By Daren Jonescu, AMERICAN THINKER
Much has been said against Ron Paul’s foreign policy. He has been accused of antisemitism, of living in a pre-technological past, and of using moral equivalency arguments to critique America’s unwillingness to “mind its own business,” in effect blaming the U.S. for September 11th. Whatever truth there may be in some of these criticisms of Paul’s position — and I have previously expressed sympathy with one or two of them (though not the antisemitism) — the December 15 debate in Iowa exposed a deeper concern with Paul’s foreign policy: an unbelievable ignorance.
Herman Cain took a lot of heat from conservatives who thought he showed too little knowledge of international issues for someone of his age and political aspirations. I thought this criticism unfair, in that it played into the hands of the politics-as-usual types, who think Romney and Gingrich sound strong on foreign policy because, over many years of campaigning, they have memorized a lot of names, facts, and figures. Cain did sometimes sound unprepared for broad questions of principle — which are the important questions at this point — but, to his credit, he usually came back sounding a little better the next time around.
For all the impressive, ready answers offered by slicker, more experienced politicians, does anyone really believe there is a person in this nominating process, or on this planet, for that matter, who has all the necessary knowledge and facts at his disposal on any complicated foreign policy question? As many good minds have argued, men live in a fog on matters of world historical significance. That does not justify relativism in decision or action; rather, it reinforces the importance of finding a leader with strong principles, and a conscientious will to enact those principles to the best of his or her ability, according to the best information available at any given moment.
Which brings us back to Congressman Paul, and his performance on December 15. The moderator Bret Baier opened the topic of foreign policy by asking Paul whether he would still be calling for the removal of sanctions against Iran if, as President, he had solid intelligence that Iran had a nuclear weapon. Paul’s answer, in a nutshell, was yes; Iran’s desire for nukes, he argued, is understandable in light of its feeling “surrounded” in the region.
While it may be true as a psychological analysis, this answer was an example of Paul’s moral equivalency. Everyone knows why the mullahs want a nuclear weapon, and that, in their minds, the desire is reasonable; the question is whether it ought to be acceptable to the so-called free world that a theocratic despotism harboring dreams of a global theocracy achieved by provoking a doomsday scenario should acquire nuclear weapons. Rick Santorum made this very point in a strong rebuttal to Paul’s answer, highlighting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that “martyrdom” is the chief Iranian virtue in opposition to Paul’s suggestion that a Cold War threat of “mutual assured destruction” would be effective against Iran.
Michele Bachmann went further, declaring, “I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one we just heard from Ron Paul.” Her argument was this:
-
Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world, and eventually to set up a world-wide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.
And here is where a policy argument became a question of basic factual understanding. Paul, given the opportunity to answer Bachmann’s criticism, began by saying that he would like to reduce nuclear weapons generally, followed by this:
But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims, and say all Muslims are the same — this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that’s absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here, and explicitly explain it to us, CIA has explained it to us — it said they come here and they want to do us harm because we’re bombing them….
First of all, who declared war on 1.2 billion Muslims? Who said they were all the same? Expressly singling out the regime in Tehran for harsh criticism seems to suggest a pretty clear desire not to say that all Muslims are the same — as do attempts to support freedom-seeking opposition movements within Iran. (How would a “mind our own business” policy affect people within such movements?)
This equation of criticizing the Iranian despots with “declaring war on” all Muslims demonstrates Paul’s facile outlook on the world. He is the one who views the various peoples of the world in monolithic terms. Consider the final sentence of the quotation above. Who are “they” in that sentence? The Iranian regime, to which all of the other candidates, as well as the moderator, were referring? No, because no one is “bombing them,” as Paul says of “them.” Presumably he means the radical Islamists. But if that is so, then he is implying either that the jihadists will, if America leaves them alone, simply leave America — and, by extension, every other country that ignores them — out of their global Islamist agenda, or that they are only radical because of unjust American policy, i.e. that their cause is essentially just and defensive. I don’t believe he means to go that far.
In truth, I think he really doesn’t know whom he means by “they” and “them.” He is afflicted with foreign policy myopia: A disbelief in the complete and independent reality of a world outside of the United States, a world in which real people living entirely beyond the realm of our lives. To such thinking, the “outside world” is merely an undifferentiated repository of resentment against U.S. imperialism. Consider Paul’s frequent implication that people everywhere view American forces on their soil as occupiers. As one who has lived in South Korea for almost five years, I can vouch for the fact that such a sentiment is uncommon here — although it occasionally appears among leftists who sympathize with communist North Korea.
Paul’s rebuttal to Bachmann on Iran goes from the straw-man to the ridiculous, however, in his central point, namely that “they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden?”
Well, actually, yes “they” do (see here, here, and here). “They” also go to Denmark (here and here), The Netherlands (here), Germany (here), Spain (here), and so on. “They” go wherever “they” perceive an opportunity to gain a foothold for the goal “they” share with the Iranian regime: a world-wide caliphate.
“Yeah, there are some radicals.” I nominate this for the 2011 Flippant-Dismissal-of-an-International-Threat of the Year Award. “Yeah, the Bolsheviks are a little militant about property owners.” “Yeah, the Nazis are a little pushy about Poland.”
Hide-from-reality isolationism vs. globalist interventionism is a false dichotomy. There are other options.
Yeah, Ron Paul has a foreign policy problem.
what bothers me is the Masons. some the 33 degree masons. Romney is one, and then all those on the council of foriegn relations..all one world gov people..How America can sleep so many years while all the commies get into everything like dung. Now obama the muslim is deliberitly breaking our ecconomy so they can put in the world money so the UN and EU can how the power of the world. I see all the misfits get free everything , just like Hitler did, then took it all away. Notice how the fake gingrich said he would consider the embasy will be moved to Jerusalem??? how come he did ot say I MOST DEFINETLY move it. He has so much evil going on and is still on the take in more ways than one, fredie and franie, Here we are broke and can’t drill…insanity. Yet to get the Jews belive him..does Hanukkah etc, he makes me puke. gingrich, perry, romney mccain no different than obama..America needs to repent,,and stop the madness.
I fear that if Ron Paul manages to be voted in as the Republican candidate for the next presidency, Obama will not only not have to pack his bags and leave the WH, he may actually be able to set up home there until he goes the way of all flesh. For me, a mere foreigner, Paul comes over as a little bit, well, creepy. He even reminds me of the Laurel part of the Laurel and Harvey comedy team (1920s – 1930s) only not so cute.
Jay Leno should be extricated from his late show slot A S A P . F–ck freedom of expression. REMEMBER 9/11.
Well said Rongrand, not Ron Paul. You hit a bullseye with every shot. Right on the button. To the point without shillying or shallying. Good man.
Laura- Say it as it is. Leno is a card carrying commie ba—–d.
The pig from the Texas Gulf Coast is a hard one to catch. He is a slippery little squealer. His anti-Semitism runs very deep. He went out of his way to condemn Israel’s defense against missile running into Gaza when it stopped the Turkish flotilla back in 2010, and the soldiers armed with paint guns as a first response had to use deadly fire when they were beaten with pipes and clubs. The self- righteous pig from the Texas Gulf Coast said it was just so awful about how Israel defended itself at that point. So much for expanding his view of the basic decency of the average Muslim to the basic decency of the average Israeli Jew. So I don’t buy this dangerous foreign policy naivete explanation. 1.2 billion Muslims get the benefit of the doubt about why they hate America, but 5.9 million Jews in Israel can’t defend themselves without him opening his venomous mouth.
Michael Medved back in 2007 when Ronbaby was running in that Presidential sweepstakes noticed that Ron was receiving money from known Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. So he asked Ronbaby in a letter to disavow himself of those sweet greenbacks from all those G-d fearing Neo-Nazis. Ron remained silent. Has Ronbaby yet answered Medved’s letter in any way? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Yet, true to form when the American economy takes a more significant nosedive into a deeper Depression than it is in already after the Euro collapses, Ron Paul may actually get the brass ring of the Republican nomination. Poor American Jew what will you do? Best to leave now before the leavin’ becomes a bit hairy with your “pajamas in a plastic bag”, as Rav Shalom Arush put it three years ago.
We’ll see. Romney is placed in this election cycle, about the same place Rudi Guliani held in 2007. Gingrich, on the other hand, has pretty much the same support base as Mike Huckabee did. Neither made it to the finish line. The “Non-Romney” bloc (essentially Tea Partiers) has gone after one darling after another, and each of them has lasted around 1-2 months at the top. After Gingrich falls on his face, we may see a resurrected Bachman or Perry or Hausman, etc., or even a dark horse — perhaps even a messianic claimant. Ron Paul, meanwhile, is kicking in his spurs like a very good jockey, in time to peak in time for the most important primaries. It should be interesting, if you like watching very slow horse races.
Romney does have staying power, I’ll grant you that; and he’s very competitive with Obama. The Tea Partiers would be stupid, to dump him altogether. He probably would not make Netanyahu sit in the waiting room, like a bad boy, while he and his family went off to eat supper (like Obama); and he probably wouldn’t let the Israeli PM scrounge about for digs in Waco while he wined and dined a Saudi sheikh (like George W. Bush). I would vote for him, if he got nominated.
Thank you, Ted.
Dr. Aranoff and Ron Paul are both on shaky ground here. A declaration of war is a legal statement that war ALREADY EXISTS. A circumstance that provides grounds for such a declaration is, I believe, a “cassus belli”.
In the past, the United States has used the flimsiest of excuses as “cassi belli” — the sinking of the Maine, for instance, or the Mexican crossing of the Rio Grande (which was actually completely in Mexico). WWI, of course, began with an assasination of a member of Austria’s royal family. That said, it is very foolish for a country to embark on a war frivolously. Sometimes war is unavoidable; and then, so things must be. Turkey, by the way, has already technically declared war on Israel, by calling the Gaza Blockade incident a “cassus belli”.
The country that ought to be declaring war is Israel, and they ought to do so while bombs and missiles are exploding all over Iran. Israel is, if any country in the war is, in a clear and present danger from a patently hostile Iran; the US is not so much in danger. If the US wants to join Israel afterwards as an “ally”, well enough; but I am not suggesting they do. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate for the United States to initiate hostilities against the wishes of the Israelis; for Israel will be affected more than the US will (Civilians will suffer, not just military).
The ball is in Israel’s court, not America’s. America’s best policy is what Ron Paul said, namely, to get out of the way.
Hi, Yamit
Your grasp on reality is refreshing. Of course Ron can’t go around turning the country upside-down overnight, as some more hysterical posters suggest! It’s the Presiden’t job to provide DIRECTION to the country; and beyond that Ron, unlike Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama, is content to work within the spirit of the US Constitution. It’s telling, that his favorite President is Grover Cleveland, whom he says he likes because Grover made generous use of his veto power; and that he deplored Gingrich’s opinion that the President ought to try to get rid of Supreme Court Justices he doesn’t agree with.
You are only too correct, in that the Congress is liberally financed by the completely corrupt Federal Reserve. Any talk of bringing this country around economically, or at least staunching the bleeding, that doesn’t include getting rid of the Fed, is just expensive hot air.
Ron isn’t running for god of the United States. Any Federal bureacracy that is NECESSARY will get replaced by an equivalent one at the State level — the Education bureacracy, for instance — and I believe the states are much more capable than the Feds to handle such things. As for the legions of regulatory paper-pushers, they SHOULD get the pink slip and find useful employment — like making computer chips, for instance, or oil pipelines.
This is where I differ from Laura and the gravy train crowd here, Yamit. My wife and I HAVE NO PENSION. We have only Social Security and our savings to live on if we both become unemployed. As for runs on the banks and investments becoming worthless, what does Ron have to do with any of that? You know as well as I do, that the Fed is mandated by Congress to artificially keep interest rates low, print worthless money, etc., until the economy can no longer sustain it and it snaps. If anyone thinks the government can keep economic calamity from happening, they haven’t got their head screwed on. At the very best, government can live within its means and within the sensible confines of the Constitution.
That’s not my business nor yours, Yam. California got the best deal it ever had, when they elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor. He was genuinely disinterested, and trying to do what was best for the state; but nobody would have it and they dumped him. California now, for all its beauty, is destined to become America’s Greece. All my wife and I could do, after six years of living there together, was vote with our feet and move out of state. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Meanwhile, we ought to use our votes to support people who are genuinely trying to help us. To do otherwise would be foolish.
The hand that feeds me says lunch is on the table. God bless and keep you, good friend.
Looks like Romney wins by default. Stupid conservatives have so far diced all the best candidates. They are being manipulated from both the inside and outside. That’s how McCain was nominated. Romney will be the only national viable candidate left standing and that’s who I think Obama really wants opposing him.
“Yes, Iran represents a terrible threat to the security of the U.S. For this reason, Congress must immediately declare war. This would give the President the legal authority to do what he wants, how he wants, when he wants, without any need for UN approval. Bush’s fatal error was entering Iraq without a formal declaration of war by Congress.”Democracy is the absolute worse form government when faced with existential threats, the decision making process is too partisan and too cumbersome
you can’t always in this day and age have a made to order excuse or reason like Pearl Harbor.
A broken clock is correct once a day.
Let’s talk a hypothetical.
What is Paul going to do if elected? What will he do with the FED? What will he do with the deficit? What won’t he do with Americas enemies round the world? What does he consider Americas national Interests?
He can’t do much against the FED as they are legally mandated by congress and only congress can vote them out of business. The treasury by law can’t print digital money created out of thin air but a private mandated bank can. If you think congress will go along you are crazy they have been well padded by supporters of the FED.
By the time of the 2012 elections the deficit will have reached close to 17 trillion. To reduce spending means to cut back on all govt. spending which is mostly entitlements and the military. 2-3 dollars of ever 10, spent or infused into the American economy is government generated. Guess what the unemployment will jump to? Guess how many bankruptcies will be the result? Guess how many Banks will go belly up? At your age are you in favor of reducing social Security and medicare, payments and services? What do you think will be the revenue to the US Treasury if another 10-15% are unemployed? You might lose your pension, might lose all your savings and investments when there are runs on the banks and stock portfolios are found to be empty of anything of real value.
Fiscal responsibility sounds nice but are you really prepared to pay the price in view of what would surely be just some of the negative consequences, and if you ans. in the affirmative, do you really believe there would be many more like you? I forgot to mention high double digit inflation as America will still have to print or borrow well into the future to cover budget and state shortfalls.
What Bush and then Obama realized when faced with reality was that the only way to keep the ship afloat is to spend, borrow and print like there is no tomorrow because otherwise there won’t be ans surely as a politician they know America Lives or dies based on the useless stuff they buy and watch on TV.
Well with or without Paul those times are coming to an end and as a wise man said “when the money stops flowing the blood starts spilling”.
I blocked 5 comments which were extremely antisemitic and viscous, coming from supporters of Paul.
Well said, jrob.
Because they are the ones waging war on America. The question is why are you an apologist for Paul and jihadists. I think oat that you are the troll coming here simply to be provocative. One minute you are defending Israel and condemning islam and the next you sound like an anti-American anti-Israel lefty. Either you have a dual personality or you just come here to provoke fights.
Gingrich makes a good Hardy 🙂
Who listens to Jay Leno ever?
Dr.,your correct. Paul is not only knave he is an isolationist.
He just doesn’t get it. The Iranian government and the mullahs who are in charge are not only a threat to our security they are a world threat. When the last uprising occurred obama did nothing as expected since he is an anti-Semite who embraces Islam.
Not only does Ron Paul look like Stan Laurel of Laurel and Hardy, he act like him.
Looks like one can’t reply to a reply. If peaceful people become psychotic upon being bombed or attacked, then why isn’t the US under attack from Serbs? Why isn’t the US under attack by Hindu? Why isn’t the US under attack by African pagans??
What motivates you (and Paul) to insist that the beneficiaries of US foreign policy–pious Muslims, are actually the victims and thus have an excuse for killing American civilians and troops??
If Paul told the truth: Muslims should be ashamed for not thanking the US for fighting and defeating secularism, then he’d be the ONLY one in the establishment doing such. Alas, he’s a stale rehasher of the same stories told by umpteen other institutional insiders.
Islam, under the stewardship of the US State Department, hasn’t been quite so tormented and oppressed since its time under the sponsorship of the 3rd Reich.
JRob,
Do you really expect me to take you seriously? Or are you just trolling here, trying to stir things up? If you are, don’t bother. We have plenty of residents stirring things up continually. I can’t say there’s “never a dull moment” on Israpundit, but I try to do my bit. Your statement about bombing someone not making them psychotic is just off the wall. I answered it, about as well as anyone could. Now, just for fun, let me see what else you said:
He should really lambaste the Muslims? Why on earth should he do that? To show that he’s a “brave, outside the box patriot”? Why would he want to do that?
Maybe you’re LOOKING for a “brave, outside the box patriot”. Ron’s a congressman and an obstetrician. He impresses me as a pretty genuine, nice fellow. Why would he want to be something else? Maybe you were thinking he was Jesse Ventura, or maybe Arnie. No, he’s not!
Inability to address the ridiculousness of Paul’s statement is duly noted. As a ‘brave’ ‘outside the box’ patriot, he should really lambaste the Muslims for not thanking the US for the many thousands of lives expended making Iraq, Bosnia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan safe for jihadists.
The notion that peaceful people become psychotic when attacked is patently absurd. The US State Department has been attacking Serbs for years, helping the jihadists that kill Jews for years, supporting the jihadists that kill secularists and Hindu for years, and none of the victims of these policies are killing Americans.
Paul is too gutless to ask: why is the US government, and Paul himself, giving a free pass to the beneficiaries of US policy, jihadi-nazis.
I suspect that the fool and knave is Dr. Sanford Aranoff. You aren’t dismissing Ron Paul, because of a mis-judgment on Iran; you are completely dismissing him as a fool. You are, for instance, saying that the Federal Reserve is NOT an international banking cartel, and that the United States really needs those thieves to bankrupt our treasury. You are saying that we really need bigger and bigger and bigger government. You are saying that we need to continue funding the United Nations, and pouring foreign aid to the “Palestinians”, Egyptians and other enemies of Israel. I would say that’s all pretty damned foolish.
Duh. Someone isn’t making sense here, and it isn’t Ron Paul. When do you want me to come bomb your house, to make you like me?
Michele Bachmann said, “Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world, and eventually to set up a world-wide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
Clear writing. Paul is a fool and a knave. Note that Paul did not respond to Bachmann. Let’s not let Paul off the hook saying that he simply wants Congress to declare war. Paul should have responded, “Yes, Iran represents a terrible threat to the security of the U.S. For this reason, Congress must immediately declare war. This would give the President the legal authority to do what he wants, how he wants, when he wants, without any need for UN approval. Bush’s fatal error was entering Iraq without a formal declaration of war by Congress.”
laissez faire diplomacy, or isolationism, has already been proven not to work for many obvious reasons. It is just wishful, and simple, thinking that if you leave others alone they will necessarily leave you alone. Most might, but the few who dont is what one protects against. Paul’s, approach seems more idealogical than practical.
The US has spent over 30 years making other places less secular, and more Muslimy, than they were beforehand. In light of this, his statement that “they want to do us harm because we’re bombing them” makes no sense whatsoever.
So they would rather become more secular, but they refer to the koran while killing US citizens or flying planes into the ocean?? Why is he pandering to them? Why doesn’t he have the cajones to say, ‘how dare they do these things after all of the effort and lives the US has given to install Islamist regimes and to keep them safely in place.’
Jay Leno is another clueless lefty celebrity.
Bland, it is hopeless to get you to stop defending the indefensible ron paul.
Here’s a link to Paul in the IOWA DEBATE. Again, the parts concerning Israel and Iran are in the last third of the debate.
It ought to be very clear, upon listening to this debate, that
(1) Ron Paul is not speaking against Israel
(2) Ron Paul does not advocate STOPPING ISRAEL from attacking Iran, and
(3) Ron’s main objection is to attacking Iran WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR by Congress.
Those are Ron’s positions — which, I will add, are absolutely correct. Now, let me talk about Ron’s understanding of the proper way to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It boils down to this:
Ron believes that Iran, should they get nuclear weapons, would be deterred from using them for fear of “MAD” (mutually assured destruction).
I disagree; and Israel OUGHT to disagree, though, as Ron pointed out in the debate, the Israeli leadership is divided on the issue. I believe Israel should attack Iran NOW. If she waits until after the November election, it will be far to late for them to do any good. That is the end of the matter concerning Israel: Either Israel will cripple the Iran nuclear program NOW, or else Israel, along with the next US President and other world leaders, will have to figure out an alternative strategy for dealing with Iran.
Does everyone here get the point? The issue about whether or not to attack Iran, and who should do the attacking, has NOTHING to do with the US Presidential election. Either Israel acts NOW, in spite of President Obama’s pressure to do otherwise, or the whole question will be moot a year from now, when Obama or the new President of the US have to deal not with the issue of Iran GETTING nuclear weapons, but of Iran HAVING nuclear weapons.
If the latter scenario comes about, who would the readers wish to be the US President? Someone who feels the need for a more and more powerful Federal US Government taking more and more control over the affairs of the world? Or someone who thinks we ought to mind our own business? Pundits here are of two opinions on this matter, and I respect that. The real issue isn’t Ron Paul, and it certainly isn’t Israel: It’s whether you think the US ought to be the New Rome, the World’s Policeman, or whether you think we ought to let the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Germans, French, English, Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis and Arabs pursue their own interests.
There are lots of advocates of “capitalism”, “free markets” and “competition” here. I wonder how many of these are willing to have a free market in diplomacy as well, or whether they feel Big Brother America should be the world’s military and political nanny.
Ron Paul’s latest positions (which also appear to be his earliest positions) are on his
INTERVIEW WITH JAY LENO
If you want to just focus on Israel and foreign policy, this is covered in the last third of the video. I watched the entire video, and found nothing against Israel or non-factual.