-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, January 6, 2012 - 2:48 PM
Share
I have a confession to make: I haven't been paying all that much attention to the presidential primary season, mostly because most what's happened so far strikes me as irrelevant to who the next president will be. I see it the same way I see the first few weeks of the baseball season: occasionally entertaining for die-hard fans but not very meaningful, because what really matters is who makes the playoffs and gets into the World Series (i.e, the "general election"). And because this year's GOP field has been filled with a number of wingnuts with no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination, I've found it even easier to bide my time and wait for things to shake out.
The recent hoopla attached to the Iowa caucuses is a case in point: because the preferences of a tiny subset of self-selected voters from a distinctly unrepresentative state aren't a bellweather of anything. Iowa got rapt attention because news organizations want to sell papers and attract listeners and because pundits can't help bombarding us with breathless narrative about What It All Means.
For these reasons, I also haven't said anything about Ron Paul's candidacy, although Andrew Sullivan has recently highlighted a series of exchanges on whether Paul's candidacy is actually harmful to broader argument for a more restrained, non-interventionist foreign policy (a topic I do think is quite important). I've never though Paul was a credible candidate, however, because his views on a host of other issues are frankly silly and because he has done a poor job responding to questions about the racist associations he's had in the past. In other words, even if Paul has some sensible things to say about foreign policy, he carries way too much baggage to win the GOP nomination, let alone the general election. And to be completely clear: I wouldn't vote for him, at least not based on what I know now.
That said, I'd make a couple of points about Paul's candidacy, and especially his take on America's addiction to global adventurism.
First, despite his bizarre views on the gold standard, climate change, social security, and the like, Paul has put his finger on a number of issues that could resonate broadly with the American people, especially if discussion were not monopolized by think tanks and insiders who are strongly committed to the status quo. Unlike most foreign policy "experts" in both parties, Paul believes the United States is an extraordinarily secure country, with a robust nuclear deterrent, no powerful enemies nearby, and at present no major power rivals of much significance. He instinctively rejects the paranoia and worst-casing that has convinced Americans that we need to roam around the world trying to remake it in our image (a task, by the way, that we're not very good at). He believes that excessive interventionism and other failed policies are a primary cause of anti-Americanism around the world, and that the United States would be more popular and safer if we focused more attention on trade and diplomacy and domestic issues instead of emphasizing military dominance and overseas meddling. He believes that a bloated national security state and a quasi-imperial foreign policy inevitably fosters greater government secrecy and erodes traditional restraints on executive power. And like former president (and five-star general) Dwight D. Eisenhower, he thinks the current military-industrial complex wields excessive influence on our politics and has become a self-perpetuating engine for counter-productive meddling abroad.
These points are all debatable, of course, but Paul is the only person in the race who even wants to discuss them. The rest of the GOP candidates are mostly competing to see who can sound the most eager for war (usually with Iran) or most willing to toss more money at the Pentagon. Barack Obama is a lot more sensible than they are, but as we've learned over the past three-plus years, neither he nor his national security team are interested in making dramatic changes in America's overall grand strategy. Instead, Obama has emerged as a strong proponent of government secrecy, a staunch defender of maintaining U.S. primacy around the world, and as an enthusiastic user of drones, special forces, and other tools of U.S. power. He did eventually wind down the war in Iraq, of course, but it hardly took a strategic genius to figure out that this was the right course.
And make no mistake: the "leaner" military budget revealed yesterday does not herald a fundamental change in our overall approach to the rest of the world. The United States will still be spending several times more on national security than any other single country, and more than the top ten or so nations combined. Our strategic attention will shift toward Asia and away from protracted counter-insurgency efforts (decisions that I applaud), but the United States will still be a preponderant power, will still maintain an extensive array of military bases around the world, and will still be strongly disposed to interfere in other nation's affairs. We may be using somewhat different tools (i.e., drones and special forces rather than large occupying armies), but these are tactical rather than strategic adjustments.
Ron Paul offers a much clearer alternative, and one that is not easy to dismiss with a sound-bite or two. Given the nuclear revolution, America's favorable geographic location, and the nature of the modern global economy, in fact, there's a pretty good case to be made for a much more limited global posture that shifts more of the burden for regional security onto others and focuses on fixing problems here at home. Neither pacifism nor "Fortress America," mind you, but far less global crusading than we've been doing since 1945.
But I think it's clear that Paul comes with too much baggage to persuade many people to follow his banner, and his views on other issues provides the media and other mainstream groups with an excuse to ignore the more interesting parts of his message. If by some miracle Paul managed to win the Republican nomination, the general election would probably look a lot like Johnson's crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
But that historical analogy got me wondering. Contemporary political historians argue that Goldwater's defeat in 1964 laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement, which came to fruition with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Paul has done surprisingly well during this primary season, and his views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters. Is it possible that Paul's brand of foreign policy restraint just needs a better champion, one who is both more broadly appealing but also not saddled by so much poisonous baggage? In short, just as Ronald Reagan eventually built on the Goldwater movement and made its core principles appealing to many Americans, might Ron Paul's views on foreign policy be awaiting the arrival of a candidate (in 2016, or maybe 2020) who can put them in a more attractive package?
The problem is what would Ron Paul do in the event that Iran did blockade the Straits of Hormuz, or if North Korea invaded South Korea or if any number of nations did things deliberately to indirectly damage the U.S? I admire the man for his honesty, but if he really refused to have such a blockade broken or allies reinforced things would get unpleasant very quickly.
Ron Paul wouldn't have provoked a blockade in the first place.
He has told us that answer many times, if the United States is threatened, then Ron Paul would address the congress and ask for a declaration of war, as the constitution demands in our representative republic.
If the people(via the congress) agree, and war is declared, then Ron Paul would command the armed forces to attack.
He has never said that he would refuse to protect the United States, only that he would never start a preemptive war, such as Iraq.
The problem with your view GRANT is-------- RON PAUL should not be the only one to unilaterally weild the power to play wackamole with IRAN--- it should be an international incident that is acted on by the JOINT FORCES of the UN-----
Its why America came up with the Idea to Subsidize such an Entitiy (the UN)----- and is the MAIN REASON why Ron Paul rails against Americans participation in it---- because it is ineffective and limits our ability to protect foriegn interest based on the whims of prejudice membership nations..... YET WE GIVE THEM BILLIONS EVERY YEAR>...
If the UN-- or an ALLIED POWERS entity--- took care of the Straights of hormuz, or North Korean Invasion..... America would not be the ONLY UNILATERAL POLICEMEN going in and kicking ass...... its about political perception... Americas current perception is that of a JOCK who goes around giving weak and inteligent NERDS wedgies..... (Dr. Horibbles of the World)
We see ourself as BMOC...... in reality--- we are BIG A HOLES of the school.
(this of course is speaking of our government and does not reflect the American People who go about their daily business ignoring the rest of the world and our government that interacts with it)
Any questions?
Congress should be the POWER to send troops with a vote and declaration of war..... Its not within the Presidents Power to commit forces in such ways without congressional approval...... So, any edict given by the UN--- would still need congressional approval--
If there is reservations in congress---------- there must be a reason why----
First of all, the media finally admitted (FOX did anyways) that Iran was actually merely doing military exercises in the area, NOT trying to block the straight, and that the threatened blockade was actually from an intel document dated FIVE YEARS AGO. Wake up, bro. More propaganda for war. Also, it appears that they only challenged our carrier in the straight because it was a threat to their exercises AND the US was threatening an oil embargo to add to existing trade sanctions, which indeed are an act of war.
Even our own CIA agrees with Dr. Paul that we have created our own endless messes in the Persian Gulf.
As Ron Paul has said all along "If congress declares war! We go, Fight, Win, then COME Home. That is constitutanally correct! I truly belive, if a freindly country asked us for help Ron Paul would help do all in his power to help them. I think Iran needs to be confronted to put up or shut up. They are acting like they are all so powerful. They are NOT!! "yet" It is my belief that there neighboring countries should step up to the plate and tell iran to stop acting like a ranting child! If that does not happen, maybe we will have to do the job! Time will tell. Iran is asking for a SPANKING!!!
In order to the more intelligent responses:
@Diana: It's easy to say 'my president wouldn't have gotten us into this situation decades ago'. The problem is when presidents try to actually apply that sort of thing. Remove soldiers from Saudi Arabia and the fleet from Bahrain. A great idea to reduce tensions. Until Iraq* decides to attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, at which point you've got to move soldiers quickly to get back to good positions that you just removed them from. Or, after 2003, remove the fleet from Bahrain to lower tensions with Iran. A great idea, until Iran keeps working on its nuclear program, you need some way to respond and sanctions are really all you have. Suddenly you need to send a fleet back to break a blockade. Sometimes there are good reasons why status quo is status quo.
You could argue that Paul would never have invaded Iraq, but that brings up other problems. Would Paul have been so committed to his ideology that he wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either? If he did invade that might have been enough impetus for Iran anyway. After that is the problem that presidents can't go back in time and tell their predecessors 'don't do this'. A present-day president has to deal with the international realities created by his predecessors, not stand there and lecture his predecessors on how they should have known better.
Besides all that, we still aren't touching on issues like South Korea or Taiwan or Japan.
@Tim In Mo: That doesn't answer the question that I raised. Would Ron Paul ask for a declaration of war in response to a blockade? Would he do it if China attempted to forcibly reunite Taiwan? What if, during a blockade, his advisers pointed out that the global populations and leaders might see a declaration of war as a step too far and withdraw their support when the alternative of a simple action to break a blockade carefully set up with other leaders and a pledge to only break the blockade might be far more acceptable?
If he did get his declaration of war then would it stop at just the blockade? What if Iran continued to be hostile even after its ability to continue a blockade was ended? What if Iran decided to push groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to end their traditional national resistance nature and move towards international terrorism? Would that be worth tens of thousands dead from a war?
The point I'm trying to make is that Mr. Paul's attitude of asking for a declaration of war is one that is overly simplistic and doesn't take into account the very complicated strategic environment. Not all actions warrant escalating to war, but by the same token they aren't necessarily too minor for economic and military actions such as drones and sanctions. You can't have a pure view of the world and expect it to respond in kind.
@ XTRDOUGLAS: Please provide an edited version of that with improved grammar and no unwarranted capitalization. Even my paragraphs are better than that. Also please keep them limited to a single post. Deliberately double posting for any reason other than to admit a mistake is rude.
@ JeffR0X: I'm afraid your information is rather incorrect. On December 28 the chief of Iran's navy, Habibollah Sayyari, outright stated that Iran could do it in an interview. Coming from someone so high up, just weeks after the E.U and the U.S decided on harsher sanctions and made to an Iranian English-language news agency there is no other way to interpret it than as a threat that Iran could do this. If he did not have full backing of the Iranian government then that interview would not have happened and any such statements would have been edited out.
To all, I still respect Paul's honesty. The problem is that he would either be forced by international and domestic realities to so compromise his statements that he would lose support from everyone, or he would attempt to install his unrealistic vision on the world and in doing so manage to cause incalculable damage. Doesn't anyone remember what happened the last time we had a president and cabinet motivated by a crusader-mentality and unwilling to bring in experts? We ended up with too few soldiers trying to do too much, no one in power with any experience in nation-building, casual swaying of the government to social conservative aims and a global approval rating that managed to throw away everything we had gotten after 2001.
*Prior to 2003 that is.
In regards to Iran and the strait, Iran wouldn't block it just for fun--the country says that they will attempt to block it in the case of new sanctions...Paul argues that Iran shouldn't be sanctioned in the first place.
And simply accept the fact that Iran is actively seeking to obtain material for nuclear weapons? By this point even Russia isn't trying to pretend it isn't. If Mr. Paul is fine with the idea of the nuclear monopoly getting even more damage that's fine for him but it certainly isn't for me. We already have Israel, Pakistan and India with nuclear weapons, I really don't want to see a Middle Eastern/East Asian nuclear race.
But, let me point out that Iran won't block the Straits of Hormuz, because Iran doesn't want to piss off her neighbors. We're the fish out of water, we are the ones that don't belong over there. But, there are enough parties interested in the Straits of Hormuz that the US is the last one needing to play the lead. The term is off-shore balancing, I believe. The Saudis and her neighbors don't hate Iran as we've been told. Iran would only block those waters for the most grave circumstances.
IRAN blockade.
As Ron Paul has said all along "If congress declares war! We go, Fight, Win, then COME Home. That is constitutanally correct! I truly belive, if a freindly country asked us for help Ron Paul would help do all in his power to help them. I think Iran needs to be confronted to put up or shut up. They are acting like they are all so powerful. They are NOT!! "yet" It is my belief that there neighboring countries should step up to the plate and tell iran to stop acting like a ranting child! If that does not happen, maybe we will have to do the job! Time will tell. Iran is asking for a SPANKING!!!
Norg, you've been twisted by US propaganda. The "Ranting Children" are the neo-cons and warmongers who lie about Iran, deliberately mistranslate the words of their leaders and basically offer a horribly biased and narcissistic perspective of them. We've become operationally blind to the truth, to the point that we cannot read. For the Nuke inspectors had to admit they had no evidence of a Nuke weapons program--though reports have hinted otherwise--more evidence of the propaganda campaign. The last report stated that they had concerns, questions and suspicions, but that there was no evidence. This was reported as "clear evidence of a Nuke program."
I don't know, maybe going in and raping, pillaging and renting Iraq was a good idea to you. Perhaps you have no second thoughts about the mayhem there, even after learning that there were no WMD. I don't think we gained anything from that invasion. Nor do I think Iran will use a Nuke if they get one. The whole world has embassies in Iran, except for the US. Our policies toward them have drained our power and influence. We've simply cleaved the world, East/West along that line. And, far from exploiting that region, dictating the terms, instead, we've lost all influence there.
Your facts are not accurate. You've described a hypothetical world that doesn't exist except in the minds of neo-cons. The facts, again, don't support your assertions.
What role is it for us to determine the status of Taiwan? Do we really need to "protect" the South Koreans? The Japanese? Again, it would seem we could use off-shore balancing more effectively here rather than trying to dictate all the terms.
In what way are any of my points something that only exists in the world of neoconservatism? China does have a very signifiant military force prepared to attack Taiwan if it ever declares independence. Earlier this decade China passed a law specifically stating that it would do so.
North Korea has launched strikes at South Korea multiple times over the past fifty years, ranging from attempted assassinations of lawmakers to submarine attacks to assassinations of defectors. Aside from that, war is always a constant threat on the Korean peninsula. That's why South Korea has such a relatively large armed force and has kept it even from the transition from authoritarianism to democracy. Considering the terrible state of the North Korean economy and the dominance of the military it is entirely possible that North Korea really will attack in an effort to save itself by plundering the south.
Both Russia and China have shown the military and political weakness of Japan more than once, not just during the Cold War but also over the past decade with brief incursions by planes and submarines. Of course that's not even getting into disputed territory in the waters between the nations.
Iraq did decide to attack Kuwait and there were real fears by Saudis and Americans that Iraq was considering an attack on Saudi Arabia. Do you think we were stationing those soldiers there for the good of their health? This was done ten years before neoconservatism entered the White House.
On Iran, a little less than thirty years ago it did try to stop oil from getting through. That's what led to the brief 'tanker war'. Additionally Iran has used Hamas and Hezhbollah for proxy wars.
Now obviously, the U.S could simply ignore South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. If you're willing to accept their eventual domination by states like China or Russia that is. However, if you're willing to allow that to happen (particularly a possible conquest of South Korea by North Korea) you had better state it right now. Somehow I wonder if even an isolationist like Ron Paul is really going to say 'I realize that you're a democratic state that's been trying to live peacefully and I realize that you're a major trading partner of ours but the North Koreans want to invade and my ideology says we shouldn't stop them'.
So please, if you would be kind enough to explain what 'facts' of mine are inaccurate I would appreciate it. Everything I have mentioned here has been a problem for leaders for decades (or at least Iraq was until 2003).
If your expertise is really in foreign policy, it would better serve you to keep your comments to such.
This statement adds nothing to your point, and is an immediate turnoff:
"First, despite his bizarre views on the gold standard, climate change, social security, and the like..."
If you're saying Ron Paul's 30 years of consistent pro-Liberty voting record is too much baggage, then I don't see that as a negative. Ron Paul has always pushed for individual liberty, so that means not stealing money from the people to waste on wars as well as stealing money in general. If people care about some idea, they can put their money towards some organization that promotes that idea instead of forcing everyone to pay into it.
If by Pro-Liberty, you mean enable state and local governments to enact discriminatory laws, treat half of the nation's population like second class citizens, attack fundamental protections of consumers, and facilitate a greater destruction of the middle class, amd enable corruption on a scale unseen in this country since the 19th century, then by all means.
This is a man who opposes the Civil Rights Act, has published various racist ramblings and personally has no problem standing aside while genocide occurs elsewhere in the world. Btw Paulies, Ron has never denied made excuses for or even repudiated his prior racist writings. In fact he has defended them on more than one occasion. He lets his supporters look for the excuses.
Even his alleged capitulation in the "War on Drugs" is a complete sham. He just wants to defer it to the states who will enforce it as they see fit be it "Amsterdam :style or the "Full Rockefeller".
His idea of freedom is to show absolutely no responsibility or accountability. That is for "the little people".
His foreign policy is a joke at all levels. Non-interventionist is a nice way of saying isolationism. Paul has clearly stated that he wants no part in foreign affairs if he can help it. Frankly, it doesn't work in this day and age. Its what societies do when they are stagnating and collapsing.
Walt has shown more idiocy than usual by "handwaving" Paul's various pernicious ideas concerning domestic issues. The idea that "excessive interventionism" is the cause of our problems is ridiculous. For Walt's audience, attacking the US and kissing the behinds of anyone claiming to have a grievance against it is what sells.
you overstate your point. Paul doesn't support discrimination by the gov't. He would say gov't doesn't need to fight discrimination in private affairs. There IS a difference. What SHOULD the gov'ts policy be toward drug legalization? Should Congress decide, or the states? Currently 18 states have legalized Marijuana, however Federal law prohibiting this is still enforced in those states. So, is that a good and efficient use of gov't resources at the Federal level? If we find ourselves in a situation where 2/3rds of the states have relaxed the law, then perhaps the Federal gov't might consider an Amendment. The power can issue from the various states, or from DC.
Paul's foreign policy isn't laughable. You think the 900 overseas bases are all essential? Cause Paul is the only one proposing really cutting into those. What about our support of foreign dictators? What about the murder of scientists and physicists? What about the murder of women and children where we operate drones against the wishes of the countries where they drop their bombs?
What about going to war for a pack of lies, obfuscations and innuendo? You're easily fooled, and apparently don't recognize patterns very quickly. Again, there is no evidence of Iran having a Nuclear weapons program. All their Uranium is under constant video surveillance, locked and sealed. We've committed several acts of war against them, they've boasted of protecting their shores. Don't jump off-sides so easily, jumpy. You're almost as skittish as Cheney and Bush--talk about choking on a challenge.
The problem with Realism in a nutshell
This post perfectly illustrates the problem with realism. There are zero policy recommendations between Fortress America and Neo-con fantasy land. We tried isolationism between the world wars and that wasn't so great. We've tried to do neo-con transformations without the mobilization of the whole society and that sucked.
The common realist refrain is off-shore balancing but do we really think that would ameliorate a country or society's hatred of us. The only thing realists are good at is nit-picking. Most realists opposed Gulf War I: huge strategic success. Most realists opposed use of force in Bosnia and Libya: huge successes. Whether we like it or not the US is responsible for a great deal of security and stability in the world. To shrink from this responsibility is bad for us and bad for the world.
Contrary to this comment, most realists did not opposed Gulf War I
(remember Brent Scowcroft?), and two of them (Barry Posen and John
Mearsheimer) were among the few to forecast our stunning victory in
advance. I would not characterize either Bosnia or Libya as "huge successes": both were minor strategic interests at best and the outcome in Libya
is still up for grabs. And yes, reducing our global footprint via
offshore balancing and by playing "hard to get" more often would reduce
(though of course not eliminate entirely) a lot of foreign resentment.
I haven't been in your comment section in quite a while, and that's good, because of course only disagreement causes me to post. I also hope you are jumping in here regularly, from a while back I don't remember more than a few comments. All that is to say good job, keep it up!
But.... Your Goldwater - Paul comparison is way off. First, it was mainly a fluke Johnson won so easily. Kennedy's assasination and a humming economy did wonders for LBJ's vote totals. Second, Goldwater had the full support of the party and the money. Non-interventionists will never have either. Third, lots and lots of money and effort were invested in the right wing apparatus that finally paid off in 1980. There are some libertarian think tanks, but they heavy hitters like the Kochs wouldn't touch Paul or anybody like him with a ten foot pole. The Fed and the military-industrial-congressional complex has done just fine by them. Plus the neo-cons, still the most powerful conservative bloc, hate him or anybody like him. It just ain't gonna happen as long as the guy - and eventually the gal- with the most money wins.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win" - Gandhi
Good article, good points, but I think you should rethink your stance on Ron Paul's electability.
Concerning the "racist" label, while political journalists were just re-hashing the story to get traffic first without bothering to do the actual research, Ben Swann, a Fox news reporter, dug in.
And here's what he found: http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.
Several African Americans have made YouTube videos defending Ron Paul and explaining why he is not a racist -- and why it would be irrelevant even if he was. I suggest looking at those as well.
Back to my original point....
Independent thinkers able to conduct a basic Google search will be voting for this man.... in spades.
Those who misguidedly listen to what they hear on news stations will be voting for Romney.
And those that are scared of too much change or too wed to their religion -- and don't know what else to do -- will be voting for Santorum.
Instead of making lame excuses for Paul's racism, read his stuff
Copies of the Ron Paul newsletters, via The New Republic, Jan. 8, 2008
advertisement
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter
Selections from Ron Paul newsletters, The New Republic, Jan. 8, 2008
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/more-selections-ron-pauls-newsletters
More selections from Ron Paul newsletters, The New Republic, Jan. 14, 2008
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/more-selections-ron-pauls-newsletters
A collection of Ron Paul's most incendiary newsletters, The New Republic, Dec. 23, 2011
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive
Examples:
A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
Fifteen years ago, Ron Paul wasn't claiming somebody else wrote his newsletter
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/26/fifteen_years_ago_ron_paul_wasn_t_claiming_somebody_else_wrote_his_newsletters.html
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."
---
For those who still want to claim Ron Paul is not a bigoted bastard, you are a bunch of liars.
How about the rest of story, since New Republic won't cooperate?
How about some actually investigative journalism, to go along with the fake, moral outrage?
Oh wait, here's some:
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
Your article was unsubstantiated crap
Its an op-ed piece with no references to the sources the writer was allegedly citing. He doesn't even bother to substantiate the claims. He just makes a blanket attack and says "I don't know, but I'd like to find out.". Nothing is repudiated or shown to be false. Its all title, no substance.
Plus HE DEFENDED THE WRITINGS!
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/
"Paul not only did not disown the opinions at the time, he actively claimed them as his own and then disparaged anyone who questioned his words:"
We can go further and show how Paul seems to attract bigots as part of his fanbase.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/why-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-didnt-hurt-him-in-texas/250427/
One of Paul's supporters, ""It's the media. They never report the good things that the Ku Klux Klan does."
The Fox piece is not only crap, its fiction.
Ron Paul made certain predictions in 2002. Watch the video. Simply Amazing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM
Ron paul just want to get the wealth from C.M.
He does not want to do any thing good for this country :@
I whole heartedly agree with you here. He is advancing the discussion on war and peace and America's role in running the world. I really do not care about his nuttier ideas because our efforts to run the whole world is leading us to bankruptcy -- the collapse of the US dollar is going to cause more pain than any discussion of a gold standard will.
It is also important to stress that Obama has so far been a disaster in the FP department not to mention his attempts to strengthen the imperial presidency and abolish civil liberties for American citizens. I still find it hard to believe that he just signed legislation to abolish Habeas corpus. I know how difficult it is for many of us accept that regarding these issues, Obama is really no different that Bush II. He deserves only one term. Romney would do not worse.
very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.
We will give you a discount
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
=== http://www.plzzshop.com
thank you!!!
Believe you will love it.
We have good reputation, fashion products,
come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com
Opportunity knocks but once
The common realist refrain is off-shore balancing but do we really think that would ameliorate a country or society's hatred of us. The only thing realists are good at is nit-picking. Most realists opposed Gulf War I: huge strategic success. Most realists opposed use of force in Bosnia and Libya: huge successes. Whether we like it or not the US is responsible for a great deal of security and stability in the world. pecas aeronaves
First neither Nato nor the US used armed forces in Bosnia. We were diplomatically involved and that ended in the Dayton accord. Other than signing a cease fire in that civil war that stopped the bloodshed (one very positive achievement) no one would call Bosnia a "huge success".
Second, what is now happening in Libya is not a success by any sense of the term "success". We are now seeing the beginnings of a civil war between the militias that actually defeated Khadaffi's forces and the forces of the Nato backed transitional government which really did little. In my reading of military history, I would put my money behind the combat experienced fighters that actually know how to fight. You may not know this but these trained fighters are led by commanders that earned their combat stripes fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you define this as a huge success I can't even imagine how you define "strategic defeat".
Really? It set up a 12 year no fly zone, required another invasion to achieve it's goals. And, today, Iraq is unraveling. Great Success indeed.
you're responding to a phishing bot - Toivos
Scroll over, but don't click on, the last word in Linda's post.
Whoever posted this regurgitated a part of someone's earlier comments, and tacked on the shopping link at the end.
even if I feel a little silly for not noticing.
In reading Walt's observations on Paul, I'm impressed by the contrast between a downright wacko and someone who makes a lot of sense. Walt finds Paul silly and capable of "bizarre views on the gold standard, climate change, social security, and the like..." But when the guy addresses our global adventurism, he is oh so right on. Walt endorses some of his views like they were his own. Or so it sounds.
So how can someone be such a crackpot on some issues but when it comes to the style of the FPUSA, he says so much that is so sensible?
Is there a liberal bias informing Walt's observations of Paul?
Does Walt see no connection between promoting social security and health care and attempting social engineering in Afganistan? Is the same mentality that pushes for government intervention domestically, also the same mentality that pushes government intervention internationally?
I'd love a discussion of this. I guess I'm a libertarian-progressive. There is a difference in promoting the general welfare in one's own land and doing so in another, un-invited and with force. Hayek liked national healthcare. I think the problem is we equivocate when we talk about free markets. Sure, where there are alternatives, and competitors where demand is highly elastic, we're in the free market.
Then, there's the professional market, ostensibly managed by fiduciary law. How can a customer be said to be "always right"when they are buying expertise? However, tort reform is an example of gov't intruding on this essential regulation. We too often forget that our courts are perhaps our best regulator, as a jury is harder to co-opt, or "capture" as regulators are. Again, these markets are different in that there is no alternative to these professionals, though generally there is ample competition.
The last market is even more restrained, the utility/monopoly market. These are typified by highly inelastic (essential to life) markets where there is no competition, and no alternative--often for structural or other necessary factors. Water, sewage, streets, militaries, electricity, cable, telephony, even mass media perhaps are all necessarily intertwined with the gov't. It makes no sense to have competing electrical lines, water lines, roads... and these are so essential for everyone that they must be managed in the public interest in someway. Not only do they use gov't loan guarantees, meet gov't mandated specks, and use gov't powers like easements to most efficiently produce and distribute their services, their pollution affects us all, and we have no ability to boycott. (deregulation does nothing to fix this) The cost of these services are fairly viewed as a tax on society, and these can be wholly socialized (see water in the US) I'd never say that about other markets.
There is a complex market I call the professional utility. Two examples come to mind, major health care and commercial (retail) banking. In these markets the fiduciary model is compromised since payer and client are by reality and necessity often divorced--whether it be the gov't, insurance, or heirs that pay that ultimate hospital bill, or in the case of banks, either the investors, depositors, borrowers or the bank itself can all go bankrupt. The FDIC guarantees these deposits, again, making this by necessity an unique market.
I could go on, but that's enough for now. I do believe that offers a great model for where an how to limit gov't intrusion into the market, but focusing on the power/influence of the customer. When we've lost the ability to boycott however, that can't be confused with the free market.
I do wonder about the chicken and egg question about which begets what, corporate lobbying begs for gov't influence, or gov't intervention kicked off a lobbying frenzy. That's why I like courts, and seek to balance markets, or forces as a solution, rather than management. I wonder if firms would trade our current regime of some regulation for a return to the venerable product liability law with no oversight, just liability. (if you knowingly produce a product that harms people, you're on the hook) I don't know which way it would go. These rules and regulations serve the larger firms by creating obstacles to entry and competition. I don't hear liberals confront these issues, and I seldom hear libertarians acknowledge that firms bring this on themselves.
For instance, on oil, re: BP and others. I would like to make these drillers self insure, with infinite liability limits--we could demand reserves sit at $200B, or some ample number to encourage actual incentives for even safer standards, and the better actors would demand more of the others. The liability should be relative to the scope and scale of the project... My point is that we can protect people, demand restitution, and allow business factors to drive decisions (with an appropriate weight given to the various externalities involved.)
On Iraq - Paul was right. There were no WMDs to be found. No nukes. Nothing but sand.
On Iran - The US is attempting to do the same as it did with Iran. No real evidence of nuclear development. (Covert ops keep stirring up things with deaths of a number of nuclear scientists)
On a gold standard - Congressman Paul has been involved in money issues for a long time, and was Chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. Bizarre?
Side note: If your site is called foreign policy, then stick to that. By your comments, you've proven yourself ignorant concerning monetary policy. Who's the loon?
On the housing bubble - Congressman Paul is the only GOP candidate to warn of the bursting of a bubble in housing, even as early as 2001. Why? He understands monetary policy. None of the Dem candidates in 2008 foretold it.
On the deficit - Dr. Paul is the only candidate, including Obama that has a specific plan to reduce the deficit, apart from making you and I pay more. Again, who is the bizarre one?
On the racist newsletters - If you were willing to step of your self-righteous moral highhorse, you would know that there has not been near enough real investigative journalism concerning this. They are either too lazy, or really don't want to know the whole story, only the skewed one. Oh wait, someone did in fact do their job:
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
The most telling thing about the hypocrisy of the article, although I am glad you explained his views on foreign policy fairly well, is that so many writers (including yourself) have this rather insecure need of protecting your credentials with the liberal press. So in order to compliment Dr. Paul, you first feel the need to degrade him as some sort of quack.
Very sad indeed.
"On the racist newsletters"
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
The Fox article doesn't actually refute anything said about Paul and the newsletters. Paul has defended his prior statements. Its fiction. He's a bigot and proud of it!
On the housing bubble, he was the only REPUBLICAN to worry about it. It had been a topic of discussion for everyone else for quite some time. Anyone with half a brain knew it was coming, it was just a question of when and how. Of course predicting economic disaster is always a win-win. Markets are cyclical, downturns are inevitable. Its like predicting the sun will rise.
On the Gold Standard, he is about four decades too late. You can't just handwave away a multi-billion dollar a day industry of foreign exchange trading in today's global environment. Jeff, all you did was make an appeal to authority.
On civil liberties, he wants to enable the states to be able to enact discriminatory laws of all stripes with impunity with no regard to the 14th Amendment. He wants to criminalize abortion.
----
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/785/fuck-ron-paul/
Paul Policy: Let Iran have the bomb.
What People See: No interference in international affairs.
Reality: Iran does the Kid-n-Play dance.
Paul Policy: Sending nothing but a ‘moral statement’ to Darfur instead of money and troops.
What People See: More money for Bush bonuses.
Reality: Darfur officially renamed ‘The Badlands’.
Paul Policy: End to Free Trade Agreements.
What People See: They’re taking our jobs!
Reality: They are taking your jobs anyway.
Paul Policy: Tighter border security.
What People See: A way to be racist without, ya know, being racist.
Reality: A shitty benefit concert with Gloria Estefan.
Paul Policy: Lower taxes / small government.
What People See: Little House on the Prairie.
Reality: Salute of the Jugger.
Paul Policy: No Department of Education.
What People See: A way to stop liberals from killing Christ in schools.
Reality: Salute of the Jugger, Blu-Ray Collector’s Edition.
Paul Policy: No Federal Emergency Management of any kind.
What People See: Freedom to drive around on quad-bikes.
Reality: To r.paul@ronpaul.org, attachment: Katrina.jpg
Paul Policy: Return to the gold standard.
What People See: Confused by the word ‘gold’, believe it to be good.
Reality: Switzerland begins minting dubloons again.
Paul Policy: Freedom of religion (but not to be free from religion)
What People See: Christ is coming.
Reality: Cheap real estate in Utah.
Paul Policy: Bearing arms largely unregulated.
What People See: Red Dawn trailer.
Reality: Red Dawn.
Paul Policy: ‘Unshakable foe of abortion’; would let states decide (read: wants it banned but doesn’t have the balls)
What People See: Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad.
Reality: “the falcon cannot hear the falconer”, etc.
Paul Policy: Unworkable Constitution returned to its Articles of Confederation heyday.
What People See: A chance to start over?
Reality: Instead of large-scale corruption, all-encompassing corruption.
I had no idea of your concern about equal rights for minorities. Where is that concern while you defend Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and spout racist Zionist slogans. Let me guess -- actually you don't care at all about equal rights but as an Israel firster you will use any argument to discredit voices that do care.
Come back to me when you can take a position which doesn't involve slogans instead of facts or having to make excuses for corrupt radicals and islamicists for doing what they are notorious for doing.
I'm sorry that you find offense in the support of a democratic nation over the patsies of middle eastern dictators, terrorists, and people who vow to commit genocide.
This is not an empty slogan. You most definitely support the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. I do not. That is a fairly simple difference of opinion.
Actually, I don't but you would never be able to tell the difference.
So let me start of by saying Ron Paul 2012. The comment Walt made on Paul's "wacky" ideas I think was just a spitball type comment. It wasn't meant for really anything. It distracted us from the point of the article which is American foreign policy, threat inflation and Ron Paul's view on it. Thanks for bringing up Posen and Mearsheimer. I am more interested however in the real policy issue of where we spend the defense money. Do we believe in the RMA or do we go to a Samuel Huntington small professional military with states providing personnel for conventional war? If Paul does get the nomination AND wins the general election what would change in our force structure?
Why Ron Paul Is Right And Barack Obama Is Wrong About Iran
One of the key things that Ron Paul has contributed to our discourse is the notion that we should try and look at conflict from the point of view of our foe. You'd think this would be obvious if we are attempting to influence, say, Iran's behavior, to understand their fears, their baseline interests and their ideology. So far, all we hear about is their ideology. But let's broaden our moral imagination in ways not allowed in the Washington Post.
Imagine that three scientists working on the US nuclear arsenal were assassinated in the streets of Chicago or Washington or Los Angeles by agents of Iran. Now imagine that an explosion took place at one of our nuclear facilities - also engineered by Iran. Also imagine that Iran was capable of blockading US ports to cripple the US economy. Imagine the dollar collapsing because of this and a new depression initiated. What do you think Mitt Romney would be saying? I suspect he would be saying that Iran has already declared war on the US.
But all these things have happened in Iran, probably by the hands of Israeli intelligence, perhaps by the US, or some combo of the two. Is it surprising that the Iranians are throwing rhetoric around, even if much of it is empty? Of course not. Vali Nasr argues that Iran is already on a war-footing because of this:
Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war.
Who alone among the presidential candidates gets this? Only Ron Paul. Bob Wright has a must-read on the potential president's lonely sanity on this question. Jon Rauch also notes that the debate we're having about Iran is very very similar to the debate we once had about China's nuclear capacity:
Fifty years ago, [China] was the Iran of its day, a rising regional power that was radical, ideological, boldly antagonistic. It fought the U.S. in Korea, attacked India and Taiwan, supported violent insurgencies and more. Its leader, Mao Zedong, mused that killing half of mankind might be a price worth paying to make the world socialist. Understandably alarmed, some of President Eisenhower’s advisers urged a pre-emptive nuclear attack. (Ike wisely forbore.) President Kennedy said a nuclear China would dominate Southeast Asia and "so upset the world political scene" as to be "intolerable."
Notice the classic Kennedy recklessness in foreign policy (he was George W Bush avant la lettre), and the characteristic Eisenhower sanity. Now look at the history. Since China's adoption of nuclear status, it has actually behaved more responsibly abroad, not less. Jon makes a very persuasive case that nuclear weapons really don't give countries much of an edge, and, if anything, tend to calm them down, especially if they are in a region where they have foes who do have such weapons.
The Obama administration has foolishly decreed that it will never allow a nuclear-armed Iran. It's foolish because at some point, Iran will get one, and the US will therefore have to go to war either to stop it or to punish Iran for it. The obvious option - containment - is foregone.
Obama also argues that he opposes Iran's nukes because of proliferation in the region. At which point one must loudly cough "Ahem." Only one country in the region has illegally, in defiance of internatinal law and the NPT and US policy, has nuclear weapons and it's Israel, not any Arab state. More absurdly, the US government has a formal policy of never acknowledging this fact. At one point in the not-so-distant past, the US government was committed to the view that Iraq had nukes but Israel didn't.
When will the US evolve a sane policy in the Middle East? One that advances our interests, avoids a catastrophic global religious war, and bases it judgment on history and statecraft rather than religion and a US-Israel alliance that, since the end of the Cold War, has become increasingly unhealthy to both parties? Less Kennedy, more Eisenhower, please.
Andrew Sullivan
You haven't been following close but it doesn't matter?
And Dr. Paul has some fairly well educated supporters...WOW!!!
Your suggestion is that he has lots of good ideas but he just needs a real politician to carry them forward and make it happen.
I think you are simply thinking in a never ending circle to suggest that. If it were a slick politician who was so worried about being elected that he would tell people what they want to hear to get the job then do the bidding of the establishment.....well that would just be more of the same but for sure Ron Paul supporters wouldn't support him to begin with.
One of the most appealing things about Dr. Paul is that his history proves that he is a man of principal who can be trusted. While many of us may not agree with him on quite a few issues the fact that you can believe him, when weighted with his position we do agree with, sway the scales completely in his favor.
There isn't another person running in this race who can even come close on the basis of trust. Without that one factor as a given you can never know what to expect from an elected official at any level.
One shouldn’t make too much of Ron Paul’s past ‘racist’ comments which likely are simply a reflection of his age. Racism is actually quite a recent concept. Paul is two years older than me and I well remember white middle class attitudes to Jews and those we are now call African Americans. For urban Americans the latter were mostly servants and a handful of entertainer, and everything went swimmingly so long as they kept their places, which they did.. Jews were different because they had money and were bankers, doctors, lawyers and so on and difficult to avoid, but relentless efforts were made to prevent them buying into WASP residential areas and they had no chance of joining WASP clubs to which they were only exceptionally invited as guests. Today that would be called racism but it wasn’t looked upon that way then. It was more like smoking or driving a bit over the odds.
What is significant about Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas is that they have found such an audience. It is a simple error of perspective to imagine that individuals do things that strategically alter processes, that Gates brought us the computer age or whatshisname is responsible for much more than the name of the Facebook phenomenon. These things are called into existence by the need for them. Does a school of salmon decide to swim upstream to spawn? Of course not, but when it does one will be in front. The airing of Paul’s foreign policy message and the attention paid it is a response to inexorable geopolitical shifts. As Sheikh Yamani once sad, The Stone Age did not come to an end because mankind ran out of stone.
"One shouldn’t make too much of Ron Paul’s past ‘racist’ comments which likely are simply a reflection of his age."
What a crock of horseshit!!!
Its not like he was making those statements during the days of Jim Crow or back when they didn't allow Jews in country clubs and discriminated against those funny talking Irish and Italians.
He made those statements recently. Like the late 90's!! We all know it was such an un-enlighted age back then!
It wasn't socially acceptable back then, it isn't now.
He didn't even bother making excuses for them. HE DEFENDED HIS WRITINGS!
The kind of excuses people are making for his behavior is truly staggering in its mendacity. Ron Paul is a bigot. Own up to it. Accept it. Even Paul won't bother to deny it. That seems to be your job.
I wasn’t ‘excusing’ Ron Paul's so called racism, simply suggesting that such attitudes were normal in his youth. Racism doesn’t just disappear because people are no longer permitted to express it. On the contrary, I have a strong suspicion there is quite as much, if not more, anti-Semitism, for instance, today as there was in the 1950s, it has simply been driven into the closets once filled with homosexual predelictions. Plus there is now anti-Arab racism rife for all to see in comments on Yahoo, the Huffington Post. and elsewhere. The world is the way it is, dear boy, not as you wish to think it.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(76)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE