Foreign Policy

I’m having a discussion over at Zero Hedge with Crockett. We are looking at Ron Paul’s idea of Foreign Policy. Needless to say – I’m not a fan.

Way ahead of you Crockett, my man. I already make my world conform to my desires. And I’m not unhappy with the results. International politics is a mugs game. Those who can play it well are thugs. Reality. You don’t like it? Well the answer is to fix human nature. You up for it?
People are what they are. No amount of libertarian philosophy will change that. What do people really want? Liberty? Doubtful. The question on every man’s tongue is a very old one “ubi est?” So I work for a little liberty at the margins. Ending the drug war is within reach. So I reach for that.
I used to have grand dreams for a country premised on Liberty. Now I’m willing to settle for movement at the margins. i.e. something that can actually be done.
====
My ideal foreign policy establishment:
A State Department run by Warmongers who are willing to settle for peace. And a War Department run by Peacemakers who are the most vicious warriors on the planet. The Marines get it. “No better friend, no worse enemy.”
Ron Paul is a Peacemonger. They are most dangerous because they usually deliver the opposite of what they claim their aim is. This is my view:
Peace through superior fire power and the willingness to use it.
To be loved is a good thing. For the rest fear should suffice.
Of course domestic policy is different and there Paul shines. What he is unable to do is to reconcile the two systems. He wants the world to be a logical place. It isn’t. Proof? There are Frenchmen.

Cross Posted at Power and Control


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

17 responses to “Foreign Policy”

  1. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    What you say about Ron Paul being a peacemonger is right on. Until recently I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, and assumed his neo-isolationism was just naivete. He comes across as a Jimmy Stewart character, with that homespun folksy act. But when cornered about foreign policy, as he was last night on Hannity, out comes the leftist ideology.
    Sean Hannity skewered him. Paul believes that WE are responsible for 911. If only WE didn’t have a base in Saudi Arabia, they wouldn’t have had an excuse. The Muslim religion is just like any other religion, with a few radicals perhaps, but their worldwide desire for a new caliphate and the spread of sharia, is understandable because WE so provoke them with our presence in the middle east.
    Paul’s foreign policy beliefs are not naive, nor is he just practicing self-deception. He is willing to abandon allies, walking over the dead bodies as we leave, for what? To save a few bucks? No, the reason comes through loud and clear. It’s because he believes this country has provoked and instigated wars for commercial gain. He believes we are an empire practicing mercantilism in a kind of quasi-colonialism. His views intersect with leftist propaganda, and it’s why he appears with Ralph Nader on talk shows, with each one massaging the others ass.

  2. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    M. Simon, nice back and forth on zerohedge. You win.

  3. M. Simon Avatar

    Frank,
    Thanks for the 11:21.
    =====
    In the month or two following 9/11 most of those on the right when it came to foreign policy left the Libertarian Party. About 40% I’m told. And some big donors.
    So the Party is more leftist than ever. And they will loyally support him over the Internet during his run.
    =====
    The problem is that the Libertarians want to be consistent. And that is not possible. Emerson I believe – “A foolish consistency…..”
    Two sets of principles offends their sense of economy. And of course with two principles you need bright line boundaries. Domestic spying vs foreign intelligence. etc. Which then require judgment.
    Libertarians don’t want judgment (there is high variability there) they want rules.

  4. DJ Avatar
    DJ

    @ M Simon: That last sentence is a keen insight into capital-L Libertarians, I think. They’re very much attracted to simple principles — which isn’t always such a bad thing. Except when it’s fatal.
    Then suddenly you need that catastrophe clause that would’ve muddied up the simple principle.
    @Frank: I’m surprised Paul has changed his talking point. Used to be that if only we didn’t support Israel, it would be all good with the Islamists. I guess this is what passes for nuance in his foreign policy.

  5. jb Avatar

    This discussion is so simplistic.
    You guys get with your Constitution, look at the candidates, and then speak.
    Paul has the support he has because some of us actually believe we should have no entangling alliances that lead us to war; some of us are cognizant enough of the BS the oil companies and CIA have done, in addition to all the military bases we have all over the world, that we are hardly “peace-mongerers.” We’re tired of the SOS spewing forth like bile from both parties, who represent no one, and use trillions of our “tax” dollars to justify their goofy political and military and financial schemes.
    There is nothing “classical” nor of “value” to the present, unconstitutional system. That Simon chooses to go Jim Hoft and label Paul as he does is as corrosive to any attempt to restore the American Republic there can be.
    When “conservatives” don’t know what they are talking about, they, most of all, should shut up and let matters play out.
    Support of Israel has nary a thing to do with anything. That is merely a shibboleth uttered whenever someone loses their train of thought regarding the Mideast.
    Waiting for the big screen on the Last Day.
    Sheesh.

  6. M. Simon Avatar

    jb,
    Paul has the support he has because some of us actually believe we should have no entangling alliances that lead us to war;
    Not a bad Idea for a 18th century power protected by the Royal Navy.
    We are the Royal Navy. Now what?
    As to entangling alliances? I don’t see that bringing us to war. Our wars these days are about commerce. Protecting the world’s oil flows.
    More or less what the Royal Navy did – protect commerce. When not engaged against rival gangs.
    Like most Libertarians you don’t get Power Vacuum and you don’t get Rival Gangs. And that other intangible that makes a mockery of Libertarian Systems. Human Will. All things that can be estimated to some extent but are in reality beyond calculation.
    Now if all the countries of the world were Libertarian in Outlook the world you dream of might be possible. Except that from what I have seen most Libertarians are not big on exporting Libertarianism. I do understand it. Even with America’s background Libertarianism is a hard sell. How much more difficult to make the pitch in Saudi Arabia.
    As to Israel. Perhaps if Libertarian thought is so good you should sell it to them. Enough of them speak English or American to gain a foothold. Why not solve the Middle East Problem by converting the Israelis?
    But in the end it is always the Jews isn’t it? One of the features of Libertarianism that I found distasteful even when I was a hard corps member.
    You (like most Libertarians) are probably unaware of the fact that the Jews bought their land from Arabs until the Arabs started making wars on them. So how do you feel about the Arabs trying to steal land by means of war? By your Libertarian principles shouldn’t you be supporting the Israelis?
    Which brings up another point:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

  7. M. Simon Avatar

    And jb,
    Do you know the history of America’s interventionist foreign policy? How did we get from the isolationism of the 1930s to where we are today with bases all around the world?
    Why did attitudes change? Why did policies change?
    Who made the decisions? What was their rationale?
    Then you might ask yourself – was the war with the Communists (Soviet Russia, Maoist China) justified? It cost a lot of money. And Cuba is still run by the Castros.
    And some food for thought for you: I see more hard core Libertarian thought from the State run papers in Russia that I do from the MSM in America. Interesting. No? And their chief complaint? How could America be so stupid as to give up its essential libertarianism? Good stuff.
    But maybe they are attempting to weaken us by getting a bunch of Peacemongers elected. So there is that.
    My son is in Russia teaching English and American culture at a University in one of the smaller towns east of Moscow. Raised Libertarian. I consider him my personal revenge for the cold war. But how much revenge is it if they have changed direction? I have begun the libertarian long march through the institutions. Heh.

  8. jb Avatar

    You got two problems.
    One, I am by no means an anti-semite, did not insinuate that at all, and tried to head off any charge that I was, and you subtly made it anyway.
    Two, I am not a libertarian. I don’t believe in gummint enough to be one, never mind the goofs in the GOP and the Dems.
    And yes, I am well aware of history and how we got where we are, which is why I object to it. We are not the nation we were supposed to be. And that, I am right in objecting to. I know enough to know I have been cheated of my national birthright. You, apparently, do not.
    Start at 1913 and move forward. Really study the history. Find out the real answers to all the questions you asked to (try) to put me on the defensive. I know what Wilson did, I know what the Treaty of Versailles did, I know what the Balfour Declaration did, and I know what transpired during and between and following both world wars. And it was then that our present history was written and codified.
    Now we are stuck with the monster, and defending it is intellectual suicide.
    Unless you are Bill Kristol.

  9. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    jb, you can go back way before 1913 if you want to say We are not the nation we were supposed to be. and list a very long history of freedom loss. And at the same time make a list of freedom won, starting with the abolition of slavery, extending to voting rights for women, the end of Jim Crow laws, the end of involuntary servitude for 18 year old’s, otherwise called the draft, the right of women to their own bodies, and other freedoms now in the course of being won that are under attack, mostly from the right.
    One can argue about strategy, and whether it’s in our interest to engage in certain police actions or interventions, but there is no turning back into a fortress America. With the inventions of the airplane, nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons, missiles & spy satellites, isolationism is more than obsolete – it’s suicide.
    I somewhat disagree with M.Simon that our presence in the middle east is all about oil. Maybe that’s how it started with Gulf War I, but that isn’t what prompted our attack on Iraq or our current involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are, even the Obama administration, deathly worried about nukes or other WMDs getting in the hands of al Quaeda.
    Ron Paul and his followers would have you believe that if we pull back, abandoning our allies like Israel, Pakistan, South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, The Check Republic, Poland, The Philippines, (shall I go on?), that everything will be fine. Like a turtle we can retreat into a shell, ignoring the consequences of the vacuum we leave behind.
    Even assuming that Ron Paul is correct in claiming we are an “empire” extended beyond our means, his remedy would invite disaster.
    No, I’m sorry jb, Ron Paul is dead wrong that 911 was blowback. Our mere existence is all the excuse the death cult known as radical Islam needs. And retreat would embolden them all the more.

  10. jb Avatar

    Frank
    You make a whole host of assumptions about what cannot happen because of the things we did to make them happen to begin with.
    Of course 9/11 was blowback. That almost goes without saying. It wasn’t done for no reason, and certainly not for that old maid reason that “they hate us for our freedom,” or as you said, “our mere existence . . .” Please tell me you really don’t believe that silly nonsense.
    There would be no vacuum to leave behind if we hadn’t enmeshed ourselves in those countries to begin with.
    Afghanistan is all about oil, and Pakistan is part of the blowback for us getting involved at the borders.
    History stares us right in the face, and America raises its palms in a plea of innocence.
    Hogwash. We are seeing the results of our own BS, and we don’t like it, so we blame the dreaded Muslims, since they are the replacement bad guys for the Commies.
    And I specified 1913 for a reason, which apparently escaped you.

  11. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    jb-
    And I specified 1913 for a reason, which apparently escaped you.
    No, it didn’t escape me. The year the 16th Amendment was enacted, and the founding of the Federal Reserve. So? We’d had an income tax during the Civil War, and again later. We also had central banks –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
    like Alexander Hamilton’s 1st Bank of The United States in 1791.
    I know, 1913 s’when all the trouble started. Jekyll Island. The Ron Paul mantra. I’m not a fan of central banking, but it’s being blown way out of proportion as a cause of the problems we face.
    “they hate us for our freedom,” or as you said, “our mere existence . . .” Please tell me you really don’t believe that silly nonsense.
    I believe every word of it. You are the one in denial. It wouldn’t serve any purpose to list all the undeserving recipients of Islamic terror, those countries, and people who also were in the way of “blowback”. Suffice it to say that if you want to make an excuse, you will find one. If only those Philippinos didn’t resist Islam they wouldn’t have the kidnappings and beheadings. If only the Nigerians would give up Christianity, they wouldn’t get butchered and burned alive. If only the Indians would turn over half their country, remove all the statues, and stop persecuting the poor Muslims, there would be no more hotel fires and mutilated bodies. (Wait a minute – they already DID turn over half their country)
    Oh, I could go on endlessly. So many examples – so little time.
    What you and Ron Paul are doing is making excuses for barbarism, all in the name of justice and peace. I won’t go along with it, and neither will the rest of the American people.

  12. jb Avatar

    Oh, My!
    That this country, with its armaments and defense capabilities, should be afraid of a bunch of barbaric savages with barely more than spears and pop guns, is absolutely mindless thinking.
    I am in denial of nothing. We stuck our nose up the ass of so many countries the last century, and that they resent us for it . . . well gucking fee–big surprise! You come slamming through my front door uninvited and I will teach you about blowback in a most unpleasant way.
    I don’t give a flying flip what those goofs do to themselves, what I do care about is that we are doing the damned thing to them, and expanding it on our own people. And we refuse–absolutely refuse, to hold the assholes in gummint responsible for their bullshit.
    They get a pass, and we get stuck with their crap–be it local, national, or international. Frank, if you are happy with that, there is not much else I can say. But to reiterate (and prolly piss you off as well), Ron Paul knows all of which we have discussed, and far more, given his position as Rep.
    What is hilarious is watching the other politicians duck from co-interviews with him; the Fed directors having press conferences, and today, the first ever FED chairman public media event.
    You go your way. I am sick and tired of socialism and scare-ism. You take it. I am an American, and by God, or guns if necessary, I will take care of myself and mine. I refuse to pussyfy myself before the altar of gummint and its dumb-ass minions, who have proven themselves to be as inept as they are.

  13. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    jb-
    That this country…should be afraid of a bunch of barbaric savages with barely more than spears and pop guns, is absolutely mindless thinking.
    My final response to this nonsense, from V.P. Dick Cheney recounting the worst day of his life, September 11, 2011:
    We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.
    Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
    These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.
    For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
    There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

  14. jb Avatar

    Frank
    You are, as are most, smitten with what the pols tell you through the press.
    Go for it, Dude.
    P.S. Read this site and get a grip.
    Your failure to get it is the systematic problem why Americans keep electing absolute idiots to office and expecting them to solve the real problems.
    War is so much easier, and that’s where we always go. Off to war. Johnny never gets to march home.

  15. jb Avatar

    Well, I guess the HTML does not work.
    Google Billy Beck.

  16. Eric Scheie Avatar

    The link to Billy Beck worked for me.
    In the space of six years, we got:
    — a constitutional amendment (16th) to allow income taxation,
    — a constitutional amendment (17th) to allow direct election of the U.S. Senate,
    — creation of the Federal Reserve System
    — prohibition of drugs without a constitutional amendment
    — U.S. entry into World War One to make “the world safe for democracy.” (By means of an old-fashioned declaration of war)
    — prohibition of alcohol by means of a constitutional amendment (18th)
    — the Treaty of Versailles
    They were so busy laying the groundwork for our better world that they couldn’t be expected to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”

  17. jb Avatar

    Why do I suspect we are more on the same page than not?