Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 4

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the fourth in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.
3. Ron Paul on American Independence and Sovereignty.
   

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding War and Foreign Policy:

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Ron Paul begins by attacking Bush's Iraq policy on three fronts: first, by claiming that it "was sold to us with false information"; second, by arguing that it has increased the danger of terrorism, finally by stating that its costs have been high.

Was the war in Iraq "sold to us with false information"? It's possible that Paul uses the phrase "false information" instead of "lies" precisely because he knows that the intelligence reports regarding WMDs in Iraq were sincerely believed by intelligence communities both foreign and domestic, by national leaders from both parties and by foreign governments. It seems clear that Ron Paul wants to imply that the Bush administration lied to America, but he doesn't come right out and say that. In other words, Ron Paul is either being dishonest by trying to imply something that he knows isn't true, or he sincerely believes that Bush lied. In either case, this opening statement doesn't reflect well on Paul's fitness to serve as President.

Has the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism? Al Qaeda didn't need the excuse of a war in Iraq to launch attacks against our African embassies in 1998, against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 or against our mainland on 9/11. Al Qaeda may be using Iraq as a recruiting tool, but the important question is how future events in Iraq affect al Qaeda's recruiting efforts. If the U.S. withdraws in defeat, al Qaeda's propaganda will turn their victory into an even greater recruiting tool. If the U.S. perseveres and is successful in building up an Iraqi state that rejects terrorism, al Qaeda will have suffered a clear defeat that no amount of propaganda will be able to spin. Which path forward is most likely to lead to reduced terrorism? As I argued earlier this year, our best hope of truly defeating al Qaeda is to keep them fighting in Iraq:

This war isn't about WMDs alone, or about oil, or even about deposing a cruel dictator. Rather, in Iraq we have an opportunity to redefine the cultural landscape of the Middle East. By giving common Iraqis a shot at real freedom we threaten the cultural foundations upon which Islamic terrorism is built. So Al Qaeda must fight in Iraq, but theirs is a defensive war fought on territory of our choosing, in their own backyard.

Al Qaeda can not defeat us in a conventional war, so they resort to terror tactics, to suicide bombings and IEDs and kidnappings. The purpose of these tactics seems to be two-fold: to erode American support for the war and also to destroy Iraq's fledgling democracy in civil war. American support is eroding and Iraq is dangerously close to civil war, but Al Qaeda's tactics also pose a danger to their own existence. With one bloody attack on civilians after another, the Iraqi people are learning who their real enemies are. Already we see signs of Sunni tribes uniting to fight against Al Quada. If we hold on, Al Quada may yet destroy their domestic support in Iraq and the wider Middle East. And therein lies our hope of really solving the problem of Islamic terror.

Is Paul right to say that the costs of our war in Iraq been too high? To honestly evaluate the costs of Iraq we have to consider both the perspective of the past as well as the perspective of the future:

1. What were the perceived costs of war vs. the perceived costs of inaction when Bush made the decision to go to war in 2003? As I've already argued, the decision to go to war was made on the basis of incomplete information, when consensus opinion held that Saddam had WMD programs and that his regime posed significant risks to America in the future. In retrospect, the costs of allowing Saddam to keep his WMDs seem negligible--after all, he didn't really have any WMDs. But at the time the decision was made, Bush had to act on the basis of evidence that made the costs of inaction seem high. If Paul sincerely believes that Bush was lying about the evidence, then it makes sense to argue that the lives and money we have lost in waging this war are too high of a cost. But if Paul believes that we should have avoided war even if it were true that Saddam possessed WMDs, I question his wisdom.
   


2. What will the costs of war vs. the costs of inaction look like 25 or 50 years from now? History has a nasty habit of looking very different with a few years of perspective. Right now it's easy to point at Bush's decision in 2003 and argue that he was wrong, based on 2007 evidence. But the real benefits to be obtained by planting a pro-democratic, non-Islamist regime in the Middle East will take years to fully develop, just as the real benefits of planting democracy in Japan and Germany took decades to play out. By completely ignoring the long-term benefits and focusing solely on the short-term costs, Paul is displaying exactly the kind of naivety that he accuses Bush of. As one supporter of the war argued before we invaded Iraq:

   In a new millennium where a few diseased people can carry a suitcase with the power to kill millions, the lesson we must learn is simply this: the only way we will be safe, prosperous and free is when everyone is safe, prosperous and free.
   
   Critics of this War on Terror call it ‘eternal’ and ‘never-ending’ as a means of discouraging us from fighting it at all.
   
   But there can be an end to this war. It will end when all people are inside the bubble we have built for ourselves and our children – warm, well-fed, free to pursue their dreams and ambitions, their minds and bodies and women liberated, racial and tribal hatreds put aside, and so on.

3. Additionally, Ron Paul can't simply argue that we never should have invaded in the first place. As a presidential candidate, he can't turn back the clock to 2003 and undo Bush's decision. As I already argued, a pullout from Iraq will benefit al Qaeda and lead to a higher threat of future terrorism. Ron Paul only mentions the costs associated with continuing to fight the war. These costs are real, but they should be weighed against the equally real costs of withdrawing from the war. If Paul wants to lead this country effectively, he'll need to make decisions based on current reality, not reality as of 2003.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Washington's warning against getting involved in foreign alliances came in the context of a war between Britain and France, with various prominent Americans arguing that the U.S. should ally with one or the other of the foreign powers. Thomas Jefferson was one of these national leaders who advocated closer ties with France.

This is the same Thomas Jefferson that as our minister to France attempted to form an international coalition to combat the Barbary Pirates. The European nations refused to work together with America, so as President Jefferson sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to protect our commercial interests by fighting a war against the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson may have talked about avoiding foreign entanglements, but his actions as a national leader prove that he was both willing to work with foreign nations when circumstances dictated and was willing to fight wars in foreign lands for the sake of protecting America's commerce.

In our global economy, America's commercial interests span the globe. Because no other country or coalition of countries is willing or able to effectively protect America's interests abroad, our government has to send our armed forces around the world to do that job. Paul advocates withdrawing our troops from the work they do around the world, but he neither acknowledges that America has interests that spread beyond our borders nor offers any mechanism by which these interests can be protected after our troops are withdrawn.

It's true that our troops are spread thin, but the only "new calls for a draft" that I have seen have come in the form of a cynical ploy by anti-war Democrat Chuck Rangel. The Rangel bill failed in a 402-2 vote, in part because not even Chuck Rangel was willing to vote for it. Since then, the all-volunteer military has continued to meet recruiting goals, and veterans of the Iraq war have continued to reenlist in large numbers.

I think a big part of Paul's objection to the war in Iraq is his insistence that military action is only constitutional if Congress explicitly declares war. How he reconciles this view with the fact that Jefferson took us into an undeclared war with the Barbary pirates, I don't know. So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never seen fit to rule on any legal challenge to our previous undeclared wars. If the Supreme Court accepts the constitutionality of an undeclared war, Ron Paul's objections are moot.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Objecting to the UN's involvement in Iraq is disingenuous at best. We didn't go to war in Iraq because the UN twisted our arms and forced us into it. We used the Iraq's violation of a UN resolution as our most prominent casus belli, but Bush led us into war because he believed it was a war we needed to fight. The UN was more of an impediment to Bush's foreign policy goals than a motivating factor.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

I'm not going to argue that foreign aid is a great thing--it's often inefficient and counterproductive, harming the people it's supposed to help. The specific charges that Paul makes are somewhat overblown, though. Our decision to arm the Afghans against the Soviets was made in an entirely different strategic context. We had a cold war to win, and we won it.

Additionally, Bin Laden may have begun his career as a jihadi in Afghanistan, but he was no creation of the CIA. Reading "The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11", my impression is that Bin Laden's biggest accomplishment in Afghanistan was managing to avoid getting killed. He isn't dangerous because we armed or supplied him, he's dangerous because he is effective in selling an ideology of jihad and in gathering money and recruits to his cause.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

If America is going to be involved in the world, we have to be prepared to defend our interests abroad. This has been true since the earliest days of our republic. In a perfect world, our interests would not need to be defended, but we don't live in such a world. Ron Paul doesn't seem to recognize this fact.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Life and Liberty.