Inexperience and Cluelessness
In this post I take a closer look at the reactions of the presidential candidates to Bhutto’s death and I wonder in how far her death is a blow to democracy.
Benazir Bhutto’s killer delivered an incredible blow to Pakistan’s democracy movement. He blew himself up and, by doing so, killed one of the strongest proponents of Democracy in Pakistan (and a dozen others). Although this is most certainly horrible, I am of the opinion that her death won’t cause as much chaos as some seem to think, nor do I think that without her the democratization process is doomed. In other words: it’s a blow to democracy because Bhutto was such an important figure and because she was killed because of her political views; it’s not, however, a blow to democracy in the sense that her death has to result in chaos, disorder and a more oppressive regime.
As long as her supporters don’t ignite a civil war and play it cool that is.
The reason is simple: although the West was very fond of Bhutto, the reality of the situation was – and is – that not Bhutto but Musharraf decides what happens in Pakistan. If Musharraf didn’t support slowly democratizing Pakistan, it would not have happened, no matter what Bhutto said and no matter how many political rallies she organized and attended. If, on the other hand, Musharraf did (and does) want to change Pakistan for the better, he didn’t need Bhutto to help him. Aside from that it seems to me that Bhutto isn’t per definition irreplaceable (yes, this is sounding cold). If she was wise she would’ve prepared someone to succeed her (especially considering the fact that she knew that her life was in danger).
As is it, the main ally of the West is and remains Pervez Musharraf. If the West believes that Pakistan should change, we should talk to him, reward him when he pushes through pro-democracy reforms, and we should try to persuade him to fight against Muslim extremists in a more efficient manner. Other than that, though, I think that the attack on Bhutto’s life shows that if there’s one thing Musharraf has to focus on, it’s not democracy but order.
Anyway, those thoughts aside, it’s interesting to take a look at the reactions of the presidential candidates. As I’ve argued many times in the past, if there’s one thing the US doesn’t need right now it’s someone with little foreign policy experience. In fact, it’s one of the main reasons why I would not vote for Barack Obama if I were American, no matter who’s the Republican nominee.
Yesterday, all the candidates reacted and the ones who are lacking in foreign policy experience showed off just how little they know and how clueless they are about these matters. Governor Mike Huckabee, for instance, apologized to Pakistan for Bhutto’s death (as if somehow the US ordered the assassination) and he said that Musharraf had to lift martial law.
One problem, martial law was ended weeks ago.
Now, the Huckabee campaign made clear that he didn’t meant to say “apologies” but “sympathies” which is very well possible. In fact, I’ve got no problem believing that this is indeed what he meant to say. However, the point about martial law still stands and a president should say the right thing at the right time and not leave people wondering “um, what exactly did he try to say there?” (as an aside, imagine this: social conservative Huckabee as VP, moderate conservative McCain – with the experience – as president. not a bad ticket imo)
But Huckabee wasn’t the only one who didn’t react all too well: Barack Obama didn’t handle it well either.
Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan both rightfully say that Obama sounded cold, and came across as if he really didn’t care that much about Bhutto’s death or… if he does, that he simply has great trouble dealing with a sudden crisis like this.
Buchanan is also exactly right – which shows that he has more experience than Obama and Huckabee in this regard – when he says that it’s not about democracy in Pakistan right now but about order.
The reason that Obama and Edwards as well seem to have trouble dealing with this crisis is, according to the experts that they are agents of change, while Bhutto’s death doesn’t inspire people to call for change but for stability.
Taylor Marsh isn’t the only liberal blogger who has blasted Obama for his reaction: my friend Pamela Leavey – who doesn’t endorse any one of the candidates as far as I know – writes that “if this is the best Obama can offer, I’m not impressed and sadly would agree with Chris Matthews ‘cold’ assertion.”
And if that’s not enough, Obama spokesman Axelrod joined the fun:
Did Hillary Clinton kill Benazir Bhutto? Not quite, though Barack Obama’s right hand man thinks she may have had something to do with it.
“She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq,” David Axelrod said, speaking of Hillary “which we would submit, is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today. So that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend.”
They’re botching this one tremendously, aren’t they?
Aside from these two, however, a third person responded in a ridiculous way to the assassination: Congressman Ron Paul seemed to blame America.
If you don’t believe me, you can watch the video by clicking here. His view? The American support for Musharraf “annoys” fundamentalists, who then go on and kill their opponents (via Charles Johnson).
That’s just sad.
Anyway, this post is long enough as it is, therefore one question to my American friends: please, please, elect someone with foreign policy experience this time or at the very least someone who isn’t clueless about these matters.
Ron Paul said he blames the assassin for the murder of Bhutto at the same time he was questioned what he should do and he said nothing. Stay out of entangling alliances. Be friends with people. But don’t subsidize them. We waisted 50 Billion dollars propping up Musharef and what good has it done for the region?
I agree – Paul and Richardson definitely went OTT, and Obama didn’t come off too well either. McCain did go beyond the expected and comfortably usual and is better off for it.
On the other hand I can’t help but feel the candidate’s reactions to one event shouldn’t have so much significance. It simply cannot be that representative, even though it is far from unimportant.
Excellent advice, Michael. It remains to be seen whether Americans will take it. Thought that McCain, Clinton, and Biden did well- but I would expect that.
Xel: it’s – as I said – all part of a pattern. Obama has made some gruesome foreign policy mistakes already. He already threatened Pakistan – a key US ally – with military action if possible, yet he lets the Mullahs do whatever it is they want to do and, back in 2004, he said that if Musharraf is ousted, the US should go in and take out Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
For Huckabee, of course, it’s not exactly the first very telling sign either.
Kreiz: yes, they really showed why the’re the safe candidates.
"Congressman Ron Paul seemed to blame America."
That’s BS and you know it. Ron Paul said our foreign policy fans the flames of unrest in the region. He did not say that her assassination was our fault.
The CIA has been interfering in the Middle East for decades, and that interference has consequences. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
These lame attempts at smear only make you writers look lowly and immature, they do not harm Ron Paul. Grow up, and move on…
I agree with Michael, experience and the knowledge of the foreign countries matter.
Look, in 1999 Bush did not even know the name of Pakistani president. See, what kind of 7 year clusterf… we get when we elect idiots…
Benazir Bhutto agrees with Ron Paul. Here is an interview
with the good woman which will be published on January 6:
***
She would tell (Bush)..that propping up Musharraf’ s government,
which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster.
“I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’
I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
***
http://www.parade.com/benazir_bhutto_interview.html
US foreign policy overthrew a democratically-elected Pakistan government in favor of Musharraf’s dictatorship. They subsidized the dictatorship with billions of American taxpayer dollars. But Musharraf bit the hand that fed him – US brokered the return of Bhutto back, and now she gets assassinated. What a mess..
Ron Paul is the only sane man in America today.
<< Aside from these two, however, a third person responded in a ridiculous way to the assassination: Congressman Ron Paul seemed to blame America. >>
Sorry Michael, but he did no such thing. On Tucker this exchange took place yesterday:
Question: "To what degree would you hold the US foreign policy responsible for what happened today?"
Dr. Paul: "Well, zero, the people who commit the murder are a hundred percent repsonsible."
QED
Robert: yeah, but – and then we get his other reasoning, the one he truly seems to believe. Watch the video. Ludicrous.
With regards to foreign policy experience, Bush should never have been elected imo. He was completely and utterly dependent on others. He didn’t even know what he thought about foreign policy matters only one year or so before he became president.
<< Watch the video. Ludicrous. >>
Come on Michael, what do you take me for? Of course I watched the video. Are you therefore suggesting that Ms. Bhuto’s statement in her recent interview about the US propping up a military dictatorship is also ludicrous? After all, that is the exact core of Dr. Paul’s argument.
Oh, I get it, maybe you agree with those who think that the US government should continue spending billions it doesn’t have on proppling up Musharaf and do so by stealing more from the americans and their proginy, borrowing from China and, lest we forget, send american soldiers over there to die, all in clear violation of the Constitution?
Well, if you want to meddle in Pakistan so badly, I suggest you spend your own money and send your own soldiers, not ours.
PS: talk about synchronicity, my two reCAPTCHA words for this post are "down" and "Mideast". Creepy, how it does that.
So what is it Robert? He did mean, indeed, that the US has caused it because it’s supporting Musharraf or he doesn’t believe that at all and your last comment is reasonably irrelevant?
What do you think my government is doing and what my party wants the government to do?
As it is, we’re one of the US’ closes allies in the war on terrorism and related issues. So don’t give me that "if you want to do something about this or that, send your own troops to the Middle East, give money, etc." We do. We expect the Americans to do the same.
NOw, you can disagree with my on this issue, but the next time you leave a comment like that (indicating that a Dutchman shouldn’t say something because he’s not American) it will be deleted. The only reason it wasn’t deleted now is because I know you a bit, and we’re on friendly terms. Other commenters wouldn’t have received the same treatment.
The comment policy is strict, and from now I’m enforcing it again.
Shamelessly, I am going to plagiarize the comments of one DrEast elsewhere in the blogosphere:
Well said.
<< The only reason it wasn’t deleted now is because I know you a bit, and we’re on friendly terms. Other commenters wouldn’t have received the same treatment. >>
Agreed, that was a little over the top. Sorry. I allowed myself to get a little hot under the collar over your "watch the video [stupid]" comment. I guess we are both passionate and that, in the end, is not such a bad thing.Post #12 sums it up very well for me.
<< So what is it Robert? He did mean, indeed, that the US has caused it because it’s supporting Musharraf or he doesn’t believe that at all and your last comment is reasonably irrelevant? >>
There is a world of difference between being the root cause of something and fanning the flames of a pre-existing condition. Ron Paul puts US policy squarely in the latter category.
Pakistan has been a powder keg of numerous tribal and religious factions who were involuntarily lumped into a single state when Lord Mountbatten signed off on the artificial creation of this State to placate Mohammed Ali Jinna sixty years ago.
Ron did not seem to blame America.
Ron Paul was saying we should understand how our foreign policy results in unintended consequences which come back and bite us and this is because we intervene in the internal affairs of other countries by either subsidising them, bombing them or invading and occupying their land. This almost always backfires on us and we suffer as a result: our nation is less safe, Americans are more likely to get killed and our soldiers get unnecessarily killed in these entangling alliances.
.
Consider our intervention in Pakistan:
Musharraf gets rid of the democratic government of Pakistan in a coup and becomes dictator. We support the guy and give him 10 billion dollars in aid over 8 years because he’s now our partner in the War on Terror and he’ll get Osama bin Laden for us. But he allows bin Laden roam free in the border regions of Pakistan and actually allows him escape from Tora Bora when we had him surrounded and could have captured him.
So American taxpayers through U.S government foreign policy are subsidising a dictator who’s funding radical Islamic schools whose students make up the bulk of the Taleban who are now killing our soldiers in Afghanistan. Crazy or what!
Now we’re thinking of getting involved again because Bhutto has been assasinated — we should learn our lesson and stay out of their internal affairs.
.
And what about Osama bin Laden:
We supported and funded Osama bin Laden in the war against the Soviets in the eighties and we also funded Islamic radicals in Pakistan who then metamorphosised into the Taleban. So bin Laden and the Taleban build up a radical following in Afghanistan, get rid of the Soviets with U.S weapons, and then turn their attention to the U.S because we have military bases in Islamic Holy Land in Saudi Arabia, we take sides in the Israeli/Palestine conflict and we’ve been applying sanctions against Iraq and bombing them for over 10 years resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million Iraqis, mostly children.
To compound the problem, we’ve gone into Iraq based on the lie that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and as a result, Al Qaeda has more supporters than ever and our boys are sitting ducks over there. We’re more threatened than we’ve ever been and the bitter irony is that bin Laden & pretty much all of the hijackers were Saudis but we support the Saudi regime because of oil and we continue to maintain bases in Saudi Arabia further fuelling the hatred against us. The Saudi regime itself is repressive, dictatorial, has a terrible human rights record and is funding radical muslims in other parts of the world. This is just plain crazy…
.
And consider our interventions in Iran also:
The CIA organised a coup & overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 because among other things, he wanted to nationalise Iran’s oil and loosen the grip of British oil interests so that the Iran people could better benefit from their own oil.
So we remove the guy and he eventually gets killed, we install the Shah thereby creating a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy in an Islamic country where democracy was on the verge of flourishing.
So they hate us for meddling in their internal affairs, but we don’t stop there. We support the dictatorial Saddam regime in Iraq against Iran in a 10-year war in order to protect oil interests by giving Iraq weapons (including chemical & biological agents) which kills millions of Iranian people and further entrenches the Islamic fundamentalists in power in Iran.
And we still haven’t learnt our lesson because neo-cons talk about pre-emptively attacking Iran using nuclear weapons because they MIGHT have a nuclear weapons programme (they don’t) and they MIGHT attack us with it sometime in the future. The democratic Presidential contenders don’t rule this out and the Republican contenders (except Dr Paul), are even worse because they actively push this crazy policy.
So Ron Paul makes sense:
Ron Paul’s supporters understand these issues and think he’s the only sane guy in the room. U.S foreign policy now and in the recent past has been radical, crazy, and full of unintended consequences (though my 10 year-old niece could probably have forseen the disasters that would follow).
Ron Paul is the sane, sensible guy in all of this and his non-interventionist approach where we trade & talk to people (even those we don’t like) would actually make the U.S and the world a safer place, safeguard American interests, make it less likely that radicals take over in unstable countries and it would do a better job of promoting democracy abroad. We don’t need troops in Germany, Japan or South Korea and we certainly don’t need our boys getting killed in the Middle East or potentially Pakistan. They should all come home.
We lost 68,000 men in Vietnam before we accepted defeat and came home. But now we talk and trade with Vietnam and while they’ve still got a few problems, they are well on the way to being a peaceful westernised country — so by following a non-interventionist policy we achieved in peace what we couldn’t achieve in a pre-emptive war and the sacrifice of 68,000 young lives.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
And that quote is exactly why so many people will never vote for Ron Paul. I can’t even comprehend a worldview that pretends that the US is not a global superpower. It’s not even logically consistent, because it seems that one of the main themes of his policy is that our projection of global power is a problem because it provokes blowback. So, you have to choose: are we powerful (and you want us to be less powerful) or are we not really as powerful as we like to think we are?
In other words, if the argument is that we have a lot of power but we’re stretching our resources to the limit to project that power (and that you feel it’s harmful to stretch our resources and harmful to America’s image) then stick with that argument. When you then quote someone saying it’s all a farce and we’re not really powerful anyway, that makes me dismiss you altogether- I just can’t take that seriously at all. The former arguments might find me disagreeing, but willing to consider your viewpoint, but the latter is just a display of lack of reality.
The problem here though is that it is naive to think that a president or presidential candidate (or other national leader- comments from congressional leaders lately have fallen in this category as well) can make these distinctions in public speeches without it being used as propaganda against us.
Discussions about results like that from foreign policy need to be done more discreetly- discuss things in terms of what is in our best interest going forward, not in a sense of allowing others to use the discussion against us by saying we’re admitting that we were to blame, because those who quote from leaders like that will not be saying that we’re admitting to fanning the flames, they’ll instead show their followers that US leaders agree with them that we’re the root cause of the problems in the Middle East.
A simplistic analogy: as a parent, you might be aware that your child is having a temper tantrum because he/she didn’t get enough sleep the night before but you don’t say to the child, "Mom and Dad should have put you to bed earlier last night." Instead, your discussion with the child is that you expect him/her to take responsibility for his/her own behavior- and then privately you realize that you need to change your own actions to ensure that you are helping the child instead of contributing to the problem. And yes, to some degree I do believe that the relationship between the US and some of these other groups/nations is like a parental one, but no, that analogy isn’t completely accurate either (it’s just a way of illustrating the kind of separation of discussions which allow one to put responsibility properly where it belongs without it being twisted in the minds of the recipients of the message.)
C STanley,
America is powerful. Ron Paul thinks America is powerful but he also thinks that we are rapidly eroding our power because of our constant intervention in the internal affairs of other nations and because we have to borrow from the Chinese and other foreign creditors just to maintain our projection of global power through subsidies and imposing our will by force in countries we shouldn’t even be involved with. And he’s right!
If the Chinese stopped funding us, we would become bankrupt and impotent pretty quickly. Is that the kind of America you want to live in — I’m guessing not. We should keep out of the entangling alliances of other nations, maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy and take care of our own ppl and our business at home.
This is exactly what made America the global superpower it has become but we are rapidly losing our way because we have ignored the constitution and we have ignored the wise counsel of ppl like Ron Paul.
Hey Michael, "As it is, we?re one of the US? closes allies in the war on terrorism and related issues" Please elaborate, did the Netherlands send any troops for the war on terror in the middle east? Was it just airspace use and equipment sent? What exactly has your country done, and what is the party that you mention that you support, are they in power at the moment or an opposition party, (geniune questions)? Thanks!
<< I can’t even comprehend a worldview that pretends that the US is not a global superpower. It’s not even logically consistent, because it seems that one of the main themes of his policy is that our projection of global power is a problem because it provokes blowback. >>
The US is currently seen as the world’s greatest superpower. No doubt about it, but the problem is that this is largely a fraud.
Why is that, you say? Well, when I see a guy living in a rented mansion, driving around in a leased Rolls Royce and paying for everything he buys with a wad of credit cards, who then expects everybody to do his bidding (or else!), I call him a fraud. What would you call him?
When I see a man living unassumingly in a comfortable little house, driving a SmartForTwo and paying all his bills with cash, and minding his own back yard before asking anything from his neighbors, I call him wise beyond all measure. What would you call him?
PS: another spooky "coincidence" with reCAPTCHA, this time the words are "enable" and "money". Does that fit, or what?
Hey Michael,
(please excuse the doube post, lost the formating on the previous one).
You said….
"As it is, we?re one of the US? closes allies in the war on terrorism and related issues"
Please elaborate, did the Netherlands send any troops for the war on terror in the middle east?
Was it just airspace use and equipment sent?
What exactly has your country done, and what is the party that you mention that you support, are they in power at the moment or an opposition party, (geniune questions)?
Thanks!
"he said that if Musharraf is ousted, the US should go in and take out Pakistan’s nuclear weapons."
How does that not make sense?
daddym: Do some research. The Netherlands has boots on the ground in Afghanistan.
Robert E: I believe that the US current economic situation is perilous, but not fraudulent. GDP is still high, so no, I do not think your analogy of the guy who’s maxed out the credit cards but has no real wealth is accurate.
The thing is that you guys would have a lot more credibility if you spoke about the problems in real terms instead of hyperbole. Yesterday, for example, I responded to a Paul supporter who asserted that our country was in ruins. Just about every day I see one of Paul’s supporters saying that we’ve shredded the Constitution, that our civil liberties are nonexistent now, etc- and then there’re the economic statements like you guys are making today. When you speak in terms which don’t match the reality that all of us can see right before our eyes, you lose credibility. If you actually believe that conditions are that bad and the reality that we see is a facade, then you’re going to have to do much better than you have so far to prove it.
Daddym: this information is very easy retrievable for you on the Net. Anyway, let me answer it nonetheless.
Iraq: we’ve sent troops to Iraq after the war against this country. They’re back for a couple of years but…
We’re still in Afghanistan. In fact, we’ve got one of the biggest forces there (some 1500 – 2000 troops constantly). They’re in the province of Oruzgan where they’re leading the NATO mission.
This is one of the most chaotic regions of Afghanistan: the idea was that the troops would go there to help Afghanis rebuild their country. Instead are troops are constantly fighting against the Taliban (and, therefore, dying, although – luckily – they’re very well trained, and far more Taliban than Dutch troops die).
My cousin served in Afghanistan and will go back in 2008 I believe.
Xel: because - among other things - this is the same Obama who’s talking about taking action that would endanger Musharraf’s regime!
What’s more: who knows who Musharraf is replaced with? He wanted Musharraf to be replaced by Bhutto. Should the West have attacked when that happened? And replaced by whom? Anyone?
<< I believe that the US current economic situation is perilous, but not fraudulent. GDP is still high, so no, I do not think your analogy of the guy who’s maxed out the credit cards but has no real wealth is accurate. >>
Sorry, but the government issued GDP number is highly suspect if not outright fraudulent in its own right.
First of all it is quoted in inflated FRN denomination. Second, the GD Product includes numerous non-productive activities. One of the best exampless of the latter is the inclusion of fees charged by "business" entities which are wholly or partially involved in tax enforcement or ther forms of complying with the insatiable desires of the various governments, i.e. accountants, lawyers etc.
Then there are of course the ugly triplets, the trade and budget deficits and the national debt, none of which would exist if the US economy were anywhere remotely in reach of being healthy.
PS: this time my reCAPTCHA turns out to be "postwar" and "10,000" – HONESTLY, I am not making this up, guys.
Robert E: at least you’re now getting more specific about your concern or complaint, but I have to ask for a translation or greater detail about this:
To what fees, and what entities, are you referring?
OK OK, America is a global empire. Many of us would like to change that before its too late, but its the fact of the day so we’ll work with that. I am mostly reading the Federalist Papers and ancient Roman history now, and I see that Madison and Hamilton were correct about the benefits of a strong federal system and completely underestimated the negative consequences.
I see that they wanted to mimic Rome, and I see that in many ways this has been accomplished. Can we continue to view America’s empire in the context of its Roman fore-bearer? Yes, but we would have to agree on what point of the imperial arc we are sitting on.
IMO the peak has passed for Pax Americana. In the 1990s, we had no Soviet Union and no ascendant China to question our foreign policy and expansionism. Under Clinton, it was possible to intervene almost anywhere on earth without a hint of dissent – because there was no power to argue.
If I had to point to a Roman emperor who explains today, I can only think of Theodosius. Who is he you say? Some unknown of no consequence? Sort of.
He was brought to power by his father’s success, and his reign was marked by expensive, inconclusive foreign wars funded by credit and fought by mercenaries. Over-extended, he was unable to contend with mass immigration and attempted instead to unite the empire with religion. Theodosius would be the last emperor to rule a united empire…
If you look at manipulated CPI statistics, you won’t see the effect of inflation on the average worker’s pay. If you go to the grocery store or gas station, maybe you have a better insight to the economic reality in America. Rome reduced the amount of silver in their coins, we have simply printed more and sustained artificially low interest rates to achieve the same end.
The expansion of credit cannot be indefinitely sustained by expanding credit – and an overpriced empire cannot be sustained by inconclusive wars reliant on hired firepower. It should be just as obvious that freedom cannot be maintained by increased government power & authority against its citizens.
Sorry if I sort of ramble across thousands of years of history, but I think the fundamental questions need context beyond "We’re a global super-power and that’s the way it is, has been, and always shall be"
<< To what fees, and what entities, are you referring? >>
I am referrimg to entities which (or persons who) wholly or partially derive their "incomes" from tax enforcement or other forms of non-producing compliance with the insatiable financial and regulatory desires of the various governments at all levels, i.e. accountants, lawyers etc. On top of that, government spending (!) is usually included as well.
The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:
GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) "
Why is so difficult to understand that meddling in their internal affairs makes them angry?Why can’t you comprehend sending tax money to support the flavor of the week has unintended consequences?Why is not medding considered weak? He’s advocating trade, travel and diplomacy. Dr. Paul’s best point is if they were doing that in the U.S. we would not stand for it.If we keep doing the same thing, why do people expect a different result?The reality is Ron Paul has crossover appeal. And with so many candidates in the field, his chances are very good.
C Stanley wrote:
" And that quote is exactly why so many people will never vote for Ron Paul. I can’t even comprehend a worldview that pretends that the US is not a global superpower. It’s not even logically consistent, because it seems that one of the main themes of his policy is that our projection of global power is a problem because it provokes blowback. So, you have to choose: are we powerful (and you want us to be less powerful) or are we not really as powerful as we like to think we are?In other words, if the argument is that we have a lot of power but we’re stretching our resources to the limit to project that power (and that you feel it’s harmful to stretch our resources and harmful to America’s image) then stick with that argument. When you then quote someone saying it’s all a farce and we’re not really powerful anyway, that makes me dismiss you altogether- I just can’t take that seriously at all. The former arguments might find me disagreeing, but willing to consider your viewpoint, but the latter is just a display of lack of reality."
The US is a global superpower, but with that power comes responsibility. You say that “one of the main themes of his policy is that our projection of global power is a problem because it provokes blowback.” Us “projecting” ourselves on other countries by subsidizing, sanctioning, invading, bombing, occupying, propping up puppet dictators isn’t what makes us a superpower – those things detract from our power, and does cause tremendous blowback. They drain our resources, they make us more hated worldwide, and cause us to have fewer allies. None of those things can make us stronger. As the world’s only superpower, we need the world to respect us, not hate and fear us. You don’t get respect by forcing your ways upon anyone and then threatening them if they don’t agree with you. Setting a good example at home of how a democracy works is the best way to spread it around the world. You can’t force it on people at the barrel of a gun – that isn’t very democratic is it? We, as Americans, are so blind to our country’s own actions that we can’t see the bigger picture. We think the world revolves around us and that because we are this “superpower” that we are the only country that matters. Our arrogance and forcefulness around the world is known to everyone except us. Why this concept of staying out of other countries business is so radical to most I can’t comprehend. You have to treat others as we would like to be treated. We wouldn’t want another country doing to us what we do to them – overthrowing our leaders, supporting dictators, building military bases in our country, threatening us with sanctions and wars. It’s absurd to think what we do doesn’t have “blowback.” Of course it does, we would be fighting mad too if we had to put up with what they did. You have to look at things from the perspective of our enemies to understand what motivates them. Otherwise, this ‘war on terror’ will never end. You can’t fix a problem you don’t understand.
J Bradford: One of the main problems I have with Paul is that he IS advocating radical change. Even if people become convinced that a major change is needed in the way America interacts with the rest of the world, it’s still far from a foregone conclusion that we could or should reverse course that drastically and quickly. Like it or not, the very effects that you are concerned about (the negative views of the rest of the world toward America) would be worsened if we suddenly stopped intervening (esp when that change in course is accompanied by the type of rhetoric that Paul and his supporters are using, which amount to a giant mea culpa and an admission that we don’t have the real economic might to back up our outward display of power), it would in fact be used as a stick with which to beat up America.
If he were advocating a gradual change of course and correction of economic liabilities, then I could consider that message and I’d also consider him a true conservative. Rapid, radical change is not consistent with Burkean conservatism and I see lots of evidence that Paul’s supporters are not truly considering the logical consequences of his advocated policies.
Libertarians (i.e. the Ron Paul crowd) are a bit like the Republican Party’s equivalent of the extreme left. Problems are seen in purely ideological terms. Apply the ideological solution and voila, problem solved.
I do not think that beliefs of this nature should be categorised as conservative. One of the key principles of conservatism is the flawed nature of humanity and the existence of evil. This flaw in human nature means that problems cannot be reduced to disputes about the distribution of power or resources. Even if the unachievable utopia of perfect earthly justice was created people would still screw it up.
In other words true conservatism accepts that there is no complete solution to all our problems, the flawed nature of society will always be with us. Political efforts to solve the problems may have some positive effects but they may also just move problems about from one area to another.
There are multiple motivations though. You believe that people who back our current policies overlook the motivations of anger toward American interference; fine, that is certainly a valid criticism of some neoconservatives, for example. But equally dangerous is to overlook that the leaders of our enemies are motivated by using the US as a scapegoat for their own deficiencies; this is common to the middle east dictators who’ve been propped up by the west but foment discontent and hatred of it among their people, and also among the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamist groups who use this as a facade to rally supporters. In other words, they tell their followers that this is a war against the ‘far enemies’ and the ‘near enemies’ who have created (in their view) all of the problems of the middle east- but what they are not saying in this rhetoric is what their true intent is, which is to replace the tyranny they see coming from the West with their own form of it in a Taliban style theocracy (which would extend, in their hopes, from Europe to Malaysia eventually, and would then become a global superpower to challenge and possibly defeat the US as well.) In other words, it’s naive to assume that they just want to be left alone when their internal speeches, dialogues, and writings indicate their own desires for global dominance.
David: Very well said (comment #34)
In the libertarian worldview, apparently the only real enemy is the government and it’s co-conspirators.
C Stanley,
Paul advocates a radical shift in our policy. Bringing troops home from all over the world won’t happen overnight, but you can change our policy immediately. Bring the troops home from Iraq now, then start making plans to pull troops out of areas they’ve been in for 50 + years.
You have to start somewhere. Even with Paul’s plan, and he even admits this, it will take a long time to restore some respect to the United States. People will have to see that you mean what you say, and stick to it. Over time, the hatred for America will diminish - the incentive for that hatred won’t be there anymore. Will we have enemies? Sure. The world isn’t perfect, but we don’t have to elevate that hatred by bullying the world around.
It’s like Paul said in a recent interview when asked if he though America was to blame for the terrorists actions. He said "well, if you step in a snake pit and get bit, who do you blame, yourself or the snake?" That’s exactly what is happening, we have put ourselves in the middle of a region which we know nothing about as far as their politics, religion, etc… and we think we can solve their problems. They hate us for it and we are suffering the blowback because of our policy.
As far as us admiting to the world that we can’t afford our world empire – there’s nothing to admit, everyone knows we are in debt. Everyone knows our dollar is on the decline. A "radical" change in policy is needed. No one is going to "beat up" on America – not in a military fashion at least. We are way too strong for anyone to even think of threatening us. As for our economy, it has already be beat up. We need to change course and stop spending so much money before it gets knocked completely out. Our dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar – if that is not a sign that we are in trouble I don’t know what is.
We can all keep our heads in the sand and ignore what is happening around the world, but the real "radical" change will have to happen once our economy crashes. The Soviets spread their empire too thin and looked what happened to them – they collapsed. To think that can’t happen to us just because we’re The United States of America is ignorant. Our dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to what it was worth in 1913. We need a change.
Burkean conservatism
This has nothing to do with American conservatism. It is very difficult to explain/understand the philosophical history of the Republican party if you’re using European definitions of what a conservative is. Nah, just impossible.
Baloney. It certainly explains the social conservatism which has always been part of the Republican party, seeking to maintain strength of institutions like the churches and maintaining the importance of moral strictures.
No, what will happen instead is terrorism, which will then cause Americans to react the same way they did to 9/11 and then your goals of having people remain calm and resolute in maintaining their liberties rather than giving them up for a heightened sense of security will be completely set back again.
The problem is that you, and Paul, are being completely naive to think we can just wait out that period of time while we’re ‘proving ourselves’, as though other groups and nations won’t take advantage of us during that time when they still hate us and they also know that we’re not going to fight back.
OK, then you go on being confused about why pro-gun, anti-tax, de-regulating "libertarians" have always been a core part of the conservative party in America.
Burkean conservatism in America is a rather new phenomenon, representing a radically regressive shift that is hopefully not sustained – and it puts the Republican party in danger of long-term election loss because its in direct conflict to what many of us Republicans consider American conservatism.
The big problem with the Paul disengagement from the world scenario is that world history has usually involved the rise and fall of empires. When the US troops go home it is not likely that they will be replaced by locals. The more likely scenario is that they will be replaced by the troops of whichever empire is going to supercede the US. An embargo on foreign intervention could mean hostile foreigners on your borders. Imagine how safe the US would be if Canada or Mexico were hostile states. This is really a policy of suicide by installments.
I wonder if Paul supports unilateral nuclear disarmament as the logic is quite similar….
Christine, just because we are superpower, we should be more careful in our decisions and actions.
The thing is, not too many of the politicians ever think like a chess masters for the years ahead and about the consequences of their actions in the future.
Did you read my post yesterday about incompetence of our foreign relationship’s people towards Pakistan ?
The thing is our grandchildren certainly will be the beneficiaries (not) of the policies of the idiotic neocon rule of today….
We all have to make decision everyday about some petty staff, at the most our bad judgement can affect our immediate family and not many other people around.
The bad judgments of incompetent third rate minds in our foreign office or VP office have much worse consequences which could last for Generations…
David, that’s the real problem and I don’t have a good answer for that one. On the other hand, our expansion into the Middle East hasn’t stopped/slowed Chinese expansion into Africa or western Asia.
The only historical development I can point to is the rise of regionalism – it has been primarily western (British and American) intervention in the Middle East that has kept the nations divided along artificial cartographic lines. Unified regional powers can resist encroachment on their own, but our policy has been designed to prevent such regional cooperation for fear that they may be directly competitive or even openly hostile.
C Stanley wrote
" There are multiple motivations though. You believe that people who back our current policies overlook the motivations of anger toward American interference; fine, that is certainly a valid criticism of some neoconservatives, for example. But equally dangerous is to overlook that the leaders of our enemies are motivated by using the US as a scapegoat for their own deficiencies; this is common to the middle east dictators who’ve been propped up by the west but foment discontent and hatred of it among their people, and also among the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamist groups who use this as a facade to rally supporters. In other words, they tell their followers that this is a war against the ‘far enemies’ and the ‘near enemies’ who have created (in their view) all of the problems of the middle east- but what they are not saying in this rhetoric is what their true intent is, which is to replace the tyranny they see coming from the West with their own form of it in a Taliban style theocracy (which would extend, in their hopes, from Europe to Malaysia eventually, and would then become a global superpower to challenge and possibly defeat the US as well.) In other words, it’s naive to assume that they just want to be left alone when their internal speeches, dialogues, and writings indicate their own desires for global dominance."
Do you not see the irony in your statement here of how the leaders of the Islamist groups use the US to promote the war against the "far enemies" and "near enemies" who have created all the problems in the middle east?
What do you think our government here is doing? They’re using the same rhetoric… the terrorists are out to get us, the Islamic fundamentalist extremists want to take over the world so we have to fight them there so they won’t come here…..
It’s almost comical that we look at them as the evil ones for saying the same thing we’re saying when WE’RE the ones over in THEIR homeland. We invade them, we bomb them, we intervene in their internal affairs and yet they’re the ones who are evil.
They do want to be left alone – wouldn’t you? Why do they not attack any of the other free societies in the world?? If they hate freedom so much, why don’t they attack Switzerland, Canada, etc…? Bin Laden himself said that we need to look at why they hate us and that we should realize that they don’t attack Switzerland and they’re free.
Oh, one more thing… how do you get the quotes to work on here? I keep having to copy and paste previous posts… not sure how to quote what you say. Thanks
<< In the libertarian worldview, apparently the only real enemy is the government and it’s co-conspirators. >>
Not quite.
In the libertarian view, an (evil) individual can do far less damage on his own than he/she can when given the tools government. If there are x% scoundrels in the population, then there are at a minimum an equal x% scoundrels among those who run governments.
More likely however, there are far more scoundrels in government, because that brood are irresistably attracted to government power like teenagers are to their first kiss.
That vast majority who are decent and just, have no such desires.
No, David R.Paul does not support unilateral disarmament.
<< Imagine how safe the US would be if Canada or Mexico were hostile states. This is really a policy of suicide by installments. >>
Don’t waste your prescious braincells. We already had that exactscenario with the Cuban Missile Crisis and it was resolved by negotiation, exactly as Dr. Paul would have us do again.
And you are confused that "part" does not equal "whole" and that "libertarian" does not equal "conservative" nor does it equal "Republican".
C Stanley wrote:
"No, what will happen instead is terrorism, which will then cause Americans to react the same way they did to 9/11 and then your goals of having people remain calm and resolute in maintaining their liberties rather than giving them up for a heightened sense of security will be completely set back again.The problem is that you, and Paul, are being completely naive to think we can just wait out that period of time while we’re ‘proving ourselves’, as though other groups and nations won’t take advantage of us during that time when they still hate us and they also know that we’re not going to fight back."
I believe the fundamental flaw in this is that you have to understand what causes terrorism. If you read the experts from the CIA, they spell it out that the terrorists want to kill us because of our occupation in their homelands. We have military bases in Saudi Arabia, which they consider their holy land. Removing our presence from the are removes the incentive for terrorism.
There was no terrorism against us before we got involved in the Middle East in the 1950’s. We overthrew the Iranian government and had "blowback" from that in 79 when they bombed our Marines. Remember all the terror bombings you used to hear about in Lebanon? Do you hear of any today? No. Why? We removed our troops. The incentive is gone.
I mean, what would motivate you to want to kill someone? The fact that they had more money than you and different beliefs, or the fact that they break into your house and threaten you and your family and your way of life?
Again, we have to look at it from the perspective of what would we do if the same things were happening in our country.
David wrote:
The big problem with the Paul disengagement from the world scenario is that world history has usually involved the rise and fall of empires. When the US troops go home it is not likely that they will be replaced by locals. The more likely scenario is that they will be replaced by the troops of whichever empire is going to supercede the US. An embargo on foreign intervention could mean hostile foreigners on your borders. Imagine how safe the US would be if Canada or Mexico were hostile states. This is really a policy of suicide by installments. I wonder if Paul supports unilateral nuclear disarmament as the logic is quite similar…."
You are correct, the world is full of empires that have risen and fallen. We currently have a world empire which we can’t afford. We are bogged down in the Middle East and it is bankrupting us. We will fall if we continue our world expansion – it is a fact. Every empire in history has ended in financial ruin.
As for what would happen if we pulled our troops home. Let China or whoever take our place in the Middle East – they will face the same struggles militarily and economically that we do now. It happened to the Soviet Union and they fell. It’s happening to us. China’s economy is booming right now – we borrow 3 Billion per day from them. We need to take care of our country and stop policing the world. We have no moral authority or economic means to do it.
I never said it was evil that the jihadists use propaganda and scapegoat tactics. In fact I do think this is human nature- the leaders of movements often do use it in sinister ways though, and I think there probably are dual motivations within our own leadership (some actually formulating policy based on actual belief about threats and some overplaying the threat in order to gain and keep power.)
Now, why no jihad against Switzerland or Canada? Because there is no logic in that. But the problem is that it’s not just because those countries don’t interfere, it’s because they also don’t influence cultures around the globe. Read about Qutb for example, and you’ll see that the threat that is perceived among Islamic fundamentalist leaders isn’t just that the West interferes politically, it’s also that our culture is incompatible with their desire for a religious caliphate. When Muslim youth are exposed to the attractions of Western freedoms, the fear is that they will no longer hold to fundamentalist beliefs which are incompatible with freedom.
That’s where the logic of the US pulling back falls apart; even if we never again interfere politically or militarily, we still have a culture which is incompatible with the type of culture that fundamentalists want to enforce in their own lands.
Its the direction the party is moving, but it is by no means representative or explanatory of the coalition that historically puts Republicans in power. We will have to see how things go, but the turn toward statist & organic change over American idealism is indicating a huge popularity loss for the Republican party…
I’m not saying that the Burkean camp doesn’t exist in a few forms, I’m just saying that it won’t win very many elections over here.
USSR attempted it when it was already nearly bankrupt, and nothing that any of you have said has convinced me that we’re in a similar position of weakness. USSR also attempted to actually establish an empire, not just to remove dictators and then attempt to manipulate the populations toward democracies that would be friendly trading partners and allies.
Robert E: Interesting example, the Cuban missile crisis. Do you really think that that example of negotiation can be removed from the backdrop of other Cold War policies? Negotiations can only succeed toward protecting our interests if we negotiate from a position of strength.
libertarian: the statism has been adopted largely by the former fiscal conservatives, who sold their soul to compete with the big government promises of the Democrats. Hopefully they’ve learned that this was a mistake, but they’ll also need to realize that they’re going to have to regain the ‘highground’ in that regard, and blaming it all on the resurgence of social conservatives (who’ve mainly been used by the party, not really given anything in return for their support of GOP candidates) is not going to help the fiscal conservatives regain credibility. The two factions need to make peace and find their common ground again rather than one trying to scapegoat the other or force each other out of the party.
C Stanley wrote:
"That’s where the logic of the US pulling back falls apart; even if we never again interfere politically or militarily, we still have a culture which is incompatible with the type of culture that fundamentalists want to enforce in their own lands."
I’m sorry, but if that is the logic that you have on why terrorism exists then you and I will never see eye to eye on this. They don’t hate us because of the music we listen to, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear… those countries you listed, Canada and Switzerland, they have very similar cultures as us. We’re not the only country in the world that is "Westernized" so if they really want to overtake the world why do they not attack other countries? Seems they would be easier since the security is likely less…
Britian, our biggest ally and supporter in the war in Iraq, has had suicide bombings recently. Why do you think that is? Is it because of their "influence" on the world with their way of life, or do you think it might be because they’re also heavily involved in the affairs of the Middle East?
Please, go read the writings of Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s unit for tracking and capturing Bin Laden. He has a book out now called Imperial Hubris, and an earlier one called Through Our Enemies Eyes: Osama Bin Laden…. that talks about terrorism and why it exists and why we will never defeat it until we understand the root cause.
Go read the 9/11 Commission Report – please. All of these writings detail how our occupation leads to terrorism.
C Stanley wrote:
"USSR attempted it when it was already nearly bankrupt, and nothing that any of you have said has convinced me that we’re in a similar position of weakness. USSR also attempted to actually establish an empire, not just to remove dictators and then attempt to manipulate the populations toward democracies that would be friendly trading partners and allies."
"USSR also attempted to actually establish an empire…" What exactly do you think we’re doing? We have 700 military bases overseas in over 130 countries. We’re building 14 military bases right now in Iraq and an embassy bigger than the Vatican. We have a world empire. It will collapse. They always do. We’re no different than any other society througout history.
Our dollar is falling everyday, we are over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt and growing, inflation is causing prices to go up faster than the cost of living raises, the housing market is critical… how much further do you want it to go before you say wait a minute, maybe we are in trouble? I guess when we have to carry a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread like they did in Germany, maybe then we’ll realize something is wrong and we should’ve stopped our spending.
We can ignore it all we want, it’s not going to stop it from happening. No empire ever thinks they’re going to crumble, but pick up a history book, they always do.
J Bradford: I have read all of the sources you suggest and I’ve come to very different conclusions. Again, I think you are just as much cherrypicking on the root causes as are people who completely ignore the effects of US policy. You see it completely as though the whole problem wouldn’t exist if not for our policies, while I see a more balanced view that includes the motivations of other players who’d choose to dominate the middle east if we weren’t thwarting their plans to do so.
You only have to look at Afghanistan as an example. When the USSR was defeated, we walked away. How’d that work out? Did those who ‘hated the USSR for it’s intervention’ then remain content to sit back and let Afghanistan become a peaceful and prosperous nation? No, they took the opportunity to establish a brutal theocracy and to use it as a safe haven to train terrorists and plan attacks against their other perceived enemy, the US. I suppose your belief is that if the US wasn’t perceived as the enemy, they wouldn’t have done this, but you’re still left explaining how it’s morally acceptable to allow thugs like the Taliban to take control of a country and how the US pulling back from it’s involvement there wasn’t viewed in a benevolent fashion but instead was used against us. You’ve already admitted that there would be a time period during which we wouldn’t be trusted; how is it that you’d expect any different reaction during that time than what we’ve already experienced in Afghanistan? Just because Ron Paul says that America is changing its tune doesn’t mean that our enemies will believe this, and he (and you) still have to explain how it is that we’ll deal with those who’ll take advantage during that time period.
<< Negotiations can only succeed toward protecting our interests if we negotiate from a position of strength. >>
If you can think of anything stronger than the US military with all its troops and weapons capability at home instead of spread all over hell’s acre and a well armed general population to boot, I’d sure like to hear about it.
I think there’s quite a few options in between the polar opposite positions of all of our troops being deployed and spread thin as we now have and the other extreme of having all troops at home with no bases around the world. It’s that kind of black and white thinking that I object to from Paulites- it doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
Oh and lest I forget, the money, the constitutional authority and the will to issue letters of marque, when needed to go after someone like Osama Bin Laden swiftly and mercylessly.
<< I think there’s quite a few options in between the polar opposite positions of all of our troops being deployed and spread thin as we now have and the other extreme of having all troops at home with no bases around the world. >>
Nobody, certainly not Ron Paul has said anything about refusing to have a few small, strategically useful bases around the world, as long as it is purely by invitation, for benign defensive purposes and never in order to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs.
What we are about is closing the bases which are maintained for bellicose nation building or other lofty "world police" purposes at unbelievable cost to the US public with little more to show for it than one form of negative blow-back or another.
C,
So you’ve read Michael Scheurer, who flat out states that they hate us for our occupation, and came away with a different conclusion? There’s nothing to conclude there – the head guy in the CIA responsible for Bin Laden states that he hates us for our intervention and you concluded something different than that?
Your example of Afghanistan is full of inaccuracies. Afghanistan could have become a peaceful nation if we had left the entire Middle East. The Taliban grew there because we remained in Saudia Arabia and other countries. Why are we responsible for "thugs" in another country? We are not the police of Afghanistan. We have our own "thugs" here at home to take care of. Talk about moral responsibility – our government does not have the moral authority to take from you and I to intervene in Afghanistan. We create the thugs you talk about in these countries anyway – we arm and fund them and then fight them 20 years later. Look at Pakistan – our involvement there has done nothing but escalate the tensions.
There are more terrorists in the Middle East now than before the Iraq war started. How do you explain that? Do you think they all jumped on board because our western way of life suddenly became more popular, making them all want to kill us all that much more, or could it be that our bombing and occupation of 2 of their countries allows the hatred for us to grow and allows them to recruit members so much easily?
America’s tune isn’t chaning because Ron Paul says it is – it’s changing because people like me are tired of the BS that our government and media try and feed us into believing that we need them to protect us from "terrorists." It’s propoganda just like you say the Islamists are using in their country and people need to wake up and realize what’s really going on in the world.
The rest of the world won’t believe anything we say, we have to prove it to them. Will there be terrorism after we leave? Yes, but we will be much safer with the incentive for them to do it gone, and our troops home PROTECTING our country instead of 130 others around the world.
After all this discussion of our world empire – if you truly believe we should be asserting force and influence like we do today, please tell me how you propose we keep funding it? Whether you agree with a non-interventionist foreign policy or not, there is no denying we can’t afford it, so I want to know what you propose we do? People who like our intervening in other’s internal affairs can argue until they’re blue in the face at how we have to fight the terrorists, but I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me how we can afford it. Can you?
One other point about Michael Scheuer. I hate to keep bringing him up, but since he was in the CIA for 22 years and responsible for Bin Laden, I think he is a pretty accurate source for all of this.
His book, Imperial Hubris, is told from Bin Laden’s perspective. In it, he states why 9/11 happened and why we will continue to be attacked… some of those reasons are our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, our support of Israel, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and our support of Russia, China, and India – all countries who oppress Muslims.
Back in September of this year, Bin Laden put out a videotape that stated that if anyone wanted to understand why the United States is losing the war on terror they should read Imperial Hubris.
"We are under attack by Islamic militants for what we do in the world – not for who we are or what we believe in." – Michael Scheuer
How can we fail to ignore this? Bin Laden is spelling it out for us and we turn a blind eye.
Oh! Now you’ve done it, J Bradford.
You’ve given them an opportunity to pass over your earlier question. So I’m going to repeat it, just to make sure that doesn’t happen:
"People who like our intervening in other’s internal affairs can argue until they’re blue in the face at how we have to fight the terrorists, but I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me how we can afford it. Can you?"
Well, where are the answers? The silence is absolutely deafening so far on this one.
Haha… sorry Robert, I guess I should’ve waited for a reply but it seems everyone got "busy" and couldn’t write anymore. Too funny…
Christine at 61- you mean there may be some truth in the middle????
I’m shocked. Of course you’re right. It just takes someone who’s more interested in listening than talking.
"Russia, China, and India – all countries who oppress Muslims."
I can see India being less than fair (although isn’t that more like a sad cycle of revenge and mutual hostility) and Russia have Chechnya on their conscience. But China? Isn’t China just rasist at most? And what degree of support can be said to be justified as a source of anger in fair-minded or at least justice-seeking muslims?
"We are under attack by Islamic militants for what we do in the world – not for who we are or what we believe in." – Michael Scheuer
In my eyes we are seeing a mixture of blowback and pure evilness that wants to undo toleration, secularism, modernity and diversity.
Kreiz and Christine – the only black and white thinking I see going on here is labeling Paulites as extremists by wanting our troops home. Sure there is middle ground for having all our troops abroad versus having them here at home, but you have to look at the reasoning for wanting to bring them home. It’s economic reasons more than anything.
Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy for several reasons. The first being that it creates hatred towards us – like in the Middle East. The other part, and bigger part, of it are our bases in such places like Europe, South Korea, and Japan. Why are we there? We are not "meddling" in their internal affairs per se like we are in the Middle East, but it is costing us billions of dollars to be there. We are going bankrupt funding a world-wide army. Why does my money go to have our military in Europe? They have a good economy, let them have their own military there. It makes no sense.
So, back to my earlier question, those of you who support our world-wide empire, or those of you opposed to Paul’s views, how do you propose we continue to pay for it?
The stock answer for that one is something like this:
-Deficits don’t matter
-You’re imagining that inflation (CPI says you need to substitute cheaper products)
-Social Security & Medicare are fine
-Lower interest rates again
-More tax cuts
-Borrow more money
-Subsidize those driven to poverty
-Repeat infinitely, because this cycle is sustainable (haha /s)
<chirp, chirp>
Wow, you talk about money around here and everyone up and leaves. I feel like I’m in a Baptist church…
So does this mean that everyone wants to conquer the world but no one has a clue how to pay for it? Or do you have such an elaborate plan that you’ve been typing for 4 hours now? I can’t wait to read it…
<chirp, chirp>
Oh, geez. I went offline to actually live a real life and came back to check to see how the conversation was going. I see that instead of realizing that people not responding might mean that they have other things to do than have blog discussions all day, some folks have assumed that I chose not to respond. I’m not interested in playing those games, folks. I think most regular readers here know that I will generally return to answer questions or continue discussions, but I simply don’t have the time at the moment and I’ve lost my interest in this one anyway.
Ding, ding…. looks like we have a new "stock" answer, libertarian. Now it’s that they "don’t have time" and "lost their interest."
I guess that clears it up for us folks who thought you "chose not to respond."
Ok, so now that we’ve got our plan on how to fund an American empire – which is apparenlty by avoiding the question totally – we can all move along. Nothing to see here folks. Somehow our foreign policy will pay for itself.
Whew… and I was worried for a second we might go bankrupt. Good to know those in such favor of wars of agression have a sound plan to pay for them. I can sleep peacefully tonight…
LOL, unbelievable. I’ve heard Paulites say it’s not true that most of them are young kids, but when I see discussions like this one I have to believe that’s who I’m dealing with (do any of the Paul supporters here actually have any family obligations, for example, or do you stay at your computer 24-7? And have you no idea that blog etiquette requires you to assume that the people you’re conversing with might have to leave their computer, so you don’t accuse them of having no response to your questions if they aren’t there to respond ?)
I shouldn’t dignify this with a response, but I will nonetheless:
First, I need to know whether you actually make a distinction, or do you really believe that it’s a choice between Paul’s policy of bringing all troops home or else we’re supporting a world-wide empire? Because it’s important to know if you understand that there’s a difference between maintaining an empire and maintaining bases around the world in countries that actually want us there and want us to help provide their own defense. If you don’t believe that, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
However, assuming you can grasp the difference, I’d say that funding issues need to be handled by cutting out the massive fraud and waste in military spending (by banning earmarks and creating much stricter ethical guidelines for Congress, to prevent them from having family members benefit from military contracts, for example.) Add to that cuts in domestic spending (which is where most of our spending excess has been; despite large amounts of spending on current wars, we’re still just making up for the cuts that took place in the 90s and much of that would be necessary to restore our military anyway.)
And since you’re so insistent on me answering your questions, how about you guys actually answer mine about proving that our economy is really on the verge of collapse as you seem to believe. I’ve already stated that one reason I don’t buy into Paul’s philosophy is that I simply don’t believe that our GDP is a false creation. Once again, you guys seem to make a black and white picture where people either believe what you believe (that we’re about to collapse) or we ignore real problems. Once again, there is a world of grey in between the black and white, and many of us see real problems with our economy but we don’t believe the sky is falling. If you think people should view the world the way you do, then you have to provide evidence, not just make accusations that everything we’ve been told about the economy is a fabrication of our government.
Sorry to inform you C Stanley, but I’m not a kid, and most of the Ron Paul supporters I know aren’t either. They’re actually some of the most educated, informed voters our there. My joking response to your post that you were too busy to comment on the post was because you acted like a child taking his ball and going home when he didn’t get his way. You were quick to respond all day long yesterday until you get posed a tough question. Then you come back and say you’ve "grown tired" of the discussion. Umm, ok.
To your statement about it being between being a world-wide empire or doing as Paul wants and bring our troops home – in this case it is black and white. He is the only one talking about bringing our troops home, every other candidate wants the status quo, and some even want a further expansion.
Further than that, it’s really Paul’s belief that we need a change in our foreign policy altogether. I get the feeling you think Paul wants to up and bring all our troops home the first week he’s in office. He wants to change our policy towards intervention immediately, bring the troops out of Iraq, and work to bring troops home from over 130 countries. Will all of them be removed? Of course not. There are places in the world where our military is wanted – but OUR tax dollars shouldn’t be paying for it. If a country wants our military presence in their country, I feel they should pay for it to be there, not me.
As far as our economy, we have over a 9 trillion dollar deficit that is growing everyday. Our dollar has declined to the point that it is worth less than the Canadian dollar – it is worth 4 cents compared to when the Fed was created in 1913. We borrow 3 billion dollars per day to fund our foreign affairs. Inflation is rising about 5 times faster than the cost of living raises.
At what point do we say enough is enough? Our economy may not collapse today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now – but if we do not change our course it will collapse. I care about my kids and do not want to burden them and their children for our foolishness. We print money out of thin air to pay for our extravagant foreign and domestic policies and it is ruining our country. The only reason our money today has any value is due to the amount of it in circulation, it is backed by nothing. The Fed creates ups and downs by adding and removing money from circulation. It is an insane system. Inflation is a hidden tax that robs the middle class. The middle class gets smaller and smaller every day. There are more rich people and more poor people than every before. The same events happened in Germany and it will happen here. You can choose to ignore it all you want but it won’t stop it from happening.
You also say you want to cut spending domestically? How do you propose we do that? It’s easy to say "cut spending" but you have to elaborate, you sound like some of the candidates running for president. All talk and no substance.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree we should cut spending domestically, but foreign expenditures are the place we can begin cutting immediately. Our society has become so dependent on some of our social programs that it will take a long time to ween people off of them.
Nonsense, C Stanley. Your comment below about earmarks is complete poppycock.
<< … funding issues need to be handled by cutting out the massive fraud and waste in military spending (by banning earmarks and creating much stricter ethical guidelines for Congress … >>
Banning earmarks would only shift the authority for distribution of already approved spending from Congress to (executive branch) bureaucrats. A fat lot of good that would do.
Earmarks are actually the only way for local communities – through the efforts of their elected representatives – to ensure that some of the money taken from them in the form of taxation is returned for their benefit.
Better by far, to have the money spent on some community boondoggle, if that’s what it is, than to have it got to some Mandarin’s pet project.
Excellent point Robert E – “banning earmarks” does nothing to the budget, the money is already approved. It only “EARMARKS” it for a specific purpose.