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.