RSS 2.0 FeedRon Paul: No Reason To Ever Go To War
by Doug MataconisRon Paul spoke with the Washington Post yesterday:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch military action or initiate a war, vowing instead to battle efforts he said are undermining the individual liberties of people in America.
In an interview with Washingtonpost.com’s PostTalk program, the Texas congressman said he could see “no reason” to justify military action if he were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.”
As I noted on Monday, foreign policy is probably the one area where Ron Paul and I part company. I agree with him on the Iraq War because it’s clear that we went into Iraq for unclear reasons and with no clear plan of how to either win the war or the peace, and it’s time to get out and let the Iraqis determine their own future. I opposed President Clinton’s interventions in the former Yugoslavia, and in Somalia. And, I agree that unprovoked military action against Iran over it’s nuclear program is both unwise and, in the end, probably unnecessary.
But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t times when military action is necessary.
Case in point: Afghanistan. The United States was attacked on September 11th by a terrorist organization with roots throughout the Middle East and funding sources equally as spread out. But it’s organizational and training headquarters were in Afghanistan, where it received protection and support from the Taliban-led government. The American response to the September 11th attacks, given al Qaeda’s involvement, the fact that it wasn’t the first time they’d attacked American interests, and the shelter being provided by the Taliban, was entirely appropriate. In the past, all the United States had done in response to al Qaeda attacks was lob a few cruise missiles at what we thought might be their bases, and you can see where that got us. In the end, the only acceptable alternative was to invade the country and destroy as much of their operation as we could. And, quite frankly, we shouldn’t have had to wait until 3,000 people lay dead before that happened.
The suggestion that America’s national interests begin and end at America’s borders, which is something that libertarians have asserted for some time and which Paul clearly seems to state in his response to the Post, just strikes me as naive. We don’t live in the world the Founding Fathers did, and we can’t pretend that anything that doesn’t strike the Atlantic seaboard isn’t a threat.
What about international shipping lanes ? The Panama Canal ? The world oil supply ?
None of these directly impact the territory of the United States, so one would assume that the isolationist response would be that we can safely ignore it. Well, I would’ve thought that we learned on December 7th, and again on September 11th, that doing that only leads to the world knocking on our door someday, with less than pleasant consequences.
The Navy is provided for in the Constitution, and Ron Paul has never said to the best of my knowledge that we should not maintain a Naval presence, or turn our Navy into the Coast Guard. Our Navy can do quite a bit of damage all by itself, not including our Airforce, and nuclear weapons arsenol.
No nation is ever going to attack because it would be suicidal in the nuclear age, not to mention pointless since there are enough guns in AMerica to Arm every man woman and child, not to mention we would still have the armed Services. We really only have to be concerned with little pissant terrorists, and they can be taken can of with letters of mark and reprisal.
Afghanistan could have been handled differently for a lot less money, not to mention that they would not be gunning for us if it were not for our support of Israel and the fact that we had troops in the middle east.
Comment by Johnnyb — October 12, 2007 @ 1:00 pmWatch the video, he said under current conditions. Of course there are points in time for war, but not this moment. Not Iran, not Iraq.
Comment by Brent — October 12, 2007 @ 1:00 pmDoug, the paper’s summary is misleading. If you watch/listen to the interview, Paul was clearly responding to the question of whether, under present circumstances, we’d have a need to go to war. He did not say we will never have a need; only that as things stand today, we don’t. I agree. We are not presently threatened by any other country, especially not by Iran. We are not going to defeat Islamic terrorism by invading Middle Eastern countries.
On your case in point, Paul did vote to authorize the operation in Afghanistan (which was launched a full month after the 9/11 attacks…so effective), but as you point out the threat should have been dealt with in a precise way before that, when we knew where bin Laden was and could have apprehended or killed him rather easily. Of course, that still doesn’t solve the al-Qaeda network problem, which is bigger than just OBL. The only way to eliminate suicide terrorism by Islamic jihadists – not all terrorism perhaps, but the worst, the suicide variety – is to pull our troops out of the region, stop occupying their lands and interfering by force with their socio-political landscape. Unless we do that, the attacks will continue.
Comment by David M — October 12, 2007 @ 1:15 pmDavid,
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 1:22 pmThis was an interesting article. One Thing: You cannot question Ron Paul about the War in Aghanistan; He voted for it!
I think his position was taken out of context and misunderstood by most people. Ron Paul would use force if we were attacked. The interviewer definitely would have received a much different response if he asked Ron Paul something like “what would you do if we were attacked or threatened by another nation?”
Comment by Robert Johnson — October 12, 2007 @ 1:23 pmOn Panama or World Oil supply I would say this.
The reason we do not need to defend Panama is that it is in Panama’s best interest to allow cargo through. The make large profits on that transit. And even if panama was blown up today there is 2 other options.
1. Most cargo comes to San Diego/West coast ports anyways. Just ship the stuff heading to the east coast on rail much like it is now. You might have to build some rail but honestly we could use more rail in this country.
2. With global warming being what it is; the Northwest Passage is now an option for shipping. This would not add much more time onto the trip vs the Panama route. The problem with this is it hopefully will only be available during mid summer.
On global Oil
If the US government was not so protectionist about the Oil supply. Allowing companies like Exxon to make billions in profits (and subsidies) then perhaps the market would bring some new technology to the table a bit more quickly.
Afgan….
Comment by B. Young — October 12, 2007 @ 1:25 pmI would rather see the Letters of Marque and Reprisal used for individuals like Osama. You put a 1 billion dollar price on his head and you will see him in an US jail within 3 months. Plus we would be saving trillions by offering that much.
In fact we could put a 1 trillion dollar price on his head and still save money.
Yeah, no one will ever attack us because of our nuclear capability. Hah!
What about 9/11? Geez
The truth is that our nukes are now worthless because we don’t have the political will to use them. If we can’t even go to Afghanistan or Iraq in such a relatively bloodless war without howls of protest, how are we going to incinerate entire cities with nukes? It’s laughable.
If we were to lose our conventional forces as well, then we would be a laughing stock and at the mercy of any nation that wants to push us around.
I feel so ashamed for ever associating with the Libertarian party. Since 9/11 and the parties shameful statements that the attacks were our own fault, I’ve been done with them. Libertarianism does not require pacifism, and our nation does not need people like Ron Paul.
Comment by Skyler — October 12, 2007 @ 1:26 pmThose words were taken out of context to paint him as an “isolationist”. C’mon Doug, you aren’t fooling anyone.
“The suggestion that America’s national interests begin and end at America’s borders, which is something that libertarians have asserted for some time”
This is not the Libertarian position, and never has been. Non-interventionism is not isolationism, this has been debunked 100 times over, will you get that through your greazy head doug.
Comment by brody — October 12, 2007 @ 1:32 pmLibertarian is not pacifism. They just believe in not attacking someone just because you can.
I like to equate it with John Boy up in the woods of TN. He will not mess with anyone else, likes to trade moonshine with the neighbors for some wacky tobacky and in general be at one with the world around him. But you get on his property and threaten or endanger his family, and you will find either a .357 or some buck shot inside your cranium.
It is not Pacifism. It is simply not being a bully just because you hold the biggest stick.
Comment by B.Young — October 12, 2007 @ 1:33 pmThe summary was misleading, but I think that was mostly Dr. Paul’s fault. I think he just did a poor job answering the question.
He has said on numerous occasions that he would go to war at Congress’s direction and that answer would have fit this particular question as well.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 12, 2007 @ 1:35 pmThat news article’s lead misrepresents the interview. Did you neglect to watch the interview video? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/10/11/VI2007101101200.html And are you not aware that Paul supported going into Afghanistan and voted for it?
Get a clue, dude. Your blogs are so ridiculous, I’m probably going to stop reading and responding to them.
Comment by Drena — October 12, 2007 @ 1:38 pmI don’t see how you can reconcile the logic of those two statements, Doug. Either we can correctly anticipate and prevent deeds with a high degree of certainty or we’re too fallible to run around trying to predict and manipulate the future.
Comment by Jeff Molby — October 12, 2007 @ 1:39 pmAl Qaeda had already proven it’s intention to target the United States going back at least to the African embassy bombings, if not sooner. Then we had the Khobar Towers attack, and the attack on the USS Cole.
We knew what these people were capable of, and what they were aiming for, and yet nothing was done about it. That’s Bill Clinton’s fault, by the way.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 1:44 pmDrena,
I know Ron Paul’s position on Afghanistan very well, what I am criticizing is what he’s saying now.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 1:44 pmWhat about the President’s duty as Commander in Chief and the possibility that a decision on military action may have to be made before Congress can be consulted ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 1:45 pmIf you’re going to say invading afghanistan in response to 9/11 was justified then to keep it honest you really should be demanding that we obliterate Saudi Arabi and Pakistan first, since they by far played the largest roles, and follow that with the UAE for their support role.
Of course the point would be moot if we really were isolationist or even just non-interventionist… not only would they have no reason to attack us, their fundamentalists would have zero following because their ravings wouldn’t be coming true before everyone’s eyes thanks to U.S. adventurism.
Comment by tsoldrin — October 12, 2007 @ 1:45 pmThe problem is that it is precisely the libertarian position on foreign policy, which is why hard-core libertarians usually aren’t taken seriously.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pmI see no reason to initiate wars. If there is a defense reason to go to war, the war has already been started. If there is no defense need, then starting such a war is outside the scope of what the federal government was created to do.
People are saying we should have attacked Japan first. They are saying we should have attacked Germany early in the 30s. Would we still be America if we did? What if we went in the opposite direction?
Comment by Thomas — October 12, 2007 @ 1:52 pmhmmm,
His idea of a functional navy seems much smaller than what I would say is feasible. Maintain the current navy would be the best possible policy. With the navy, the US could project its force almost anywhere in the world while remaining secure from most threats. A naval force based solely on submarines would not be a good idea. The carrier groups should be maintained to have air-superiority on the open sea.
In addition, I would have to think that the Special Forces should be maintained in its current form for surgical strikes against rogue organizations.
Reigning the Army, the Marines, and other portions of the military would be a great idea though. I think that his current statement for peace does go too far.
Comment by TanGeng — October 12, 2007 @ 1:56 pmTanGeng,
Over reliance on special forces is a hallmark of the Cheney/Rumsfeld philosophy of war.
Special forces are good for certain roles, i.e., limited raids, reconnaissance, etc. but are terrible at waging war.
Note the failure in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden primarily because we didn’t have enough conventional forces and were relying on Afghan militias. These militias had questionable loyalty and allowed Bin Laden to escape.
Even if that is an exaggeration, and I don’t think it is, the potential is certainly too great to stake our safety on.
Comment by Skyler — October 12, 2007 @ 2:10 pmhmmm,
Also suspicious is the quotes only around “no reason.” I don’t agree with the minimalist military, but I think it’s best not to read to much into that line the WaPo article.
Dr. Paul has said that he doesn’t see much chance of another country attacking the US. That’s true, assuming that it’s legitimate nation-states acting with the consent of its peoples. Then we can just nuke them off the face of the earth.
The real problem comes when we are dealing with non-legitimate governments. It appears that Dr. Paul might have the right idea on how to deal the threats from two types of sources.
The US has MAD capabilities against any legitimate government threat from countries like China. He can also issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against loosely organized networks like Al Qaeda.
The problem is what do we do about organizations that are somewhere in the middle. Organizations like the Junta in Burma or Iran, if a repressive government takes over there, are dangerous. Saudi Arabia is more dangerous than Iran in that respect since S.A. is a monarchy and there isn’t any semblance of democracy there.
Containment looks like the best strategy and that’s done through diplomacy. We’d probably like to have a strong navy to back up that policy.
Comment by TanGeng — October 12, 2007 @ 2:12 pmSkyler,
That is a matter of strategy. The reason the Taliban escaped was because the US deployed an overwhelming military force that the Taliban could not possibly defeat. They had to run away. However, the US did not deploy enough to completely surround and capture them.
With special forces, they would harrow the enemy and hit high value targets. If there is enough disorganization or chaos, the Special Forces have higher chances of taking out their target. If the organization disintegrates and flees, then it becomes more of an “investigate and capture” – more like law enforcement – than it does a military exercise.
Comment by TanGeng — October 12, 2007 @ 2:19 pmTalk about extremely irresponsible journalism – not only do you misquote and misrepresent Ron Paul (by stating that he would never go to war, rather than not under the current circumstances), but you have yet to correct or acknowledge your blatant mistakes.
Grow some balls, man.
Comment by Rusty — October 12, 2007 @ 2:22 pmRusty,
The thing is he’s said the same thing on numerous occasions, including during Tuesday’s debate.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 2:25 pmIf he indeed said such a thing, then please provide factual links. The link above is inaccurate, as pointed out several times by other readers.
Comment by Rusty — October 12, 2007 @ 2:27 pmRusty,
Read what he wrote in the Union-Leader, or the transcript of the last three debates.
Several commentors have asserted that the he believes in a strong Navy, but I haven’t seen that anywhere. All I’ve seen is a consistent anti-war message and a failure to address any foreign policy issue other than Iraq and Iran.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 2:38 pmObL can’t run a jihad all by his lonesome. If his countrymen no longer feel victimized and angry, al-Qaeda membership will dwindle.
Comment by tejón — October 12, 2007 @ 2:49 pmDoug, I have to agree with Rusty that you have a tendancy to cherry pick who’s comments you will respond to while ignoring strong arguments from other commenters. I keep reading down the page hoping that you’ll come back with something, mostly because I want to see a good debate on the issue, but you seem only take on the easy targets. Even from a neutral stand-point, you look like the loser by not addressing the flaws in your argument.
Comment by Isaac — October 12, 2007 @ 2:51 pmIsaac,
Quite honestly, I don’t have all day to respond to every single comment, especially when most of them are repeating things that have already been said here and elsewhere.
And there are just some ideas that I don’t have to rebut. For example, we no longer live in the days of wooden sailing ships and pirates. Letters of Marque and reprisal are about as relevant to the modern world as a sextant.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 2:54 pmTejon,
This is where I think the non-interventionist argument gets tangled up. There is this assumption out there that everything bad that happens to the United States is a reaction to something that we did. No thought seems to be given to the idea that al Qaeda, Wahabiism, and the jihad, are forces independent of the United States or even the Western World.
These groups have their own agenda, and their own view of the West that doesn’t exactly coincide with yours, mine, or Ron Paul’s. If you doubt that, then take a look at what’s happening in Europe.
Read some Bernard Lewis if you want to really understand what’s going on in the Islamic world today.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 2:58 pmI have never understood the position that Letters of Marque and reprisal have left the material plane.
Letters of Marque -
“A letter of marque and reprisal is an official warrant or commission from a government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a party which has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation, and has usually been used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.”
This is something that was designed to combat what we today call Terrorist activities. This type of activity is not something new. There has been things like this happening since Human society began.
Allowing the government to take away freedom to protect us is insane. It does nothing to protect you and leaves you less of a human being in the end.
Comment by byoung — October 12, 2007 @ 3:12 pmDoug,
Any debate about the source of Wahabiism, Al Qaeda, and Sunni extremism begins with Saudi Arabia. No other country is even close in funding terrorism activities or in funding the intellectual basis for terrorist activities against the west. Destabilize the Saudi Royal family in the Middle East and you could deal a serious blow to the continued spread of Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the Saudis invest heavily in the US and that would cause some financial upheaval.
If we want to address the supporters of terrorism directly, the debate has yet to begin, and it’s not clear that the solution would require the exercise of military force.
Comment by TanGeng — October 12, 2007 @ 3:25 pmI think you all miss the point. Dr. Paul was talking about starting a war, not responding in true self-defense (“pre-emptive” defense is NOT self-defense!).
And Dr. Paul is right. We have the tehcnological superiority and geogrpahic advantage. So why not use it in the proper manner, which is self-defense-based neutrality? It’s kind of a Swiss version of Theodore Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick” in that we’ll only use the stick in self-defense, but when we do we’ll be the baddest MFers in the valley.
That’s the only foreign policy that works for true peace and prosperity.
Comment by Tannim — October 12, 2007 @ 3:44 pm[...] “Ron Paul: No Reason To Ever Go To War, ” Doug Mataconis wrote: As I noted on Monday, foreign policy is probably the one area where Ron Paul and I part company. I [...]
Pingback by GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » The Difference Between Defense and Offense — October 12, 2007 @ 3:49 pmI’m about sick of Doug’s particular brand of commentary, personally. Whether he suffers from stupendous self-important ignorance or a willful distortion of the positions his agenda opposes, the result is the same: poor reasoning and worse reading.
Comment by C. Wesley Fowler — October 12, 2007 @ 4:14 pmRon Paul has stated there are certain circumstances when war is necessary.
Comment by Troy Thompson — October 12, 2007 @ 4:18 pmDoug is an eff’ing troll. Pro-war libertarians are oxyMORONS.
Comment by bret — October 12, 2007 @ 4:29 pmI agree with many of the bloggers here..
Dr. Paul has made it CLEAR.. the U.S. should never INITIATE a war..
HE VOTED TO GO INTO AFGHANISTAN AND GET AL-Qeada
So the argument made about Afghan is WRONG..
He is TOTALLY FOR PROTECTING AMERICA.. Even RONALD REAGAN WHEN HE WAS ALIVED SAID THAT VERY THING ABOUT Dr. Paul
Comment by atvdude — October 12, 2007 @ 4:50 pmThe Constitution provides for a permanent Navy, but an Army with a 2-year authorization window (at which time the authorization needs to be renewed) Note: this is not 2 years on a mission, this is 2 years to exist…
Doug, it’s you have been gunning for Dr. Paul for a long time. Even if you could convince everyone that he is a pacifist, (which he isn’t) it wouldn’t change many votes.
Because Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist, all the Congress needs to do to send this country into a war, is declare it and fund it.
Then Dr. Paul will be compelled (and authorized) to prosecute said war until whatever casus belli are resolved. This is the problem in Iraq, we didn’t know why we went to war, so we don’t know that we won already (Saddam is dead, the regime is changed, the old army is destroyed and a new one created, there are no WMD, and if any UN resolution regarding Iraq is left unfulfilled, it really is our fault, since we are now in complete control of Iraq’s government.)
So now, we are stuck there waiting for the Iraqis to “thank us, give us flowers, and pay for it all with their oil reserves.” Or else we are told that we must stay until there are “no more [evil people] plotting our destruction.” Or else we are told that we must stay until the Sunni and Shi’a don’t want to kill each other any more.
None of these things will ever happen, so what neocon warmongers are really saying is that we are going to be there forever. That is the mark of an empire, not a Republic.
Comment by Kevin Houston — October 12, 2007 @ 5:06 pmSorry, Doug, but I agree with your opposition. Paul has never said that military action is unacceptable under any circumstances or that we should be isolationist, only that we shouldn’t be interventionist and that nothing we’re doing now constitutes a just war. He voted for going into Afghanistan and capturing/killing al-Qaeda because it was an act of self-defense, and he only turned against it because (as he said on O’Reilly) Bush exceeded his Congressional mandate to engage in “democratic” nation-building.
Your argument about Afghanistan/al-Qaeda pre-9/11 was a Clinton error that you’ve speculatively claimed Paul would adhere to (he very well might have signed letters of mark after the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania), you’ve cherry-picked facts to fit an anti-Paul position, and frankly it’s an argument that’s beneath you. Not your best work.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 5:13 pmWe also don’t own the Panama Canal…that’s a possession of Panama (it became theirs as of 1999). Are you suggesting that if Panama cuts off access to a territory they own we should invade them and violate their sovereignty because their decision on how to use their own property is inconvenient for us? Or are you suggesting that we’re somehow responsible for the national defense of Panama or anyone else who possesses resources we covet? Because, frankly that is a relatively imperial attitude to take towards another sovereign nation.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 5:18 pmAlso, our Founding Fathers lived in a world every bit as complex as our own. They had to deal with threats to international shipping (Barbary pirates, with whom we went to war), they had to deal with a hostile power targeting U.S. civilians (British navy pressing U.S. sailors into military service), Europe (where the majority of our founders came from) was dealing with the threat of expansionist Islam (and a much more militarily powerful Islamic world) several hundred years ago. None of these threats are new and only people who are too stupid to understand history (our president) or who are too self-absorbed to comprehend the lessons of history (again, our president) believe that they are.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 5:27 pmDoug,
Sorry for the delay…
If you read some of the experts, like Michael Scheuer for instance, this is explained as OBL’s attempt to garner support and sympathy across the Muslim world for a future attack.
According to Islamic belief, the enemy (the aggressor upon which jihad is waged) can save themselves by converting to Islam. Does OBL really expect that we will take him up on this? No. But he is obliged to offer the opportunity before attacking, because if he doesn’t he risks that the attack will be seen by the Muslim community (especially the more moderate ones whose support he is courting) as unjust. In other words, it’s a PR move.
BTW, if you haven’t yet read Robert Pape’s study on suicide terrorism, it’s a must.
Comment by David M — October 12, 2007 @ 5:29 pmbret: Doug is an eff’ing troll. Pro-war libertarians are oxyMORONS.
Point of order, this guy isn’t me.
Secondly, is there really anyone who is “pro-war”? Like in a way that some people are “pro-choice” or “pro-Boston Red Sox”? Doubtful.
Third, one question I’ve always wanted to ask Paul is this: Classical liberal thought revolves around several tenets, two important ones are 1.) the fundamental rights of man, and 2.) the sovereignty of nations. Is there a point at which #1 is so grossly violated that it invalidates #2? What I mean is, is there a point where a nation is treating it’s own people so poorly that it compels the United States (or some other nation) to say “enough is enough” and take action?
For the record, I think there is a point at which this occurs and that’s why I find that sometimes “pro-war” and “libertarian” aren’t mutually exclusive.
Bret
Comment by Bret — October 12, 2007 @ 5:44 pmbyoung,
Because Letters of Marque and Reprisal are a violation of International Law.
Comment by Kevin — October 12, 2007 @ 6:02 pmBret,
I can’t speak for Dr. Paul, of course, but my own opinion would be no. Whether or not another nation is mistreating its own citizens is no business of ours unless it somehow acts as a direct threat against us. Rarely in any of these situations of brutality are there clear-cut “good guys” or “bad guys”, many times (but not all) today’s victim of brutality was yesterday’s aggressor and the current brutality is a response. In any case, an outsider is usually the one in the worst position to judge guilt or innocence and rarely does it serve our national interests in the long run to do so. The people of a nation need to resolve their internal disputes on their own, they’re the best equipped to come to a lasting peace (though the process to get there may often be very bloody) and we need to stay out of civil wars that neither threaten us directly and aren’t located in our neighborhood.
You can be pro-war and be a libertarian if that war is in self-defense. What you cannot be is a libertarian and pro-aggressive war.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 6:07 pmBret, where do you draw the line?
What if the British or some other power had intervened during our Civil War, destroying the North and Washington D.C. in order to save the South from atrocities?
My wife and I met Paul last month, and she asked him that question about intervening on humanitarian grounds. His reply was that he felt individuals should do what they believe is right in such circumstances, but that no individual has the right to make that decision for another. He might have been more nuanced about it, but that was the gist of it.
I suppose like-minded people could form a non-governmental milita a la Blackwater and go fight voluntarily on behalf of a foreign group, without involving the state’s powers of coercion.
Comment by David M — October 12, 2007 @ 6:10 pmDavid,
I think Paul had a valid point, one I believe he’s made before. During the Spanish Civil War American volunteers went over and fought against the fascists in an international brigade. If you believe in the cause of freedom for oppressed people you have a right to go and do battle for them and lay down your own life if you wish. But when it comes to the government making the decision for us and for the soldiers who only volunteered to defend our nation (which is the oath we actually swear to when we join the military), that’s where it all goes wrong.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 6:18 pmDo you really want to live in a world where people are forming private militas to go off an fight private wars ?
The anarcho-capitalists out there would probably love it, but it seems like a backward step in civilization to me.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 6:22 pmBlackwater, Doug?
We already live in that world. People also form private police – that is, security companies, neighborhood watches, etc.
Comment by David M — October 12, 2007 @ 6:27 pmI’m okay with people fighting militias to go off and fight their own wars. I’m not okay with turning our national defense over to private militias, as Bush has steadily been doing by outsourcing to Blackwater and Triple Canopy, but if people are outraged by what’s happening in Darfur and want to go as private citizens to kill some Janjaweed militiamen to stop the ethnic cleansing, more power to them.
Also, you’re failing to differentiate between morality in the actions of states and morality in the actions of individuals with that last remark. It’s perfectly fine for individuals to go fight the wars they believe in in other countries (as long as they don’t expect the rest of us to go bail them out). It’s wrong for government to do it because they’re making the choice for us. As a libertarian you should always recognize that distinction.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 6:31 pmAnd a backward step in civilization is starting to buy into to the belief that a select group of politicians is somehow better able to judge the rightness or wrongness of a conflict than we are. People are able to make informed decisions that benefit both themselves and others. As our own volunteer military clearly illustrates, the beliefs of doing things for the common good (national defense) and doing things out of self-interest (having a military career) are not mutually exclusive.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 6:38 pmDoug,
Pardon me, but I’m curious as to why you won’t change your blog post title? It’s incontrovertably false. He really did not and has not said that.
Comment by David M — October 12, 2007 @ 6:45 pmDoug,
Got to agree with David. Your headline is dishonest rhetoric. You’ve posted at least two other articles where Paul explicitly says he’s not an isolationist, his own website states the need for a strong national defense, and the man’s a military vet. Disagree with Paul’s foreign policy all you want, but he’s not a pacifist and you’re creating a blatant straw man argument with that headline.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 6:56 pmThe post title may be provactive, but I don’t think the criticism is unfair at all given what he said to the Post and what he said in the Union-Leader article I wrote about on Monday.
To be honest, I haven’t heard Congressman Paul speak once about what his foreign policy would be all about, only what it would not be about. Does he recognize that America has interests outside its own borders that many need to be protected by the threat of military force ? He certainly hasn’t said so.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 7:29 pmIn a libertarian utopia perhaps, but that’s not the world we live in, and it won’t be for quite some time, if ever.
To allow American citizens to go off on their own and fight a foreign war, with or without government sanction, would be a recipe for disaster. Which is why the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (in addition to being a bunch of Communists) was also committing an illegal act.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 7:32 pmDoug,
The fairness of the criticism isn’t the issue, it’s the apparent representation that those were words from his mouth.
Can you give me a quote from the Union-Leader that indicates that he cannot conceive of any reason for war, EVER?
Such as?
Comment by David M — October 12, 2007 @ 7:52 pmDavid,
(1) Paul asserted in the Union-Leader that there isn’t a legitimate place in American foreign policy for economic sanctions, or sanctions forbidding the sale of high technology to nations such as Iran or North Korea. Say what you will, but it is not in the interest of the United States that nations such as those develop an advanced military or nuclear capability.
(2) Let’s see….the free flow of international trade through international waters, the safety and security of the world’s oil supply, opposing nations who violate international law. Need I go on ?
Not to mention the fact that we live in a world where dealing with a threat only when it actually knocks on your door is a rather foolish way of running a national defense.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 12, 2007 @ 8:19 pm(1) Dont fool yourself into believing these sactions hurt the leaders of these countries. It only hurts the poor, then the leaders get to go on endlessly about American oppression and whatnot. That is a stupid plan unless you expressly wish to starve poor people. Remember just as they say in the army “$hit rolls downhill”
No one would argue that a nuclear korea is a good thing for the U.S. Neither is a nuclear China, but I don’t hear a call for sanctions or military action against them. It’s in no one’s intrest to have a single new nuclear warhead in existence. Some countries feel that the international community treats nuclear countries as opposed to non nuclear powers. That to validate their status as a world power they have to become nuclear. Until we resolve this all countries with the ability will want to develope a nuclear program and we can’t go off starting wars with everyone in the world.
(2) We should never use our military to protect a companies assets or continued profitability. This is where the people of America need to wake up, oil will not be there forever and we cannot use military force to protect the price when the supply side dwindles. As far as international trade waters please don’t even try to act as if any other nation on earth could challenge our naval superiority.
Comment by Jeff — October 12, 2007 @ 8:58 pmDoug,
“…it is not in the interest of the United States that nations such as those develop an advanced military or nuclear capability.”
But it is in their interests to develop those capabilities, for matters of self-defense, economic advancement, energy production. They’re sovereign nations…are you saying that sovereign nations have no right to better their own situation if their methods could one day conceiveably be a threat to the United States? Are you saying that we are the ultimate arbiter of what countries may do in their own self-interest? Because frankly, Doug, that kind of imperial attitude is what brought Pinochet to power, and the Shah of Iran, and the Khmer Rouge, and Mobutu Sese Seko, and Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez, and numerous other dictators, as either a result of what we did or a reaction to it. Frankly, Doug, our adherence to that attitude, that the rest of the world should be subservient to our needs is exactly why we develop enemies throughout the world. And it has nothing to do with libertarianism or freedom or self-defense…that’s about exploitation, conquest and tyranny. So don’t fool yourself into thinking that we’re merely “representing our interests” when we go into nations that haven’t attacked us…that’s us attempting to force them to bow to our will.
As for your other examples…
1) If U.S. flagged shipping is attacked in international waters, a military response is justified because that constitutes self-defense.
2) The “world” doesn’t own the oil supply, it’s owned by whatever country the reserves are located in. Your positions rejects national sovereignty and ignores property rights…therefore fascist and invalid. Unless you’re saying that freedom only applies to Americans, in which case your position is hypocritical and invalid.
3) International law is not representative and devoid of checks and balances, therefore invalid. Our national sovereignty is not subordinate to the U.N. when we don’t wish it to be, so it’s hypocritical to suggest that others should be more strictly bound by it. Unless of course you’re saying that international law should be tailored to fit U.S. interests first, in which case, a hypocritical double-standard and therefore invalid from any libertarian perspective.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 10:20 pmAs for “dealing with a threat only when it knocks on our door”…well, that’s what self-defense is and how we establish guilt. That’s why we throw people in jail for crimes they’ve committed, not for crimes we think they might commit someday. That’s why if I get mugged by a black person on the street I have the right to fight back against my mugger, but I don’t have the right to start lynching random black people because someday they “might” attack me too.
In fact, that’s pretty much a textbook example of the difference between right and wrong. If you attack somebody because they’ve attacked you, you’re acting in self-defense. If you attack somebody mainly because you just don’t like them…well, then you’re just a fucking asshole who went looking for trouble and you pretty much deserve all the bad things that happen to you.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 11:03 pmDoug,
As for your headline, I’ll simply cite the fact that he voted to go to war in Afghanistan as proof that he doesn’t hold the position you attribute to him through that headline.
Now if you want to leave your headline the way it is, of course that’s your right. But it’s speculative bullshit, it has no basis in fact, and if you leave it up after a concrete example of Paul’s dissension with this position has been pointed out to you…well, frankly I’d say that the Paulestinians probably have a point about the hack jobs they accuse you of doing on Ron Paul’s campaign.
Comment by UCrawford — October 12, 2007 @ 11:16 pmDoug said a few lines back “Al Qaeda had already proven it’s intention to target the United States going back at least to the African embassy bombings, if not sooner. Then we had the Khobar Towers attack, and the attack on the USS Cole.”
C’mon Dougie, learn your history. We’ve been messing around in the Middle East since before you were born. How about Iran/Shah in ’59? Or our support of Saddam in the ’80s against Iran? Or our support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan (from which Osama emerged) also in the ’80′s? How about the sanctions against Iraq that starved over 500,000 poor Iraqis that Madeline Albright said “was worth it?” Not to mention the meddling in after WWI and WWII.
I’m not suggesting that their terrorist attacks are justified. Just that, if someone had been messing around in my backyard for a couple of generations, I’d be tempted to throw a rock through their window every once and a while.
We have NEVER tried this approach – at least not in the last 100 years – let’s get the hell out. Everybody – every tank, soldier, weapon and piece of machinery – and let them run their own place for a while. Then we could use the money and soldiers to protect US soil, not letting one of these fundamentalists get any where near here. To ensure this let’s keep away anyone from those countries that support terrorism – No Saudis (they flew the planes, right?), no Afghans, no Iraqis or Iranians – none. No education, no vacation, no nothing. Let them run their own show for a while and let’s see if anything happens. Seems like a fresh approach to me. Didn’t Einstein say that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and yet expect different results? We need to do something DIFFERENT.
To me, it doesn’t make sense that we’ve lost more troops in Iraq than citizens in 9/11 – not to mention the billions spent there that could’ve been spent on Minnesota bridges – and we have a less stable place then when we went in.
PS To anyone who says Iraq was “self-defense” – why did the President need a doctrine of “pre-emptive strike” for a defensive war?? Hmmmm….
Comment by TSHayes — October 13, 2007 @ 1:32 amTSHayes,
I disagree with shutting our borders (since free trade’s the name of the game) but everything else sounds about right. We can trade with the countries in the Middle East all we want, we just have no need for our government to intervene in their internal affairs.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 1:50 am9/11 has followed a grand period of foreign intervention of many decades, was a far worse attack than Dec. 7th. Was a civilian target instead of a military one. And yet you use THAT as your excuse to keep invading and occupying foreign nations. You aren’t even trying to be logical anymore.
They aren’t our countries, their resources do not belong to us, and we neither owe nor are owed anything by their peoples. We do NOT own anything outside of our borders so to claim that we have an interest in anything outside our borders is laying claim to property, people, countries that do NOT belong to us! We can disagree with foreign people’s all we like, but we can’t beat them over the head when we grow weary of debate!
I am no pacifist but I believe if you decide to kill a person, you better have a damned good reason for doing so, involving your own protection.
Wow… It is getting old reading your articles. You publish all these half attack’s at Ron Paul. If you dislike him so much, why do you follow his every move? I now understand why you would get these types of comments when I read your articles. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but I think that you have finally gotten a lot of hits and attention and you are just milking it for everything you can.
I intend to avoid reading anything published by The Liberty Papers again.
Comment by kmc — October 13, 2007 @ 3:50 amActually, Doug, let’s look at where the majority of our troops are stationed overseas right now:
1) Iraq – a shooting war/occupation, that we started, that has now devolved into a futile experiment in nation-building where we are attempting to prop up an incompetent, corrupt, often genocidal government to maintain borders established under colonialism that the Arabs neither respect nor can apparently live with. So yes, we can pull them out of there.
2) Afghanistan – an exercise in nation-building that no longer has anything to do with the hunt for al-Qaeda or bin Laden. The war there has more to do with keeping insurgents from Pakistan from destabilizing Afghanistan, which has devolved into a useless exercise since we also support the government of Pakistan and they’ve done little to try and crack down on these insurgents in their own territory or to try and find bin Laden (who’s in Pakistan). Our forces in western Afghanistan are also primarily being used to scare and pressure Iran, leading to the tensions that Bush apparently hopes will lead to a war. So yes, we can probably look at bringing them back from there.
3) Korea – we maintain a strong “peacekeeping” force because of a war that ended over 50 years ago. North Korea is so destitute at this point that it is likely incapable of successful invasion of the north and the Cold War dynamics that somewhat justified our initial entrance into the Korean War no longer exists. South Korea also possesses a military more than capable of defending itself and our presence has usually served to either prop up corrupt dictatorships or scuttle reunificiation talks between the South and the North because of outdated dogmatism. Utterly useless mission…troops can be withdrawn immediately.
4) Europe – the Soviet Union is no longer in danger of overrunning the Fulda Gap, so the large force size we keep there is not representative of any mission they might be tasked with. Most of our presence there is about giving an indirect version of foreign aid to those countries by billeting soldiers overseas so it pumps U.S. dollars into their local economies. It’s more expensive to have our forces overseas than it would be to billet them at home, so it’s basically just a waste of money. Plus, it tends to get us sucked into local conflicts that have got nothing to do with us (Bosnia/Serbia). The soldiers there can be either removed or at least downsized with no significant threat to national security.
4) Kuwait – support area for the Iraqi mission and our forces are really used to outsource Kuwaiti self-defense to the U.S. military and to threaten Iran. End Iraq and their presence in Kuwait is unnecessary.
5) Turkey – our presence there is also because of our interventionism in the Middle East. End the interventionism, our bases in Turkey are unnecessary. It also prevents Turkey from securing its borders because we use our troops as a bargaining chip to keep the Turkish military from going into Iraq and fighting Kurdish separatists who have been launching attacks against Turkish targets with the tacit support of the Iraqi president. There is likely going to be a call from Turkey to remove our forces anyway, thanks to Bush’s incompetence in Iraq and Pelosi’s stupid fucking genocide resolution that just caused Turkey to cut diplomatic ties with us.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 9:36 am6) Qatar – support area for Iraq and Afghanistan. End those wars and it becomes unnecessary.
7) Diego Garcia – supply depot for interventionism in the Middle East, primarily for war in Iraq. Unnecessary.
8) Okinawa – Cold War dynamics have shifted rendering our station there unnecessary except to keep an eye on China (which we have the capability of doing without that station). Local population has become relatively hostile to our presence. Unnecessary, and the troops can be withdrawn.
9) Philippines – force presence there is to fight Islamic radicals to stabilize the corrupt government of President Arroyo. Before we were there to stabilize the corrupt government of Ferdinand Marcos. Local conflict with no upside for us…withdrawing the troops will have minimal, if any, effect on our national security.
10) Africa – mission is useful only because of al-Qaeda presence in Horn of Africa and has been carried out competently and quietly by combatant commanders to deny safe haven for al-Qaeda in Somalia. Now that Ethiopia’s military has intervened and established a government friendly to them (largely, I suspect, to gain them access to Somali ports since Ethiopia is now landlocked) our mission there has largely become strategically unnecessary. Troops can be withdrawn with no harm to our national security.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 9:47 amHmmm…looking over the list it appears that pretty much none of those missions are about self-defense, except for Afghanistan (which started off as self-defense and then devolved into nation-building). So I’d say Ron Paul’s comment is actually a pretty informed one
Oh, and it appears I used number 4 twice, so there’s eleven examples of why withdrawing our forces will not cause the collapse of the United States. Go ahead and make your case now for why they should stay.
Comment by UCrawford — October 13, 2007 @ 9:50 amI haven’t heard Congressman Paul speak once about what his foreign policy would be all about, only what it would not be about.
You aren’t paying attention. He has responded to every question presented and written many articles describing his foreign policy ideals.
Paul supported the Afghan invasion (even though he objected to the form for the Resolution) and has frequently discussed the “Just War” requirements for a pre-emptive strike: real, imminent, and clear threat of attack. Not complex.
Just Google “Ron Paul” “Just War” … if you have an interest in the facts. Ron is not, in any sense, a “pacifist”.
Comment by Bill Westmiller — October 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pmDoug,
(1) I don’t think that’s exactly what he said but even if we accept your description, what does that have to do with your assertion that he sees no reason to ever go to war?
(2) I’m glad you elaborated. People use the vague term “interests” alot, and if they mean oil I wish they’d just come out and say it.
(a) If U.S. citizens are attacked in interational waters it is either an act of war or piracy. We can handle both without an aggressive militaristic policy
(b) We do not have an inherent right to other countries’ resources.
(c) The U.S. is sovereign and needn’t bother itself with enforcing “international law”.
Comment by David M — October 14, 2007 @ 3:33 pmThis is a bit misleading. It advances the notion that Paul is a pacifist- which he has stated clearly numerous times that he is absolutely not, and would wholheartedly support the defense of this country through military action should we be attacked. He also pointed out that we HAVENT BEEN attacked militarily by another country in a LONG time.
Im not sure why you mentioned Afghanistan either- not only did Ron Paul vote to authorize military action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban once 911 happened, he has vehemently opposed for over 20 years the very kind of foreign policy which embroiled America in that region to begin with and has brought us far more grief than supposed benefits tangible to the average American.
Paul has my vote because he is serious about getting us out of the middle east and revamping free trade. To me this paves the way for what we should be doing and not simply talking about- getting OFF OF FOREIGN OIL (no, HIllary and McCain…not by staying in Iraq until 2013; BY LEAVING), supplementing that loss with our OWN oil reserves (Alaska is thought to have more oil under it than the arab. peninsula ANYWAY), and in the meantime getting serious about alternative energy, biofuels, etc. all of which Paul wants to legalize as free market options.
Considering Paul’s actual positions, the title of this article is frankly very disingenuous.
Comment by J — October 14, 2007 @ 6:07 pm