Topher Morrison
From talk radio luminaries Rush Limbaugh to Glenn
Beck, from GOP candidates Mitt Romney to Rick Santorum, from think tanks the
Foreign Policy Institute to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and from
sea to shinning sea "conservatives" agree Ron Paul's foreign policy
is "nutty" even "misguided and
extreme." Really? History, a shrewd understanding of
geopolitics and advancements in technology tell us a different story.
"Ron Paul is one of the
outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former
Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always
puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
- Ronald Reagan
The Cold Warrior
If it wasn't already obvious looking back upon Ron
Paul's (R-TX) strong pro-individual voting record, communism is anathema to his
brand of Republican libertarianism. Since Dr. Paul's first election,
amidst the Cold War in 1976, he has been an avowed anti-communist. Not
only has he fought the domestic growth of collectivism, in the face of militant
communism abroad he has stood steadfast against attempts to undermine American
defense capabilities. This may be a surprise to many in the GOP and the
Tea Party, but the Air Force veteran was an anti-communist cold warrior.
That's right! While Ron Paul never championed the massive
stockpiling of nuclear weapons (only to be dismantled later or sold all over
the world) he vehemently opposed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II)
under President Jimmy Carter. In the October 1979 issue of his
"Freedom Report" he refused to capitulate to the naivete in Congress:
“Over
the past twelve years — years of almost constant disarmament negotiations — the
Soviet Union has outspent us on military offense and defense by 35% to 40%.
This, the greatest military build-up in the history of the world, has led to
rough equivalency between the USSR and the USA at best, and, at worst, clear
inferiority for America.”
Tired of political compromises and understanding that the Soviet Union was
taking advantage of our our good will and of those sympathetic and apologetic
to its cause, Dr. Paul consistently opposed these types of arms reduction
treaties. In his view these treaties would have further emboldened the
Soviet war-machine at the expense of US national security.
Years later in 1983, Ron Paul additionally opposed the nuclear freeze
initiative. In that year's issue of his "Freedom Report" he
captured the aggressive nature of the communist empire. “The American people want peace and freedom; the Soviets
desire world conquest”! He explained:
"The
Soviet rulers are willing to sign treaties only when they advance their plans
for conquest. The Soviets have violated SALT I and other treaties at least 27
times. The use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan is only the latest in the
long series of treaty violations. I am
unwilling to trust the security of the U.S. to the promises of the Soviet Union." [emphasis added]
Ron Paul instead of reaching mere nuclear parity with the Soviet Union wanted, like president Ronald Reagan, to turn the tables on them and push the defense paradigm into new territory. He believed the best offense was a strong defense, hence his support for the controversial Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or "Star Wars."
Dr. Paul was condemned by those opposed to "militarizing space" fearing its "provocative" nature would encourage commensurate posturing by the Soviet Union. Ron Paul understood as did General O. Graham progenitor of the "High Frontier space defense concept and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)" that the United States was already behind the Soviets in the militarization of space. According to Gen. Graham the U.S. "better believe there will be weapons in space. [Soviet missiles will] be flying right at us."
Rep. Paul defended his
position on SDI even as a libertarian during his first
presidential bid in 1988. Libertarians, strict advocates of non-interventionism, were concerned about the bellicosity of the "Star Wars" concept. Ron Paul, however, understood the program to be
the future of American defense and in fact, contrary to SDI critics, far less
provocative and more sensible than the far flung constellation of U.S. commitments
and awkward alliances it maintained around the globe:
“I think
that it’s worth doing research on SDI, but I would take the money out of the
money we spend overseas. Seventy percent of our military money is spent
overseas subsidizing rich allies [emphasis added] that should be spent on the defense of this
country, such as SDI."
(You were once able to see this televised interview,
but it has since been removed by Google and YouTube at the behest of ABC, CBS,
and Viacom Int. "Sorry about that.")
Ron Paul has undoubtedly beeen vindicated on this point as we have seen China now militarizing space. To be unprepared to fight a space based war against this growing power would be unwise. It looks as though, however, the U.S. Air Force might be siding with Paul's clairvoyance and longtime support for missile defense.
The Military Industrial Complex as a Foreign Entitlement Program
The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
- George Washington
After the Cold War ended presidents George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton never attempted to seriously reduce our military footprint abroad and allow Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea and others to protect themselves even though they had been successful, peaceful and modern economies for decades.
There continue to be "mavericks" like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and "conservatives" like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who've eschewed a recalibration of our force posture. While they lament and bemoan welfare queens at home their stubborn dedication to an antiquated Cold War alignment has allowed a world wide defense entitlement program for the wealthiest of nations to persist, all at the expense of the American tax payer and our economy.
For instance, as of 2011 Japan, Germany, Italy and South Korea are #3, #4, #8, #15 top economies in the world respectively, why must the American tax payer subsidize the defense budgets of these advanced and successful economies? (A list of U.S. military installations is fascinating to read; not to mention our "black sites.")
Mainstream GOP candidates rebuke Paul's desire to bring our troops home and sell our bases on the basis that "the world changed after 9/11" and that Ron Paul is somehow not in touch with modernity's demands. This trite little maxim exposes the irony of so called foreign policy conservatives.
The first charge of government is to protect its people, this is political science 101. By subsidizing foreign governments in this most basic task, especially those whom compete directly with American business (of which the aforementioned economies most certainly do) we are essentially assuming that role for the world and therefore are subsidizing foreign taxpayers! This subsidy allows them to forgo spending on their own defense and allocate funds to either their private sector in the form of tax cuts or to the public sector in the form of entitlement programs, what a deal!
While our presence in foreign countries may in fact give our American firms first dibs in key markets and curry favor with this or that regime, is this how we want to do business? Is this capitalism? The answer is no and no. In the end, our profligate military spending allows other nations to better compete against Americans for market share in the deliverance of goods and services, that much we can measure.
The symptoms of these warfare queens directly parallel the symptoms of the welfare state at home in dependency, distortions in the marketplace, entrenched special interests, bureaucracies, mission creep and self fulfilling prophecies. Just like a person dependent on welfare, a state (foreign and domestic) will become accustomed to defense subsidies, in other words, instead of dramatized and overblown personal tragedies searching for a bleeding heart warfare queens conjure and inflate threats to US national security in search for a policeman. Judge Andrew Napolitano from FoxNews on how national security agencies might create their own boogy men:
The Future Defense Initiative - Return, Rebuild,
Restrain
"...a passionate attachment of
one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases
where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the
other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the
latter without adequate inducement or justification."
- George Washington
We have spent nearly $700
billion on our military alone in FY 2010 and we have a $1.2
trillion "national security budget" for FY 2012, which by itself
has accrued $185 billion dollars in interest payments; to whom they pay this to
is another story entirely... The point is we spend approximately as much
on our own defense as does the rest of the planet, thus we can afford to take another look at how best
to allocate our precious resources.
Ron Paul for over 30 years has been consistent in his refusal to subsidize the
defense of other nations at the expense of the American taxpayer. By
supporting national defense not national offense he can return not only our
troops, but our dollars as well. The paradigm which holds that the ends
of our troops' bayonets is the beginning of the line separating the free world
from the barbarian hordes is, I think you'll agree, archaic and ineffectual (I
love a straw man don't you?).
But seriously, force projection is the name of the game in the 21st century and
people are frightened of losing it, especially when Ron Paul says he wants to
bring our troops home and doesn't thoroughly explain what they'll do when they
get here. Moreover, they are also concerned about the massive industry
built up around providing military technology. Companies like Boeing,
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grunman, etc. provide Americans with well paid high
tech jobs and untold amounts of ancillary technologies. Should you find
yourself in this category, I'm here to tell you: we can and will project force
and it will require a high tech military industrial complex.
If you are an avid reader of Wired's "Danger Room Blog" as I am, you
will understand that we have enough goodies piling up to make Santa blush: a $1
trillion jet with flaws almost as expensive, force fields a la Star Trek, robot dogs, a legion of
high tech drones ranging in size from blimps to
bugs, we have mini
nukes, flying 'terminators', and 8 more weapons that will blow you away
(including a hyper-sonic cruise missile capable of hitting any target on earth
within an hour, recently
successfully tested).
The dreams of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (now known as U.S.
Missile Defense) pale in comparison to the technological juggernaut that is
the U.S. military. This is the bedrock upon which to build a new military
for America's future and obviously the same reservoir of creativity to tap into
for creating the tools to fit the new model.
The United States currently boasts about 71 submarines (that we
know of), which enable our military to conduct surveillance, gather
intelligence, deploy covert special operations, precision strikes, battle group
operations, and sea denial missions anywhere on the planet. In sum, the
submarines are a fleet of vigilant and mobile nuclear sentinels hidden in the
world's ocean. There is no doubt, at the end of the world there will be
cocroaches and American submarines. The point is this, the future of
American force projection is expeditionary in nature predicated on speed and mobility.
 |
| Or U.S.S Ron Paul... |
The Joint
Mobile Offshore Base (JMOB) or interim techniques called Seabasing are the
most fascinating ideas since the revolutionary aircraft carrier. If Dubai
or the Japanese can build an entire island
for restorts and airports this is surely not beyond our skill set. A report
provided to Congress in 2000 said this technology was "feasible",
but the following year the Institute for Defense Analysis said the cost-benefit was not optimal considering
alternatives. As I have outlined there is more at stake than
dollars.
Ron Paul the Radical
People like Jamie Fly of
FPI may regard Ron Paul's "reckless
isolationism" as a result of his incorrigable niavete, but as I
have mentioned world wide socialism wasn't a goal of the Founders, it isn't a
goal of the United States nor is it a goal of its people.
"Isolationism" is drive by rhetoric and as Cleon Skousen aptly
surmized "separatism" is more appropriate language:
"This [is] far different from the modern term
of 'isolationism.' The... term implies a complete seclusion from other
nations, as though the United States were to be detached and somehow incubated
in isolation from other nations."
The idea Ron Paul would cut us off from the rest of the world like feudal Japan
is preposterous. In fact it is our business leaders and over 6,000
diplomats whom are the best ambassadors of American good will, cultural
exchange and prosperity not the U.S. military.
When it comes to Israel,
Ron Paul has been unequivocal in his opposition to our cozy relationship and
our foreign aid of this small socialist ethnocracy in the Middle East.
His "misguided and extreme" position is very unpopular in Washington
and earned him a non-invitation to the recent Republican Jewish Coalition
foreign policy debate.
The idea that Ron Paul's
restraint in entangling himself and our national interests with those of Israel
is tantamount to being anti-Israel or anti-semetic is patently absurd. In
fact he even stood up for Israel and against Ronald Reagan whom condemned Israel's attack on Iraq's
nuclear weapons facility in 1979! Then again was
Ronald Reagan a hawk or a dove?
In the end shouldn't we be listening to what our
troops have to say? Ron Paul has received more donations than any other
GOP candidate from active military personell. They obviously see
something in his foreign policy worth putting money on. I leave you with
this:
Peisistratos a popular tyrant who ruled Athens when it was a relatively inconsequential city-state during the 6th
century BC is a testament to Freeman’s thesis. Rather than oppress the
Athenian population through violence, as we understand modern tyrants
to do, Peisistratos, according to Aristotle and Herodotus, governed
idyllically, and dutifully preserved the proto-democratic reforms of the
Athnian statesman and lawmaker, Solon. He didn’t attempt to rout the
rule of law and in fact Aristotle wrote that “his administration was
temperate…and more like constitutional government than a tyranny.”
