Rand Paul

Rand Paul: Conservative Realist?

The Kentucky senator speaks about ISIS, the Middle East, and when America should go to war

|

Sen. Rand Paul
U.S. Senate

On Oct. 23, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) gave a major address in front of the Center for National Interest, a "realist" foreign policy think tank founded by Richard Nixon. As he did in a similar February 2013 speech in front of the conservative Heritage Foundation, the libertarian-leaning presumptive 2016 GOP presidential candidate attempted to sell his foreign policy vision to fellow Republicans as being in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger, representing a middle path between the near-absolute anti-intervention of his (unmentioned) father and the hyper-interventionism of the Washington establishment.

As has become routine for the high-profile junior senator from Kentucky, reaction to the speech varied widely depending on audience. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has long advocated a less interventionist foreign policy, told reporters "I think I just heard Ronald Reagan speaking." The lefty analysis site Vox enthused that "Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades," because it "declared war on his own party." The Hill described the address as "anti-isolationist," neoconservative Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin scoffed that Paul was "still pretending he's not an isolationist," and so on.

Of particular interest to libertarians looking to probe the senator's foreign policy principles was his seemingly dissonant support for U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State and opposition to intervening in the ongoing Syrian civil war. When Paul first backed hitting ISIS in early September, the national political press erupted in a spasm of articles accusing him of politically motivated flip-flopping, a charge the senator testily refutes.

Four days after this latest foreign policy speech, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch spoke with Sen. Paul over the telephone to flesh out his notion of realism, and probe some limiting principles on taking the nation to war.

reason: You mentioned in your speech that America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory. And you're still supporting airstrikes against ISIS. How do you visualize our plan for victory while doing airstrikes against ISIS?

Paul: I see the airstrikes really as defending vital American interests, and that would be our embassy in Baghdad as well as our consulate in Erbil. I've been very critical of Hillary Clinton over the last couple of years for her lack of defense for Benghazi. I do think that it is a function of our national defense and our foreign policy that when we do have embassies around the world, we do defend that presence.

reason: But then what would be the limiting factor on that? Because we have embassies all around the world, obviously, and bad things will happen from time to time. So how do you prevent that from being a reason to launch airstrikes anytime some random group of bad guys gets within 15 miles of a place that you control?

Paul: I think actually if you look at the world, you'll find very few of our embassies are actually under threat from war. There's probably a list of 20 that may have some threat. Then you narrow the list down, there's probably only I would think less than five. I would think Libya would have been one of those.

One of the reasons I fault Hillary Clinton is for not recognizing and understanding that Libya probably would have been either at the top of the list or in the top five most dangerous places to be in the world for an American diplomat. Right now probably top of the list would be our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad. So I don't think that is a generalized warrant to go to war anytime. In fact, I've also said that the president should have made the case to the Congress and asked for authority to be involved in defense of these embassies and in defense of this consulate. He should have asked for permission from Congress the way the Constitution intends.

reason: What happened to that notion? In September 2013, when you were leading a ragtag army of bipartisan backbenchers against the president, something like 140 congressmen signed a letter saying you can't engage in airstrikes in Syria without coming to us first. What happened to those people and that movement?

Paul: I think there are still a lot of them there. I think, though, there are two sorts of issues. One issue is how you go to war. The other question is whether you go to war.

I think the how you go to war, that coalition is still out there, of people who believe in the Constitution, that Congress declares war. I think that principle actually is a very general principle that includes not only libertarians but conservatives as well.

The question on whether to go to war, I think as events have unfolded, or whether or not we have to have a response or a defense against ISIS, has changed as circumstances have changed. I think when Syria came up a year ago, there were people, myself included, who were loud voices against getting involved in that messy civil war because we felt like it would be counterproductive, and that you actually might enable and embolden ISIS and other radical jihadist groups in that war. I still maintain that.

My main reason for saying that we have to be involved now is that you have a group that is attacking and killing Americans—I think there is a reasonable threat of [them] attacking our embassy or consulate—and also that has frankly declared war on us. Their spokesmen have said that they will come when they are able and that they do consider that they're at war with us.

reason: Do you see the Islamic State as more dangerous and worthy of us coming up with a robust response than, say, you would have seen Al Qaeda or some of their offshoots three or four years ago? Is there a qualitative difference in the type of organization that they have, do you think?

Paul: I think it's hard to compare and contrast. The one thing that many writers have talked about with ISIS is that they control territory and they control munitions and they control access to money, to capital. So in some ways they have a greater degree of organization and ability to be a threat than others would. You could see how if there were a nation that were created called the Islamic State that it would be basically the breeding ground for barbarity. So I think you can make that argument.

You can make some of the argument that in 1998 bin Laden was already sowing, and that him training in Afghanistan was a threat even back into '98. But to give a qualitative or exact differentiation between the two, I don't know if that's helpful.

I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that this group that took Mosul in a matter of hours, with Erbil not being that far away, that there is some threat to that. As they grow stronger, can we really with certainty believe that anyone is going to defend our embassy other than us in Baghdad? That's the sad state of things over there. For 10 years we were supporting the Iraqi people, supporting the government, giving them arms, training them, but I have my doubts as to whether they're going to show up on the day that ISIS comes rolling in to breach the walls of the embassy.

reason: That looks like to me like a Saigon 1975 situation, where we've poured in $26 billion just in military aid in Iraq to prop up the guys who gave the weapons to the bad guys. What do you look at as a nightmare scenario, of the things that could go horribly, horribly wrong in the Middle East if we don't reverse course or if things just don't get better?

Paul: Instead of looking at the nightmare scenario, I'd look at the opposite way: What can we do to try to prevent a nightmare scenario? I think there are several things.

One, I think that encouragement through diplomatic means or through withholding or advancing help to the Iraqi government is something that we ought to do. That would mean that it needs to be a government that is inclusive as well as an army that is inclusive. If they're an army of Shia, they're never taking back any of those cities and [ISIS] will continue to grow and it will basically be a divided Iraq. Maybe that is what ends up happening anyway. But the only chance for the national government to function is for it to be inclusive of Sunnis.

The other thing that could dramatically change the situation on the ground and lessen the risk of ISIS—to our consulate as well as to our embassy—would be to see if we could be part of facilitating a peace agreement between the Kurds and the Turks. The main thing that prevents the Turks from being involved—and they could be involved in a big way—is that they're not sure who they dislike worse; in fact, they probably dislike the Kurds worse than they dislike ISIS. So they're watching things unfold on their border because the people in those towns on the border have been fighting them for 70 years, trying to take Turkish land and make it into a Kurdish homeland. I think there is a possibility for there being a Kurdish homeland as part of Iraq. If that were to happen, and we were to support it, you might find that the Turkish Kurds would maybe be interested in a peace deal that would allow them, the Turks, to be more helpful.

None of this easy, but I think there is a role for America to be involved with trying to help find a negotiated end or settlement that involves people who live there doing more to try to fix the problem.

reason: You said a couple of different things which may very well be true, but might seem to be at least at some tension with one another. The two that stuck out at me were "the war on terror is not over" and we can't have "perpetual war." How do you square that circle, or how do you even visualize an approach that can contain both of those truisms?

Paul: Understanding that people over there dislike us for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they dislike us for our policy and our presence there. But sometimes they also dislike us just because they have an aberrant and bizarre notion of religion that hates people that are not part of the true religion. So, I think it is a combination of both.

I think [we also have to understand] that perpetual war is not going to win. The long war only wins when civilized Islam decides to stamp out this aberrant form. [Hernando] de Soto had an article in The Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago that we quoted from [in my speech]. In it he talked about the experience in Peru, where they did build up their military presence, they did recruit citizens to be involved in it, but they also recognized that the recruitment to the Shining Path [terrorist group] was often one where people were outside the economy because of government obstruction. So they made it much easier to incorporate people from the nonofficial marketplace into an official marketplace, meaning making it easier to get licenses, easier to sell your stuff on the corner. In doing that, he felt that there was a great deal of lessening of the impetus for people to join the Shining Path. I think [the reformers] have largely won that war.

He studied the problem in Egypt, and I like the way that he looked at the man who committed self-immolation in Tunisia. He wasn't a religious radical. He wasn't really looking so much for religious counterbalance; he was looking basically for economic freedom. [De Soto] mentioned how much off-the-books economy there is in Egypt because of the crony capitalism, that if you can get that as part of the official marketplace then the economy booms and things become more secure, title becomes more certain, and really the impetus for terrorism [recedes].

So there are other ways to fight other than perpetual war, is what I'm trying to say.

reason: How have your travels to the region, your term in office, even the process of running—or, I'm sorry, not running for president, just being a nationally prominent politician, how has that, if at all, altered your worldview about U.S. foreign policy?

Paul: Some of it is, four years ago I was an ophthalmologist practicing in a small town. So my worldview might have been a little more narrow at the time because I really wasn't thinking that an ophthalmologist had to have a foreign policy.

I've had some principles that I've had probably for a long time. They're principles that we should obey the law in foreign policy: that the Constitution is important, that our Founding Fathers were very explicit that it would be difficult to go to war and they would have to pass through Congress and that's a messy process, that it probably would be infrequent because you have to have consensus when it happens. That remains a steadfast belief.

The second part, though, is not the process of how it occurs, but the facts of it. I think that's something that good people can debate, but it involves facts and it involves presentation of whether or not something is in our national security interest or a vital American interest. I think that's where the real debate needs to occur. One is how you do it: the Congress should do it, not the president unilaterally. But then when you get to Congress, then it is a debate over the facts, and sometimes reasonable people might disagree on when exactly a vital American interest is broached.

But the thing that we should do is not just make a conclusion and not have a debate. I think probably too often in the past several decades politicians have simply said, "Oh, it's in our national interest." Well, that's a conclusion, and that skips the debate. Part of the reason to come into Congress and have the debate is that then there would be a full throated debate, hearing the facts, listening to it, discussing whether or not involvement in a region around the world is in our vital interest. But having skipped that step is a serious problem and I will continue to push when Congress comes back that it is our obligation, it is our role to vote on this. Although it seems a day late and a dollar short to do it four months after the campaign has commenced

reason: Shifting gears a little bit here, you've been digging deep in the well of George Kennan, and you've read enough of him by now to realize that George Kennan contained multitudes throughout a very long and storied career. He was a huge late-in-life critic of expanding NATO, which a lot of libertarians are against and for whatever reasons I am not. Do you agree with that bit of Kennanism? Do you think we expanded NATO too much?

Paul: There are two sides to the argument. One side says, well if you put them in NATO then Russia won't attack them because they'll know that we'll defend them. The other side says, you put them in NATO and you provoke the bear and you end up having more war. I think some of it depends on exactly what geography we're talking about.

We have included the Baltic nations, but we did not include Georgia or Ukraine, I think, because Georgia and Ukraine had historically been part of Russia for a long, long time. I think it was not advisable to put them into NATO, and at this point in time it is still not advisable. The Baltic nations are part of NATO, and I think that is what it is. We have to approach things from where we are, and not from where we want to be, because I think once people become part of NATO, there's not an undoing part of that process.

reason: Speaking of the world as it is, we are extended into any number of hundreds of bases and troop deployments in Korea and Japan and the usual litany that I don't need to bore us both with. To what extent, even as maintaining a very robust defense, to what extent can or should America withdraw some of its reach or just numbers in places that are relatively peaceful?

Paul: I think the world we live in, it is no longer probably as necessary to have large amounts of land troops in different places. Is it still necessary to have air bases and places to refuel and to have our presence out there as a force for open commerce? For example, since the beginning of the republic we thought there was a role for not letting pirates attack our ships. Is there a role for us around the world? I would say yes.

Over time, even without having a lot of libertarian influence, I think cost influences downsizing greatly. The number of folks that are stationed in Europe, I don't have the exact numbers, but it's considerably less than it was 20 years ago. I think there is definitely an argument to be made that we don't have to have hundreds of thousands of troops forward-deployed, but that we should have good relations with allies, good places to be at port with allies, and there will still be presences in certain places around the world.

But our goal should not be to be involved in every civil war around the world, but to actually try to be able to defend our interests without being drawn into every war.

reason: I'll end on politics. [In] 2007 it was basically Ron Paul versus nine uber-hawks; 2012, the field starts to look a little bit different, people questioning the Iraq war, at least a little bit. How do you assess the comparative broad strains of the foreign policy debate in the Republican Party heading into the 2016 election?

Paul: I think there are two audiences. The audience in Washington is basically in favor of involvement everywhere, all the time. At the top of both parties often they're for indiscriminate involvement, I think. But if you talk to the American people, in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, I think you'll find that, even within the rank and file of the military, there's less enthusiasm for being involved in every civil war around the world, and that people out in the countryside recognize that we have problems here at home: that the economy is still struggling, that we have to defend the country and that we need strong leadership.

I think the vast majority of people are not for sending 50,000 troops back into Iraq at this point. But the vast majority is also for standing up and saying to barbarians that we're not going to let you behead our citizens. So I think it's a little bit of both. I think if you're looking at audiences, in Washington you'll find that there's an opinion that doesn't really reflect the American opinion that well.

NEXT: Washington, D.C.'s Subsidies for New Soccer Stadium Delayed, Thank God.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How have your travels to the region, your term in office, even the process of running?or, I’m sorry, not running for president…

    GOTCHA QUESTION.

  2. Went to the dentist last week and had the opportunity to read Time’s piece on him.

    Meh. Double-plus meh. He’s just another politician.

    1. That’s what he WANTS you to think!

      1. No that’s sarcasmic and other emo-tarians want themselves to think. They love their own misery.

        1. I think Sarcasmic and Cyto are long-lost siblings.

          1. OH. MY. GOD. *Cue soap opera music*

        2. I think its pretty obvious is anti-stupid war- i.e., would not have voted for the Iraq War, gotten involved in Libya, still is against getting involved in Syria, and is for making peace with Iran. I don’t really see any philosophical contradictions there. And he has a record of being anti-war, unlike Obama, or anyone else I can think of running recently on the national stage (besides his dad, who is unelectable, apparently)

  3. can we really with certainty believe that anyone is going to defend our embassy other than us in Baghdad?

    YA reason to GTFO.

    1. Every embassy has a Marine security force.

      If they can’t handle it, close the embassy until the country has returned to at least a minimum level of functionality.

      1. OMG ISOLATIONIST!

  4. ” Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch spoke with Sen. Paul over the telephone”

    Awwww. No clips for The Independents? RIPOFF.

    You’d think the dude would know that he has no better allies in the Media than TI. Then again, maybe he sees that as *his problem*.

    1. And have you sharpshoot his wardrobe choices?????

      FLEE RAND, WHILE YOU STILL CAN!

      1. It’s good that Welch only spoke on the phone — can you imagine those two meeting in person with their usual attire? End times were near…

  5. “Of particular interest to libertarians looking to probe the senator’s foreign policy principles…”

    That link goes to Justin Raimondo @ Antiwar.com

    Is the idea supposed to be that Raimondo’s POV is an example of the ‘majority view of most self-identified libertarians’? Or was that just the handiest Q&A on Rand’s foreign policy?

    (I read the piece and think he did a fair job with it, FWIW)

    This isn’t news to anyone, but i personally think it needs to be more widely acknowledged that Foreign Policy is an area where ‘mainstream libertarianism’ has the least practical guiding principles, and which doesn’t have any real track record in practice.

    Put another way =

    i personally think basic libertarian ideas resonate most strongly with most Americans views on Domestic Policy. i.e. ‘socially liberal, economically conservative’. It is the closest to what people think of as ‘common sense’.

    by contrast, the often-amorphous libertarian thesis of ‘non-intervention’ in foreign policy has almost zero harmony with what most Americans think of as ‘prudent foreign policy’ – which is, “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” – i.e. maintain relative independence from foreign entanglement, but Whoop Ass Mercilessly when required.

    I find it surprising that libertarianism seems to allow for great latitude for things, say, like Abortion… but not Foreign Policy, where you’d think it would be most pragmatic to have.

    1. I see no indication that ‘non-interventionism’ is the libertarian mainstream. During the disaster in Iraq the Ronulans used the malaise to seize libertarian foreign policy for themselves and cast anyone who disagreed as a neocon apostate. Thankfully, folks like you me and Rand are slowly taking it back.

      1. And yet every libertarian thinker would have been against that war (that I know). But hell, even Krugman is against that war.

    2. what most Americans think of as ‘prudent foreign policy’ – which is, “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” – i.e. maintain relative independence from foreign entanglement, but Whoop Ass Mercilessly when required.

      If only we adhered to that principle, we’d be a much more libertarian nation.

      1. Works for me, too.

        Armies are for fighting wars.

        Wars are fought by inflicting such intense and widespread pain on another nation that their government is driven from power.

        Our armed forces should be used for this and nothing else.

        1. That’s why I think armed forces should target civilians (especially the most helpless and innocent-looking) whenever possible, and preferably avoid their armed counterparts. Your beef isn’t with the bodyguard, but the people the bodyguard is guarding. Also use the most pain-inflicting weapons in preference to lethal ones (or at least to quickly lethal ones).

          1. That’s all good logic until you realize you’re now killing the oppressed… Most of them were slaves to their state and now you’re murdering them.

    3. — ‘prudent foreign policy’ – which is, “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” – i.e. maintain relative independence from foreign entanglement, but Whoop Ass Mercilessly when required. —

      I don’t see how this is necessarily at odds with non-interventionism (which I don’t understand to mean you never use force under any circumstances). When the ass-whooping is required and when it is not is the real question.

      1. “I don’t see how this is necessarily at odds with non-interventionism”

        You need to read more Sheldon Richman columns.

    4. This isn’t news to anyone, but i personally think it needs to be more widely acknowledged that Foreign Policy is an area where ‘mainstream libertarianism’ has the least practical guiding principles, and which doesn’t have any real track record in practice.

      Counterpoint

      1. Hell of a track record though.

        1. It worked fine when actually practiced.

          1. See below re: the fiction of ‘neutrality’

    5. I find it surprising that libertarianism seems to allow for great latitude for things, say, like Abortion… but not Foreign Policy, where you’d think it would be most pragmatic to have.

      That’s because abortion is a personal choice with individual consequences; a state’s foreign policy has collective consequences. Are you comfortable with those consequences being unleashed by the fiat of bureaucrats? I’m not. So while it’s not a perfect solution, a deontological foreign policy rooted in principles of self-ownership, property rights, and non-aggression smells more libertarian to me than a utilitarian/consequentialist/pragmatist one.

      1. “a deontological foreign policy rooted in principles”

        As the Mythbusters (or Machiavelli) might say, “There’s your problem right there”

        We’ve all pointed out that having “guidelines” is how things should be. Non-intervention is a great ‘guideline’. If that’s what a person means by principles, then by all means.

        The problem is when you apply this as a rule.

        We’ve discussed the “trade with all, alliances with none” conundrum before. I pointed out that the attempt to actually put this into practice resulted in the war of 1812, after which we never bothered with the pretense anymore.

        The whole point of ‘realism’ as a foreign policy theory is it recognizes that ‘theoretical rules’ are mostly bullshit, and that everything is about the specifics of individual power relations and the specific risks and opportunities presented.

        1. I pointed out that the attempt to actually put this into practice resulted in the war of 1812,

          Well, there were other factors, including a thirst for revenge, and the overwhelming superiority of the British Navy.

          Today, could we do that without getting invaded? I suspect so.

          1. Lacking the context of the previous discussion…

            … the point was that the idea of ‘neutral trade’ is a contradiction. Trade necessitates relations; relations are by definition, ‘imbalances of power’; imbalances of power result in varied relations. Nothing is truly ‘neutral’

            There was a good example made of Sweden during WWII, which gave the lie to Neutrality in a million ways.

            True ‘neutrality’ along the Switzerland model is, as I would argue, and others have as well, entirely dependent on the unique situation of a nation *like* switzerland. It has nothing to do with the policy, and everything to do with their unique position. IOW, not something ‘replicable’ in entirely different circumstances.

        2. Again, you have a very idiosyncratic definition of deontology. We’re not talking about “theoretical rules”, we’re talking about the moral and ethical principles you use to judge those “specific risks and opportunities presented” by those “individual power relations”. You may pretend that you don’t have any principles to guide your judgement in those situations, but you do. It’s probably along the lines of ‘what brings the maximum amount of good to the maximum amount of people’, which is fine. Welcome to the world of consequentalist libertarianism.

          But don’t pretend that the deontological ethical framework has been discredited by pragmatists. And you especially don’t get to shadow-box against deontological principles like the NAP by pointing to one historical data point and then arguing the moral dilemmas inherent in FP are contextual and specific to time and place.

          1. If this means that sheldon richman is a moron, I heartily agree.

            1. Wha…how…How did you read my post before I hit submit?

              Are you a wizard?

          2. A question I asked above =

            Do you see Raimondo’s POV* as a ‘mainstream’ version of a non-interventionist/libertarian foreign policy?

            People keep telling me that I mischaracterize what this ‘non-interventionism’ really is. Yet no one seems to cite anyone who articulates it ‘best’.

            Hence the ‘amorphous’ label i gave it above.

            (*note: for the sake of charity, we’ll ignore the part about how he thinks that the Joos knew about 9/11 in advance)

            1. I wouldn’t argue that there is a “mainstream” as opposed to differing schools. The fever-swamps of Antiwar.com are one school; Ben Friedman at Cato is another.

      2. But consequences will follow no matter what. Doing X has consequences; not doing X also has consequences. So we’re at the mercy of the fiat of bureaucrats either way.

  6. “I think that encouragement through diplomatic means or through withholding or advancing help to the Iraqi government is something that we ought to do….None of this easy, but I think there is a role for America to be involved with trying to help find a negotiated end or settlement that involves people who live there doing more to try to fix the problem.”

    Which is one of the problems of ‘non-interventionism’ – if you disallow ‘soft power’, you’re more likely to end up needing to use ‘hard power’ at some point.

    Which is to say = ALL foreign policy tools are ‘some form of intervention’. That is what ‘use of power’ is. As any feminist will tell you, every relationship is an imbalance of power…and if you’re going to have relations *by necessity*, then that’s the whole ball game. Its either stick or carrot. And if we want to use less stick, then we need to become very good with the carrots. You can’t opt-out, particularly when you’ve dug yourself into a hole where you represent the sole expeditionary military power on earth.

    On that latter point – should the goal be to end that current predicament? (i.e. close bases, end security agreements, provide incentives to the ROW to take care of their own bidniss’?) Indeed. Yes. Certainly.

    I think Rand does a decent job making the right noises all along these lines. Expecting something more ‘decisively non-interventiony’ would be naive.

    1. You have a very idiosyncratic definition of non-interventionism.

      1. I unfortunately have to treat the term the way people write about it.

        People like Richman have routinely condemned American ‘coercive diplomacy’ (as though there were some other kind) as being a form of imperialist aggression.

        many have characterized any preferential treaties/alliances as being ‘preludes/excuses to use force’ to defend them. because what is *diplomacy* without the threat of force?

        The form of non-interventionism most often expressed here is ‘trade with all, alliances with none’

        I know that is simplistic, but it does encompass the idea (IMHO, wrongheaded) that we can have a ‘foreign policy’ that is entirely ‘neutral’ and has no actual ‘entangling element’.

        I am aware the technical definition of ‘non-interventionism’ allows for more flexibility. It is not often discussed that way here.

        1. Well, Richman is a moron; we know this already.

          “we can have a ‘foreign policy’ that is entirely ‘neutral’ and has no actual ‘entangling element’.”

          I argue that most non-interventionists acknowledge that there will always be nations who are hostile to us, which precludes neutrality towards them. And again, “entangling element” is a specific term that refers to alliances in which an attack on one draws the other nation into the conflict. Remember, Washington and the boys earned their bones by participating in the French and Indian War, which was merely the North American theater of the Seven Years’ War where GB and France (and Sweden and Russia and Spain, etc.) were brought into a conflict, on opposite sides, due to their respective alliances with Prussia and Austria. Without those alliances, GB and France wouldn’t have been at war. Washington was wise to have heeded that lesson when advocating against such “entangling elements”. If Russian tanks enter Kiev, do you really think WW 3 is worth it just because Clinton signed a piece of paper 20 years ago?

          I can easily imagine a FP were America has no entangling alliances. In fact, that was our explicit FP until Wilson took office.

          And Wilson was a son-of-a-bitch.

          1. Well our problem as the Global Hegemon doesn’t seem to be “Entanglements” of the old WWI / Wooden-tooth George variety, so much as being given the default role of ‘stability enforcer’

            meaning, in the current balance of power relations, there isn’t anyone else ‘dragging us unwillingly into conflicts’ as much as it is our unilateral decision to insert ourselves in certain situations out of *perceived necessity*…

            in which case, the whole ‘alliances’ issue is sort of moot.

            And as for trade – we regularly wield it as a weapon. Is the idea that you’d prefer to take the ability to do so out of the hands of politicians?

            And do you think doing so would mean *less* military action?

            1. meaning, in the current balance of power relations, there isn’t anyone else ‘dragging us unwillingly into conflicts’ as much as it is our unilateral decision to insert ourselves in certain situations out of *perceived necessity*…

              Well, fortunately, no one has been stupid enough to attack a NATO country. Even ISIS seems to be smart enough not to attack Turkey. Ukraine was as close as we got recently, and that was worrisome enough without the kill-switch that is NATO’s “an attack on one is an attack on all”.

              And as for trade – we regularly wield it as a weapon. Is the idea that you’d prefer to take the ability to do so out of the hands of politicians?

              In our current situation, I do acknowledge the necessity of FTAs; likewise, I believe that during wartime, a government has the right to ensure that trade doesn’t occur with belligerent enemies.

              And do you think doing so would mean *less* military action?

              It would have to go hand-in-hand with the reduction of cronyism that would come with a limited government. That way Dole Pineapples wouldn’t drive military policy in Polynesia.

            2. Entanglements may look different- but they aren’t. NATO is an “entanglement” getting into the Ukraine situation.

              Our Middle East problems started with those very same WWI problems.

              And one does not need “entanglements” in the classic sense, only perhaps the economic sense, to go into a war to “stabilize” a region, a war which is simply the result of stupid, broadly “interventionist” thinking.

              This comes squarely back to the “trade with all/alliances with none” idea. We have basically created our own alliance with the new Iraqi government, and before war, with a theoretical new government.

              Either way, the decision to invade was clearly not “non-interventionist”.

          2. This^^^ A million times

          3. ” If Russian tanks enter Kiev, do you really think WW 3 is worth it just because Clinton signed a piece of paper 20 years ago?”

            No. Realpolitik doesn’t necessitate ‘honoring’ agreements that cease to have any apparent merits. However, doing so is defintely part of how they continue to remain useful as tools in the future.

            In your case – you presume the natural consequence of any NATO response to Russian aggression is ‘WWIII’. As though that’s the only possible outcome. Asking a one-sided question as though the US is the only nation concerned with the outcome is silly – would Russia roll into kiev in the first place if we made clear we’d dispute it?

            Hypotheticals like that don’t illustrate much. My argument might have been more along the lines of, “had we sent the Navy into the black sea as ‘observers’, and made clear we’d enforce the Budapest Agreement from the very outset… Putin may have never taken Crimea, much less continued to bid for more” But we didn’t. So as far as it goes that scrap of paper is a dead letter. The smart thing to do diplomatically would be to openly admit this and come up with a new framework. Thats how shit works.

    2. No paragraph should ever include references to both “feminist” and “we need to become very good with the carrot”.

      That is all. Carry on.

      1. Phallocentrism is inherent in the discourse

  7. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $84 /hr on the internet . She has been without work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $21951 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out the post right here….
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

    1. Tell me, in your own words, about your mother

  8. Rand might be the only one with reason–unfortunately we don’t vote for that any longer. And the GOP will put up the establishment in 2016–and lose.

    We don’t buy the establishment’s rhetoric any longer–not the true conservatives.

    Did you stand against illegal immigration? Why not? You had full control for years under the Bush reign. Oh that’s right. Bush called us Minutemen “vigilantes.” And then he and the GOP continued to allow illegal immigration. Ironic the very illegal may vote you out now.

    What else are you treasonous on. Let’s see the “conservative” is fiscally responsible. Except you weren’t–at all under Bush. And then with Barry in office you sided with Cruz when he threatened government shutdown because we couldn’t pay our bills. Oh that’s right–you DIDN’T side with Cruz at all. You abandoned him and sided with the Democrats.

    And you think this will make you win? Many true conservatives are telling me they will stay home or vote third party. Your speeches fall on deaf ears now. We simply don’t believe a word you say. Not from any from the establishment.

    I can only hope that a few of you suffer as well once we completely collapse as I predict in my fiction. Funny thing about a country’s collapse–the security forces tend to flee as well.

    And believe me many of us would love to get our hands around your throats.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

    1. You’re not by any chance the same guy as CharlesHurstAsshole.com, are you?

      Wow, I’ve been meaning to talk to you. The doctor says you’re really behind on your meds. He says, “If you’ve started talking about yourself in the plural again, take two.” I guess that’s for both of you! lol kthxbai

      1. apparently, yes…

        TODAY HURST REMAINS A SELF-PROCLAIMED GYPSY, WHO HOLDS CONTEMPT FOR THE “superficial iron blanket that has wrapped itself around modern society.”

  9. In case anyone is still on this thread:

    Rand’s basic problem is that he cannot seem to separate himself from the altruistic, stupid policies of the past, break away from them, make a principle stand and then then applying the principles to the current situation. His stand should be that the US military should be used only in retaliation against attacks against this country or our strategic allies who share many of our values (Israel in the case of the ME). We have been attacked multiple times in the last 35 years by ME players, but we have not countered these attacks in such a way as to destroy our attackers.

    Until Rand does this, he is, indeed, nothing more than a conventional politician. I like this guy as many commenters do here, but I am not optimistic about his chances until he provides a strong stand in American interest on foreign policy.

  10. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.jobs700.com

  11. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.jobs700.com

  12. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  13. Have terms used to describe Foreign Policy Theory changed over the last 6 years, or is just because ‘realism’ sounds like the term republicans want to hear when looking at who they want for president.

    Going by old textbook definitions, Rand Paul, like his father, appear to be textbook adherents to Liberal Foreign Policy Theory. Unlike realist who’s main concern is security, a liberal looks at economics to understand how social strife leads to instability. Case in point from the second page of this article:

    “He wasn’t really looking so much for religious counterbalance; he was looking basically for economic freedom. [De Soto] mentioned how much off-the-books economy there is in Egypt because of the crony capitalism, that if you can get that as part of the official marketplace then the economy booms and things become more secure, title becomes more certain, and really the impetus for terrorism [recedes].”

    No FP model ever fits perfectly, and there’s neo-realism, neo-liberalism….marxism that try to explain the actions of nations in relation with one another. But another supporting point I’d make is that Rand Paul like his father, oppose strong executive leadership and emphasize the importance of the legislature in making foreign policy decisions.

    These are primitive models in any case, I get that trying to describe Rand Paul as a liberal in Foreign policy just as in economics (classical liberalism) would hurt his chances for getting the GOP nomination.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.