The Right Foreign Policy
When Ann Coulter praised Ron Paul at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., the right-wing author and provocateur said she supports everything the congressman stands for except foreign policy. This wasn’t the first time Coulter made this point.
Said Coulter at CPAC in 2008, “I must say I love Ron Paul on everything but Iraq.” Comparing Paul’s foreign policy stance to that of the congressman’s fellow non-interventionist Pat Buchanan, Coulter added “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.”
Coulter is essentially saying that when it comes to foreign policy-ignorance is bliss. Quite literally, conservatives can no longer afford this willful ignorance.
Being pro-war is to the mainstream Right what global warming is to the Left-an unassailable dogma that is integral to their respective political identities. Like global warming, believing in the righteousness and necessity of the “war on terror” is an act of political faith, and any heretic who holds challenging views is not to be tolerated-hence conservatives like Coulter, refusing to even listen.
And yet questioning government, especially on something as important and expensive as foreign policy, is unquestionably a conservative exercise. Much like conservatives have done when considering national healthcare, cap-and-trade and federal stimulus, is it “liberal” simply to consider a cost/benefit analysis of America’s recent foreign adventurism? Speaking at CPAC this year, retired US Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski noted: “The phrase ‘war on terror’ has been used to justify trillions of dollars in spending, hundreds of thousands of new government positions, and thousands of new government contracts. At the same time, the ‘war on terror’ has produced very little in terms of new technology or enhanced security, has vastly increased the degree of national centralization, and has created many new permanent trees and branches in the gnarled world of federal and state institutions.”
Mainstream conservative’s usual retort to those who question US foreign policy is that national security is a top priority, for which any cost is justified. This is true. But is it possible that our government is as reckless with foreign policy as it is in every other sphere? During his speech at this year’s CPAC, Ron Paul made this distinction: “There’s nothing wrong with being a conservative, and come up with a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and we don’t go to war so carelessly.”
Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives later, too many right-wingers will still not consider-much less admit-that we went to war with Iraq carelessly. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda? Did Saddam Hussein really threaten the US? These questions are never asked, and are even considered treasonous by many conservatives. Allegedly to reduce the terrorist threat, we are now escalating our war in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan, eyeballing Yemen and placing sanctions on Iran. How do any of these military actions abroad stop future “shoe bombers” or “underwear bombers” from striking at home? What does any of this have to do with America’s national interest and how does it make us safer? Few conservatives are connecting these dots or asking the obvious questions. On this subject, blindness to government incompetence and recklessness is now considered conservative.
Despite what his critics portray, Paul’s approach to Islamic terrorism is not to ignore it, but to examine motive and develop a sound strategy by pinpointing our defense. Just one month after 9/11, Paul introduced the “Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001,” legislation that would have allowed Congress and the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates by placing a bounty on Al-Qaeda leaders. Paul said the Act “allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations… Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”
In hindsight, what would have been the more conservative, productive approach after 9/11–spending three trillion dollars in Iraq or placing a $1billion bounty on Bin Laden and every other Al-Qaeda member’s head? Noted Kwiatkowski at CPAC “that is really what the war on terror has been–a reaction, not a strategy. This reaction, like most poorly thought-out reactions, has been anything but conservative.”
What right-wingers continue to mistake for a “strong national defense” is better described as a “wrong national offense,” and it takes little investigation to determine that what conservatives call “national security,” are just lazy assumptions about a foreign policy that has been of little benefit to the nation and has ultimately made us less secure. Unlike Dick Cheney and most of the speakers at this year’s CPAC, only Ron Paul offered a sound, conservative foreign policy based on an understanding of history, the limits of war, the limits of government, economic limits, human nature and how nation-states can effectively and realistically deal with terrorist individuals and cells.
Concerning Iraq, Ann Coulter said in 2008 “Whenever I listen to Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan I always think ‘I can’t listen too long or they might convince me.’” During the Bush years, Coulter was right to cover her ears, as the truth can be pretty convincing and telling it might have seriously limited her FOX News appearances, talk radio guest spots and book career. But Bush is gone, Obama is now Bush, and Ron Paul is still the only national leader offering any sane, foreign policy solutions. It’s time for conservatives to start listening.
The conservative movement has become a racket in which facts and reason are irrelevant. Professional conservatives who reflexively support Israel and oppose “Islamo-Fascism” obtain great financial and status rewards
You laid it out exactly right, pardon the pun. Both sides, conservative and liberal, have their “unassailable dogma(s)’ which, if questioned, brings immediate excommunication from the body of the faithful. That puts the point to why being a Libertarian stands head and shoulders above the the others.
We are, it seems to me, willing to listen to both sides, make a judgment on the facts, and support a position, whether from the left or the right. And God knows, we don’t always agree with one another, but we have at least considered the two propositions.
And so, as a Libertarian, I can not only respect Ron Paul for his principled stands, but Dennis Kucinich as well. Granted I agree much more often with Ron Paul, but I clearly remember Kucinich’s vocal opposition to the Iraq debacle during the presidential primaries in ’08. He, like Paul, was roundly ignored by the mainstream media. [Perhaps that is the mark of a man.]
It is always a treat to see Libertarians discuss and debate untold topics on sites like LewRockwell.com, the premier Libertarian website. The topics are as varied as the weather, and positions are, not surprisingly, anchored in both what we know as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ philosophies.
‘Cogito ergo libertarius’. [Maybe someone reading this could put that in proper Latin... but you get the idea!]
American non-interventionism, along with Paul’s marque and reprisal legislation, would go a long way in mitigating the threat from jihadism and would stop up the steady stream of recruits to a more manageable trickle. Indeed, Muslim nations, the regimes of which the jihadists are seeking to overthrow, would be able to rally their populace to quell any jihadist pretensions. The rub remains, however, that jihadists blame the existence of these un-Islamic regimes on America propping them up but this must be refuted by pointing out that these types of government were extant long before the West showed up on the scene. How come these jihadists never opposed the Ottomans?
Jack, right on as always. The eco-commies use global warming to control us, the neocons use Islamo-fabulism; both only desire to control our behavior through fear. I believe Ron Paul’s sound foreign policy arguments are getting a fairer hearing and the Tea Party movement will help perpetuate the momentum to truth.
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush pursued a strong national defense.
Recognizing the threat posed by the Soviet Union, funding the Nicaraguan Contras, and Gulf War I are examples.
By contrast, George W. Bush and the current crop of Republicans are pursuing what can best be termed an international version of Lyndon Johnson’s great society programs — and such programs never bring about their intended objective.
As well as covering her ears when listening to Ron Paul, Coulter better stay away from the federalist papers and the writings of Edmund Burke. One of the worst things you can do to stimulate constitutional development or combat fundamentalism is spread democracy.
Sharia Law, now in place in Iraq is perfectly compatible with Democracy. Iraq had been the only secular Arab state. It might, over the course of the next century or so, actually have had some constitutional development. Now it is not a candidate for constitutional development.
It’s such an uphill climb, being a paleo. I grow weary.
[...] The Right Foreign Policy by Jack Hunter [...]
This obsession with Bin Laden presumes that he is some sort of mastermind controlling everything from a control centre somwhere in the World. Modern terrorism amounts to nothing more than a franchise for which Bin Laden is the main marketing mouthpiece in the Middle-East.
Benedict XVI, in his famous Regensberg lecture, hinted at the fundamental problem of the Islamic grasp of God – it’s irrational and vague. In truth, the entire Islamic World is too irrational and vague for Western engagement, be you Pope or staunch secularist.
Pons Seclorum – “How come these jihadists never opposed the Ottomans?”
The easy answer is that the current crop of Islamic extremists (even though that by itself is lumping together people with various different causes, beliefs, and grievances) are about 100 years too late to have seen the Ottoman Empire, which expired as a result of WWI. They may have opposed the Ottomans if we sent them back in a time machine, but it’s like asking why the Tea Partiers didn’t protest Alexander Hamilton – because they weren’t alive then.
“They may have opposed the Ottomans if we sent them back in a time machine, but it’s like asking why the Tea Partiers didn’t protest Alexander Hamilton–because they weren’t alive then.”
Right, Mad Doc. Perhaps I should have phrased it as “why didn’t those of a jihadist mindset who lived in those times (there had to have been some) oppose Ottoman rule?”
The defining question in the aisles at CPAC might have been, “Yes, dear, I know he’s crazy – but is he crazy ENOUGH?”
A paleo-conservative foreign policy, is antithetic to the neo-con policy of joint market, and Government efforts. The (L)ibertarian policy would be war without nation-states, financed by market forces.
… So, a paleo-con understands that a culture makes it’s system, and is The Government by default or intention. Let the mid-east be the culture, and States that will never equal America. Stop nation building for Israel, and a New World Order that seeks to build of a globe of liberty.
Actually, Pons Seclorum, the people that lived during the Ottoman Empire DID resist the Ottoman. They were key to the British victory over the Ottoman (read T. E. Lawrence), then they were royally screwed by the Brits.
The Brits promised them their own independent countries and promptly went back on their word (so much for the word of an English Gentleman). The Brits then defined the boundaries and installed the corrupt rulers that are currently in place.
So the realitiy is the people you call Jihadists have been resisting the oppressors for well over 100 years and if the US was smart, it would help the citizens of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, etc to over throw the oppressive regimes in place. Doing so would free the people to live their lives and remove all the support for the very small number of crazy people that hate the world but are able to find receptive people because the colonial period has never been rectified yet.
As soon as the colonists and their stooges are eliminated from the ME, thing will be a lot more stable.
The problem is that people confuse Republicans, and their neo-conservative allies with true conservatives who want a non interventionist foreign policy, limited government, and an expansion of liberties at home. In short there is no room for real conservatives in The Republican Party and our only hope is for a third party candidate to emerge. I was disappointed that Ron Paul did not form a third party and still hope that he might for the next Presidential election.
RE: “Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives later, too many right-wingers will still not consider-much less admit-that we went to war with Iraq carelessly.” – Jack Hunter
MY CONTRIBUTION: “Sticks and stones may break our bones, but facts will never sway us.” ~ Neocon Creed
When those shots were fired in November of 1963, the fascists were in power and now Wall Street and the MI complex control every facet of our lives. Endless wars and the wealth of the middle class being sucked up to the upper 1 per cent. Enjoy people. You can whine, hold your breath and kick your heels but your tantrums will not stop Uncle Adolph from playing dictator.
Iran has good sense to aquire A-bomb. I like it.
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2010/mar/04/column-nuclear-optimism—or-how-i-learned-stop-wo/