Ron Paul on Blowback, Foreign Policy, and Peace
Blowback is a term used by the CIA to explain unintended, harmful consequences of military action (particularly aggressive action). Ron Paul is the only presidential contender who truly understands blowback and why current U.S. foreign policy endangers the national security of the U.S.
This was an excellent and accurate history lessons by both David and Ron Paul. However, I disagree with David’s reference to George Washington. As president, Washington (who admittedly detested foreign wars) sent his best people (Adams and Jefferson) to negotiate with foreign powers about much more than trade. Thomas Jefferson, a darling of many in Ron Paul’s court, was extremely involved in foreign policy – as a Secretary of State and as someone who negotiated and initiated the Louisiana Purchase – an audacious act by Jefferson that doubled the size of the country without the consent of Congress. Paul’s “mutually assured respect” is a nice sound bite, but his foreign policy is opaque. We already know he opposed our national efforts to stop genocide in the Sudan and in Bosnia. We also know he is against us signing international environmental agreements. I suspect he sees no role for us to play in addressing world hunger and disease – other than to encourage private enterprise to see it as a business and marketing opportunity. Websters defines isolationism as “a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.” Perhaps Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He seems to sincerely care about people. However, respectfully talking with other world leaders, and respecting foreign sovereignty, is not enough – we owe the world a lot more, and peace will allude us if we don’t support the efforts of our foreign brothers and sisters to resolve conflict, address poverty and promote liberty and justice.
Hi Robert,
You make some great points. I don’t think anyone is claiming that the actions of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were crystal-clean to perfection. Jefferson, for instance, certainly didn’t appreciate state sovereignty when several of the states nullified his anti-piracy acts during his second term as President. However, the rhetoric and intentions espoused by many of the Founders are very much worth considering. The fact that it is a difficult ideal to live up to does not change the validity of the principle of non-interventionism itself. There are clearly many special interest forces working against reducing U.S. militarism overseas.
Considering the monetary situation the U.S. is in, I think Paul’s foreign policy is very reasonable and practical. The U.S. is fighting more wars than it has in a very long time (arguably ever), and the country simply does not have the resources to continue these overseas affairs. Paul wants to cut government spending overseas, use those funds to tide over those dependent on government programs, and start to pay down the deficit/debt. It’s the most reasonable sustainable fix to our debt doldrums I’ve heard any candidate propose thus far.
Part of Ron Paul’s comments on Sudan in 2004:
“Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of US support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the US government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.” — http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul219.html
He has very well thought-out positions. Sending taxpayer dollars to aid military conflicts overseas may not be the best use of resources. As with the case of the Iraq War, Paul strongly opposed going into the war. However, he said that if the U.S. was to invade Iraq, it should be done through a Congressional Declaration of War (as mandated by the Constitution). Paul so much as offered a Declaration of War for Iraq, but it was voted down by the House. Paul is opposed to many of these military operations overseas, but he argues that if the U.S. chooses to pursue this path, it must be done in a Constitutional manner. Simply authorizing the President to invade and militarily support countries is not Constitutional.
There were many legitimate arguments against the military interventions in Bosnia. Ron Paul spoke in 1997 on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cziLmzZJfVc
Again, Paul personally didn’t support the action in Bosnia, but if it was to be done it should have been through a Constitutional process. Giving such tremendous war powers to the Executive is both dangerous and unconstitutional.
What are your feelings on the ongoing wars/military interventions within Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya? At the very least, we need to consider the ethical dilemma of displacing and killing millions of innocent civilians in these countries over the past two decades. The U.S. does not have the money to continue these interventions.
Paul certainly wants to support others around the world through voluntarily economic and diplomatic means. Clearly the period of the U.N. since WWII has been one of major wars, overthrow of foreign governments and the propping up of dictatorial regimes, and the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians. From an objective viewpoint, the U.N. has had a mild record, at best, of creating peace. Certainly undeclared wars such as Vietnam and Iraq have cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. The U.S. needs to follow its own Constitution, rather than deploying the military based on U.N. resolutions. Quick video of Ron Paul explaining this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bpj6uwkVm0
Government foreign aid has done very little to address world hunger and poverty in a sustainable manner. Indeed, government food aid has actually been a disaster for many local economies in poor nations. (Government supplies the food for a cheap price, putting local farmers out of business. This simply recreates the cycle of dependency.) Private U.S. individuals give three times more humanitarian aid overseas than the government itself. Government foreign aid tends to serve corporate interests, prop up unpopular governments that help the U.S., and do very little to actually help people in a sustainable way. Private individuals who’ve created charity organizations such as micro-finance lending have done far more to address the true needs of people in need around the world, for example.
I do not doubt the intentions of the government’s actions. However, we need to take an honest look at the results of these policies. There is very little evidence that suggests these humanitarian government policies have helped more people than have died in these undeclared, expensive, and ongoing military battles initiated by the U.S., NATO, and the U.N.
“It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll from its civil war is estimated to be two to three million — several times the estimated toll in Sudan.” — Ron Paul, 2004
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul219.html
Oops, I need to make a correction to my comment above. Adams did not play an important role in foreign policy during the time he was Vice President under Washington. However, he did serve as a diplomat in England and France prior to Washington’s presidency, and, as President, he was often involved in foreign affairs, including sensitive negotiations with France and England.
I too believe much of our homeland security and military efforts are counter-productive. However, not enough is being done to prevent atrocities. Here are some recommendations that I believe have prospects for success. The following statement comes from the Friends Committee on National Legislation (a Quaker organization.) “Congress should pass legislation that would build better early warning systems, improve training and capacities of the U.S. diplomatic corps, invest foreign assistance dollars to address root causes of conflict, support other countries in building effective civilian police and justice systems, and engage with international partners in preventative peacekeeping initiatives.” These recommendations have real legislation and real specifics associated with them. For more detail go to the FCNL website: http://fcnl.org/about/govern/policy/free_of_war/
Unfortunately Ron Paul’s Republican Congressional brethren have different ideas. They have enthusiastically maintained spending for the military (about 40% of the federal budget), funding for homeland security has likewise increased over the years, but Congress has dramatically underfunded the miniscule amount that is set aside to prevent wars. In fact, Congress has cut funding for international peacekeeping by 20 percent from 2010 levels. (FCNL)
Why should we bother to engage in peacemaking as a government? What have all our investments come to? Certainly, there is still conflict and wars. But that overlooks real successes that have happened because of, and despite of, our fitful, inconsistent and often miniscule peacemaking investments. Consider some of the notable successes we have had in the past: the Marshall Plan, the Peace Corps, the United States Institute for Peace, various examples of international diplomacy, disaster aid that has improved our international image and prevented the death of millions, providing relief so that order could be maintained and people could rebuild their lives, and public health services assistance that has saved countless lives and brought sanitation and health services to communities that need it. Religious organizations, individuals and not-for-profits have augmented our national efforts, but virtually none of them would suggest the government get out of the business of helping them bring relief and peace to other countries.
And what about the UN.? Well, they are involved in so many things I think it is better to just go to their website: http://www.un.org/en/peace/
Ultimately it is people who make the difference – people inside and outside government. We will get nothing out of demeaning, underfunding and abolishing peacemaking institutions, but we should get much more by working with them, changing them when necessary, and by empowering them. I believe Ron Paul, if elected, will “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”
Hi there,
Just wanted to say keep up the good work! The Neo-cons need to really take a hard look at this. Our current foreign situation is much our own making! Seems like our belief in our own intentions and our horror at the incomprehensible acts terrorists have made- keep us in a vicious cycle.
It oftentimes comes down to people being willing to reevaluate their thoughts on foreign policy. I hope my work can play some part in this process.
Thanks for the comment!
[...] some research and actually see how foreign policy effects us here at home. Follow the founders unbiased views. [...]