government positions, and thousands of new government contracts. At the same time, the ‘war on terror’ has produced very little in terms of new technology or enhanced security, has vastly increased the degree of national centralization, and has created many new permanent trees and branches in the gnarled world of federal and state institutions.”

Mainstream conservative’s usual retort to those who question US foreign policy is that national security is a top priority, for which any cost is justified. This is true. But is it possible that our government is as reckless with foreign policy as it is in every other sphere? During his speech at this year’s CPAC, Ron Paul made this distinction: “There’s nothing wrong with being a conservative, and come up with a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don’t go to war so carelessly.”

Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives later, too many right-wingers will still not consider-much less admit-that we went to war with Iraq carelessly. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda? Did Saddam Hussein really threaten the US? These questions are never asked, and are even considered treasonous by many conservatives. Allegedly to reduce the terrorist threat, we are now escalating our war in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan, eyeballing Yemen and placing sanctions on Iran. How do any of these military actions abroad stop future “shoe bombers” or “underwear bombers” from striking at home? What does any of this have to do with America’s national interest and how does it make us safer? Few conservatives are connecting these dots or asking the obvious questions. On this subject, blindness to government incompetence and recklessness is now considered conservative.

Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11—spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head?

Read the entire article

Topics: National Politics
  |  

Comments (12)

Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment

Saying that you agree with Ron Paul except for his foreign policy is like saying you like apple pie except for the apples. There is only one way to accept Ron Paul's thinking and that is in its entirety. The whole thing forms a moral entity and to pick and choose is to undermine its coherent beauty.

Now I am writing this from my home in the UK. I will tell you this Ron Paul is unique so take advantage while you can because you will not see his like again.

report   
Posted by Reader Out of State on February 26, 2010 at 1:31 PM

There used to be a lot of Americans who believed in sound money, Constitutional restraint, no empire building, no trillion dollar bailouts, division of Federal powers, balanced budgets and the rule of law.

Now there's very few. Ron Paul is one of the last. Our two major parties are obviously corrupt. Bush rushed us into Iraq (based on lies). Obama was the "peace president" and military budgets are up. And more troops are deployed.

We could have chosen Ron Paul when we had the chance.

Do we deserve a second chance?

report   
Posted by Simon9 on February 26, 2010 at 7:49 PM

There are basically two Jack Hunter columns:

1. I swear I am not a racist, or maybe I am a racist, but the left is hypocritical too.

2. Vote for Ron Paul, he can be your surrogate father too.

After that, there isn't much in the tank.

report   
Posted by Mario Delgado on February 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM

I'm not convinced that total withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East will not embolden a future 9/11. And I'm not convinced that total deregulation of business and tax breaks for the wealthy really have a trickle-down effect that benefits us average joes.

I also believe that the military-industrial complex has become such a juggernaut that nothing can stop it now, not even a majority vote to limit its funding or power.

report   
Posted by Brad Bailey on February 27, 2010 at 4:54 AM

Neocon political aspirations in the Middle East is the root cause to the USA being attacked, Our war in Iraq, Afghan and soon to be Iran. Yelling conservative media has swayed the illiterate masses into supporting the neocon agenda of preempted war in the Middle East & Asia and supporting Israel with billions of dollars each year with the new crusade to wipe out Islam. BEWARE “Evangelical Neo-cons Independents” pretending to be in Ron Paul Libertarians.

report   
Posted by gadsen on February 27, 2010 at 5:58 AM

The Conservative Religious Right's reluctance to accept Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy is, I believe, based on their adherence to Biblical prophecy and their absolute fear of including our support for Israel in military and financial cutbacks. Let's face it, our involvement in war since Vietnam has been based mostly on oil and the Middle East. Our interests in the Middle East are obvious, but Israel has been appointed our stepchild since its "reinstatement", and the Reli-Cons are fearful of being struck by lightning if we demand that Israel be as accountable as everyone else in the way it conducts itself globally. Zionism has replaced real Judaism, just as NeoConservatives have replaced real Republicans. People like Ann Colter have big fear of speaking the truth about Israel, refusing to act on that truth by calling Israel on its gross abuse of America's trust and support. Anti-Americanism has been magnified by the Zionism embedded in American politics. Americans don't choose to see it, but the rest of the world sees it clearly. Real Republicans are going to have to face the truth and separate religion from politics when it concerns their blind obedience to Biblical dictates. My opinion is that the preservation of our great American life will prevail as we lose our unreasonable fears of questioning Israel. Are you listening Ann Colter????

report   
Posted by Vanya on February 27, 2010 at 7:57 AM

I am always surprised Vanya at the strength and power of the Israeli influence over so much of western policy. It is a small nation of about 3 million yet it dominates much of the western world. I can not see the rational behind this at all. This does not give the West influence in the Middle East but in fact undermines our relationship with the rest of the region.

report   
Posted by Reader Out of State on February 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM

A fundamental goal of the neocons is to advance the interests of Israel. Since the 1980s, neocons have taken over the Conservative movement and have gained a leading role in the Republican Party. The neocons’ perceive American interests to be the same as Israel’s interests. Their major agenda, which reflects Likudnik strategy, is to weaken and fragment Israel’s enemies. They were the major force in pushing for war on Iraq. Currently, they have been joined by the entire Israel Lobby in pushing for war on Iran.
The Christian Right supports this policy for religious reasons. Many conservatives support the US wars in the Middle East for (misguided) patriotic reasons. One can understand why current leaders of the Conservative movement, such as Coulter, are anti-Paul, since they have come into power after the neocon takeover. Ron Paul’s support at CPAC is an indication that neocon hegemony in the Conservative movement might be weakening, at least among the grassroots. But the neocons and their minions, such as Coulter, are fighting to prevent Paul’s supporters from gaining any real power in the Conservative movement at higher levels.

For the neocons’ background see:
Stephen J. Sniegoski
The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel
http://tinyurl.com/transcabal

report   
Posted by Observer on February 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM

If you read Ron Paul's book, REVOLUTION, you will see that Ron Paul is not anti Israel. He is not against our military either. He is for a strong national defence. He is against undeclared wars, preemptive wars, empire-building and foreign alliances which drag us into unnecessary conflicts as were the founding fathers.
Israel will be much better off if they are free to defend themselves as best they see fit. They lost the war with Lebanon because of the interference of the U.S. and the U.N.

report   
Posted by LRA on February 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM

We should live Israel alone, and Israel should do the same. Israel lobby has too much influence and brought too manu troubles to America. We should not support this little state, should not give them money, should not cover their crimes in UN.

report   
Posted by parvus on March 1, 2010 at 4:41 AM

Karl Rove calls the 2003 U.S.-led invasion the most consequential act of the Bush presidency and a justifiable response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, even though Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network, not Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, were responsible.

report   
Posted by gadsen on March 3, 2010 at 5:54 AM

Couldn't the US protect Israel better by providing a safe and stable land to flee to rather than striking wildly at Israel's neighbors? Israel has been scattered plenty of times throughout history, has it not? Let them come here and thrive and bring additional wealth to this nation. If God wants them to have that strip of land, there is no doubt that they will get it.

report   
Posted by SouthernRolly on March 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
By Email
With RSS
Showing 1-12 of 12

Add a comment

Classified Listings
{ more } Recent Comments
{ more } Reader Reviews

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2012, Charleston City Paper   RSS