The Ron Paul foreign policy question

I haven’t spent any time delving into the debate surrounding the foreign policy of Ron Paul, but since election year is upon us now seems as good a time as any. Paul supports a foreign policy based upon non-intervention, not isolationism. Of course, many even debate that, but that is not my focus today. He is on record that America has reaped much of what it has sown by our policy of meddling in the affairs of foreign nations. Thus, he supports no foreign aid whatsoever and no compacts or allegiances either. Then there is the 9/11 debate in which he believes we helped to exacerbate our tragedy by inflaming militant Islam with our interventionist policies.

The answer appears to lie in what importance you place upon the threat posed by radical Islam. We are said to be in a war on terror. This can be true or untrue depending upon your interpretation. So much of the conflict in the world today is all about interpretation. The fundamental challenge for the Muslim world today is the interpretation of the Quran and Islamic beliefs. For not only does the Bible promise the Jews their Holy Land, so does the Quran. The Jihadists of today yearn for days gone by when true Islam ruled. These Islamic Fundamentalists reject the Western culture as well as Jews and Christians who don’t convert to Islam. This is where Paul is wrong on his assertion that adopting a policy of non-intervention will serve to pacify the Arab world and prevent terrorist attacks on the United States.

Islamism rejects our way of life. The very fact that it exists, not just the notion of us intervening in Arab affairs. Paul’s philosophy would be acceptable to a majority of the Arab world. Afterall, as I said earlier, even the Quran itself recognizes the fact that the Jews were promised their Holy Land. Their objection lies in Muslims recognizing and submitting to Jewish rule on their own land. They’ll never do it as we’ve seen that still today they refuse to recognize the State of Israel because of where its border lie. They’ll allow a Jewish settlement in Palestine, but never a State. A Paul non-intervention edict would serve peaceful Muslims well.

However, the threat to America doesn’t come from peaceful Muslims. That’s why it shouldn’t be called a war upon terror. It’s an ideological war. In the eyes of Islamic Fundamentalists, America will never be accepted nor allowed to even exist. Period. Thus, intervention or not, makes no difference. Ron Paul’s idea of live and let live will make no difference to those who wish for America’s demise.

America never had a problem in the Middle East until the last century. Some blame it on American Zionist Jews who have steadily grown in influence and want to see their Biblical promise of the Holy Land come to fruition. This is where todays conspiracy theorists take root blaming American and Israeli Zionist Jews for events such as 9/11 in an effort to draw America into a war against Muslims and thus be the conduit that will finally deliver the promised Holy Land which resides partially today in Palestine. Whether true or not, we’ve seen the results. Perpetual war in Arab countries. Syria next? Iran? Who knows.

This is why Paul is such a threat to the establishment. His policies are a threat on many fronts. The military-industrial complex and the Zionists are at the head of the line. But when you contemplate what effect Ron Paul’s foreign policy will have on our safety, there really is only one answer. Non-intervention won’t keep us safe. Convert or die is the motto of militant Islam and we will be attacked again as long as they exist. As will other Western countries and Arab as well if they are seen to be weak against the West.

The Bible teaches that any one or any nation that supports Israelis, or the State of Israel, will be blessed and those that don’t will be cursed. That can be construed as reason enough for America’s support of Israel, at least in the eyes of Christians and Jews. Are our intentions noble in the Middle East? Is this why we support Israel or is it because of oil? Certainly we have turned our back on Israel many times in the last century and Obama is no exception. Whether or not America is just toeing the line between pacifying Israeli and Arab interests in the Middle East in order to maintain enough stability in the region to keep the oil flowing is another debate entirely.

So when you prepare for the ballot box and consider Ron Paul, consider this. A policy of non-intervention will not make us any safer at least in the eyes of radical Islam. However, it can be said that by focusing our military budget and forces more on the home front, we will actually be safer overall. Keeping the troops home and protecting our borders would lead one to logically believe we would safer unless you believe that homegrown terrorists sympathetic to the Jihadists are the primary threat and thus our military protecting the borders won’t matter. Will Ron Paul abandon all aspects of the Bush doctrine that pre-emptively go after radical Islam abroad? That’s debatable. He supports efficient wars where warranted in which we don’t nation build, we just go win and be done. Will he allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and possibly attack Israel? We are currently in a covert war against Iran to stop just that. Would he halt it? I can’t answer that.

As you can see, there are no definitive answers and probably never will be. It would seem illogical to believe that we could ever defeat an ideological enemy through violence. Can you kill enough Jihadists to actually serve as an impediment to their recruitment? Can they be disillusioned enough to give up their ideology? More debatable questions. It would seem that Arab leaders and teachers of the Muslim faith will ultimately determine this. It’s taken 14 centuries for Islam to evolve to this point so we’ll see where the next one takes us.

I don’t believe it’s ever possible to remove all threats from radical Islam both domestically and abroad. Teachers of Muslim faith may eventually succeed, but that will take many years. I also don’t think you can definitively answer the Ron Paul question. It will just fall back unto what your definition of safer is.

18 thoughts on “The Ron Paul foreign policy question”

  1. I think you have laid out the problem rather well. The question of Ron Paul’s foreign policy really doesn’t have a definitive answer. That is unfortunate, but the reality of the issue.

  2. I see it as yet another one of those issues in which you can make your case no matter which way you lean. So for the undecided who may be looking at Paul for the first time, it will likely come down to the slant provided by their source of information.

  3. I agree that eliminating foreign aid will not save us from terror threats within our own boarders. However, neither will continuing foreign aid. The terror threats faced from radical Islam will now always be a battle we will face here in our own country and we must rely on counter terrorism to stop these threats though we will never stop them all. Staying overseas and attacking every country with relations to radical Islam will not defeat the idea of radical Islam. It’s a belief a that’s not something any attack can take away. The benefit of bringing all foreign aid home is that it will allow us to save huge amounts of money every year as well as allow us to focus on our national defense which in turn will create a much safer nation and stronger military. The point is will having no foreign aid save us from terror threats on our own land and eliminate all danger to the US. No. Will it give us a chance to build a much stronger national defense and a better military. Without a doubt.

  4. It will just fall back unto what your definition of safer is.

    Well, yeah. Isn’t that what we’re arguing?

    adopting a policy of non-intervention will serve to pacify the Arab world and prevent terrorist attacks on the United States.

    I think it would greatly reduce the odds of another 9/11-scale attack, but nothing, I repeat, nothing can eliminate the possibility. Not the wars, not the police state, nothing.

    I like to look at past predictions, and the philosophy and methodology behind them. Time allows us to judge whether they were right or wrong and why. For example, if there is such a thing as a “true conservative,” undeniably it would be Russell Kirk. 10 years prior to 9/11, he said our meddling the the ME would lead to such a catastrophe in our own backyard. Kirk’s reasoning reads as if it was authored by Osama bin Laden himself (gasp!). Now compare Kirk’s prognosis with, say, war cheerleader William Kristol. It’s as bad (if not worse) than the old arguments between Hayek and Keynes regarding economics. Like Keynes before him, Kristol should be so discredited by now that he’s at best serving fries at McDonald’s.

    The philosophy and methodology of Kirk not only led to the correct answer, but was able to explain why. Yet we’re supposed to continue believing the fantasies of those who got it all wrong? And dismiss those who got it right as “looney” and “unAmerican?” Certainly, this is what the mainstream insists.

    Then there’s the money problem … and the police state problem (courtesy of the, uh, “war on terror”) …

    We can worry about non-interventionist foreign policy if we want, but current foreign policy is undefendable and unsustainable. We can worry about radical Islamists if we want, but we’re fools to believe surrendering our liberty and nation-building will “keep us safe.” We’re even bigger fools to believe that “keeping us safe” is the sincere intent of our Establishment rulers.

    Power is not patriotic. Power is not love. Power corrupts. Power is evil.

  5. I support no foreign aid strictly from an economic perspective alone. There’s also a potential danger we don’t talk about if we return the troops home and end the foreign aid. What we want is for our military to defend our borders only. Fighting home-grown terrorists is an FBI responsibility. I can easily see the lines being crossed between the DHS, the FBI and our military. We don’t want to end up with our military being utilized under the justification that the entire U.S. is a battlefield (as in the NDAA they just passed) to police our citizens. I think this is a great concern and can easily see it happening.

  6. I think it would greatly reduce the odds of another 9/11-scale attack

    Can’t see why. They hate our culture, our way of life. Their interpretation of the Quran dictates that we must convert or we must die. That makes it quite clear. Doesn’t matter if we’re attacking them or not, giving foreign aid to their enemies or not. So a non-intervention policy won’t matter. It’s not a hornets nest we’re stirring up and making mad, it’s an ideology that exists regardless of our actions.

    But that’s the point of the post. If you’re a Paul skeptic, don’t let the foreign aid policy questions be the deciding factor, because radical Islam ideology states that it doesn’t matter either.

  7. Great post. In order to understand Ron Paul’s position you must understand his philosophy. He is a constitutionalist in the strictest sense. He places liberty on a very high pedestal where it belongs and anything he believes is a threat to it he attacks. The FED, the Department of Education, Income Taxes, over regulation, entitlement programs, the EPA, and yes our interventionist policies. He is man who understands history and realizes that a nation that remains in a continuous state of war is a nation that is slowly dying. As war wages on, liberties are lost, new philosophies (or should I say old) are formed about the role of government in our daily lives and executive power is increased. Since 9/11 we have lost a great deal of liberties in the name of fighting the war on terror. The Patriot Act, the DHS was formed, The TSA, and just the other day President Obama sign a reworded NDAA that still authorizies the indefinite detention of American citizens who have suspected ties to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups who were involved in the planning and carrying out of the 9/11 attacks. Do all these departments and acts make us safer? Maybe, maybe not. The one thing I do know is that since 9/11 American citizens have lost a great deal of freedom and liberties in the name of security. They have freely traded their liberties to feel safer. Maybe the real question should be, are you safer with liberty or without it? I know how the Founders would answer that question.

  8. Can’t see why.

    It goes back to the philosophy and methodology of the analysis. To keep it simple, I provided 2 opposing views – Kirk and Kristol. Kirk got it right and was able to explain why. Kristol got it wrong and made excuses.

    Do they “hate our culture, our way of life?” Probably, but that isn’t why they attacked on 9/11. Kirk explained why. Hell, Wolfowiz and the 911 commission explained why. Bin Laden told us point blank!

    It’s not a hornets nest we’re stirring up and making mad, it’s an ideology that exists regardless of our actions.

    Human nature is what it is … You can’t starve, occupy, and bomb the shit out of people without consequence. People don’t love foreign armies. People don’t love states that kill their friends and family. People hate it. Passionately. And they will eventually strike back.

    To think the US federal government can do what it has done militarily around the globe for decades without consequence is absurd. They may hate our culture, but they hate the federal government’s bombs a whole lot more.

    Actions (especially military actions) have consequences. Always and everywhere. They do not exist (regardless) in a vacuum.

  9. As if there’s a realistic way to stop Iran fro developing nukes (which they’re no where near accomplishing in the first place). And that link? Jeez o peet. I love a good debate. But nobody outside of 5etester will attempt to take on the substance, resorting to mindless name-calling and unresearched smears instead. That picture? Obviously taken at a book signing. Look at the background. Would you prefer Paul has the FBI do a background check on every idiot who stands line? Yeah, freedom! But hey, self-styled “conservatives” have joined the PC Brigade.

    And anyone who thinks disagreeing with foreign policy makes someone “anti-American” has swallowed too any statist red pills. My God, the citizens of a country founded in bloody revolution against their own government now think the state, specifically its foreign policy arm, is America herself? Pathetic. Weak. Embarrassing.

    Americans have truly become the Israelites who demanded a king.

  10. Do they “hate our culture, our way of life?” Probably

    No, definitely. They’ve said so and proved it all over the world not just with attacks on America, but other Western cultures as well.

    Look, we’re not debating the fallout from our policy of intervention. That’s an obvious conclusion. Just to reiterate the point of the post again, I’m only saying that the Paul undecideds shouldn’t make or break on foreign policy. We wouldn’t see the armaggedon his detractors predict and we wouldn’t see a reprieve from the radical Islamist threat either.

  11. In defense of Paul, whom I’m not voting for by the way so I’m not a Paul apologist, he has been an extremely consistent supporter of the Constitution. If he doesn’t see justification for it in that document, he won’t support it, and that’s why he holds the foreign policy that he does. How many people who claim to fully support the Constitution from the left, right or center can say the same? Many people still want exceptions for certain things, in this case, national defense.

  12. Whoops, I’ve hit a nerve. I mean no offense by speaking my mind.

    My point is not that we can definitely stop Iran. My point is that words matter, and can have a positive or negative affect worldwide. My point is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy statements are dangerously naive, and the Ron Paul ad which Missy Sandbox embedded illustrates this.

    In fact, that ad goes beyond dangerous naivety and directly insults this nation, by saying we are no better than a “Chinese base in Texas” scenario. I can understand why some would characterize that as an anti-American stance.

    The photo–I didn’t pay it much mind, because I don’t know Stormfront and I chose not to research it. I read Missy Sandbox regularly, however, and find her very thorough.

    “unresearched smears,” “the PC Brigade,” “swallowed too many statist red pills,” “Pathetic. Weak. Embarrassing.” “demanding a king.”

    Uh, for someone who decries name-calling, you’re pretty adept my friend.


  13. Ron Paul promotes the teachings of Robert Pape in what drives his foreign policy and his belief that our intervention policy is what drives terrorist attacks as retribution. Here is an op-ed –

    Turns out that Robert Pape is tied to CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which has ties to Hamas. In fact, he spoke at one of their banquets –

    CAIR has been active for years in dismissing the threat of radical Islamic ideology as a reason for terrorist attacks and promoting Islamophobia instead. You may wish to discount the link, but when Ron Paul’s views align with Robert Pape and CAIR, it won’t sell well.

    Don’t take me wrong. I don’t support a policy of intervention and am not promoting it. I’m simply saying we won’t be any safer from radical Islamist’s if we withdraw from Arab countries. It’s dangerous for us to have a policy that sees us meddling incessantly in other nations affairs, however, it’s also dangerous to give the impression that non-intervention will make us safer when it comes to radical Islam.

    If Ron Paul were to say that he doesn’t support intervention because it’s not authorized in the Constitution, because we can’t afford it and because it WILL make us safer with the EXCEPTION of religious zealots, then the whole debate diffuses somewhat. He then needs to address a strategy for dealing with these radical religious sects. They have publicly stated their beliefs and that they are waging Jihad on America. That’s a declaration of war and we should have a deliberate response. Promoting a policy of being nice and assuming that it will make them less hostile doesn’t sell. I think he could win over a lot more on the right who assume he will let down our guard and see us get attacked if he outlined a clear policy on dealing with ideologically driven terrorists.

  14. It’s not that Ron Paul’s worldview puts him at odds with long-established robust foreign policy tradition of American conservatism. The Congressman’s ad smears our military puts him squarely in anti-American category.
    The Stormfront picture is there to illustrate the connection between Ron Paul and the Neo-Nazis; the text of my post details the connection. I’m not taking anything out of context. My post is complete with multiple links. If I got something wrong I’d like to know what it is that I got wrong. And if I’m right, nothing I said is a smear. It’s only smear if it’s untrue.
    “Self-styled ‘conservatives'” who criticize Ron Paul’s persona and foreign policy include about 3/4 of the conservative internet, National Review and Rush Limbaugh — to name a few. If’s that’s “Pathetic. Weak. Embarrassing.” then nothing’s wrong with being “Pathetic. Weak. Embarrassing.”

Comments are closed.