A Foreign Policy of Nonintervention
Having just finished watching the latest debate between the Republican presidential candidates I have to admit; I think this is the most frustrated I’ve been so far. The main source of frustration for me was during the exchanges over the foreign policy debate. I’m not sure why I was so surprised, really. It’s not like any of the candidates positions have changed. They were essentially saying the same things they’ve been saying all along. I think there were two main things that frustrated me the most: the misrepresentation of Ron Paul’s foreign policy views and the complete insanity of everyone else’s foreign policy views.
Let’s first take a look at Ron Paul’s views. If you look at the accusations being thrown at him recently it would seem that he is anti-Israel, pro-Iran, and isn’t concerned with nuclear programs in other counties, just to name a few. Well, that sounds pretty bad, doesn’t it? But is it true? Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of nonintervention. What does that mean? That means he doesn’t believe in intervening in the affairs of other countries. He doesn’t believe that we should be the police of the world. He doesn’t believe that we should be occupying the countries that we do. He doesn’t believe that we should have military bases in the countries that we do. We’re in almost every country. He would pull us out. Is Ron Paul anti-Israel or pro-Iran? You can’t really be anti-whoever or pro-whoever if you treat everyone equal.
“What about defending our country?!” I can virtually hear the cries. My question, however, is what exactly is defensive about occupying foreign countries? What is defensive about policing the world and imposing our ways of doing things on other nations? How is it defensive if we’re preemptively taking measures against other nations because they might be developing weapons that they might use on us? Are we about national defense or national offense? Do we have a Department of Defense or a Department of Offense? Which is it? Is Ron Paul about defending our country? Absolutely. I think he just has a more accurate understanding of what defense is. Defending our country means defending our borders, something Ron Paul believes in. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in a country on the offensive, “protecting our national interests,” which is what we’ve become.
When you hear a rebuttal to Ron Paul’s foreign policy views you’ll hear such things as he’s under-reacting. Take Iran. It’s been said that they’re developing nuclear weapons to use against us. Is there any actual proof of that? No. But what if they are? Shouldn’t we do something about that? Shouldn’t we stop that at the source? If you listen to the rest of the candidates you’ll hear that we most certainly should. This is the predominant view of foreign policy, it seems. Let me tease that out a bit. So a country may or may not be developing weapons. That country may or may not intend to use those potential weapons against us. What’s being proposed, as an extension of predominant foreign policy views, is that we should then eliminate the potential threat.
Really? I mean, for real real? So, my next door neighbor in my apartment complex might own a gun. I’m kind of a jerk to him and I tend to put my nose in his business, telling him what I think he should do. I don’t think he likes me very much. Since he might own a gun and he might want to use that gun against me, I should probably take him out before he takes me out. Oh, that’s not cool for me to do that? Is that, like, a crime or something? You mean, that’s kind of insane for me to even think that sort of action is ok? Wow. Weird.
Ron Paul has a foreign policy of nonintervention, peace and free trade. I think compared to our track record on foreign policy and compared to what’s being said by the rest of the candidates I’m going to have to side with Paul on this one. And yet, in the media’s eyes, Ron Paul is crazy. Ron Paul is the one with the insane foreign policy views. Why? Are we afraid to admit that our foreign policy has historically been handled incredibly poorly? Are we afraid to admit that America is capable of making mistakes? Are we afraid to admit that there isn’t an American solution to every world problem? Are we afraid to admit that there are consequences and repercussions to our actions on an international level? Are we afraid to admit that the reason certain groups hate us is because we’ve meddled in their affairs and occupied their land, not because we’re free?
Look around. Terrorist groups hate us and we’re going broke. Who’s fault is that? Admitting that we’ve made mistakes is not anti-American. It’s potentially one of the most pro-American things you can do. How can we improve and prosper as a country if we’re not willing to take the steps necessary to fix our problems?
