Congress Proves Ron Paul Right on Foreign Policy
January 2, 2012
Ron Paul has placed American foreign policy front and center in the presidential election. Should we even be considering an alternative to our current policies? Definitely not, we’re told, by all of the other candidates for president, both Democrat and Republican. While they were consistently wrong about the prospects for ‘success’ in both Iraq and Afghanistan, most voters are still listening to them. Most voters don’t yet know that Paul emphatically predicted failure, in detail, on both fronts, while also warning about the inflating housing bubble and its inevitable consequences. When voters learn someone is running who actually predicted the establishment’s giant messes, more eyes and ears will turn to Paul.
Presently, voters are being brow-beaten into thinking that Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions are dangerous. Yet in spite of the constant barrage of negative sentiment from media and GOP minions, Dr. Paul is seeking every opportunity to discuss foreign policy with voters. He knows that voters need more than a sound bite to challenge thinking that’s been entrenched for decades. His work is aided by a series of congressional actions, a pattern which provides inescapable proof of catastrophic foreign policy failure.
Consider the proper constitutional purposes of foreign policy: Avoiding military conflict when possible, and keeping the population safe from foreign aggression. Our current foreign policy explicitly abandons the first objective; it requires us to actively seek and engage in war, ostensibly to insure the second objective, keeping us safe. That is exactly how the policy was sold to the American people: We must fight them over there so that they won’t terrorize us over here. It’s probably not an all or nothing question – fighting them over there does not insure that they cannot come here to attack us. Our borders are essentially open; many nations likely have the ability to bring highly-coordinated terror attacks to our shores, if and when they choose, whether we occupy their lands or not.
But we’re not being attacked. Foiled plots are amateurish and often of dubious origin. Maybe all of the real radicals are staying put, in order to fight us over there. That would suggest that the policy is working as intended. But it would also mean that the policy may be endless – if we leave, they will come here, we are constantly told. If it is not safe to leave now, then when, and how can we know? Perhaps we can successfully defend our footholds there for many years and remain ‘safe’ at home. But at some point the people we are fighting will eventually become convinced that fighting us over there won’t dislodge us, and they will turn to the alternative, attacking us here.
In that event, after having abandoned the first proper objective of foreign policy, the same experts will have failed to achieve the second objective, keeping the threat of foreign aggression to a minimum. That would represent total failure of foreign policy, and compel us to examine alternatives. In fact, ongoing critical failure is precisely what we are experiencing. This fact can be established by examining the actions of American lawmakers.
Following 9/11, the ‘Patriot Act’ was dusted off and introduced into law. We were told that some loss of liberty was necessary to insure our safety, and told that our trust would not be abused. Dissenters who cautioned that the Patriot Act was only the beginning were marginalized and written off as being un-patriotic. Congress passed the law without reading it, nonetheless assuring us it was just what was needed to protect us.
Now we know that much more than the Patriot Act was ‘necessary’ to protect us, as our lawmakers have repeatedly demonstrated, most recently with the passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This and other new violations and limitations of liberty have occurred in spite of assurances that no further liberties would need to be lost. We were never told that the Patriot Act was just the beginning of a long and ever-accelerating erosion of our rights; the prophets who foresaw what would follow, such as Ron Paul, were smeared, and the Patriot Act was sold as the solution to our ‘security problems’. Since the passage of the Patriot Act, we’ve seen odious presidential directives, an expanded Patriot act, warrant-less wiretapping, presidential power to assassinate citizens, presidential power to indefinitely detain, torture, and kill citizens without due process of law, internet monitoring and looming censorship, an internet ‘kill-switch’, radiation scanners, TSA groping and strip-searches, data tracking and theft, domestic TSA and military checkpoints – all of this and more has been done quietly or sold to us as also being necessary to protect us.
That means one of two things. Perhaps we can discount the first possibility: the threat is not increasing, but we are ruled by dishonest men with a long-term plan to remove our rights by scaring us into submission. That would leave the second possibility: the threat is growing, which means our foreign policy is failing, utterly. Rather than avoiding war we have sought war as a matter of policy, and our actions have produced an increasing risk of domestic attack and reprisal. The proof is the fact that we are constantly being forced to surrender more of our rights. If our security has not been further compromised, why must we lose more and more of our liberties in order to be ‘safe’?
Ron Paul is the only candidate who acknowledges the steady deconstruction of our liberty and privacy. The others support these dangerous trends – they continue to champion the foreign policy which is causing them.
Both the CIA and Ron Paul agree that America’s foreign policy produces blowback – violent and destabilizing repercussions. In fact, current American foreign policy seems designed to insure maximum blowback, and the actions of our policymakers tell us that this blowback is putting us in greater and greater danger, requiring that we surrender more and more of our liberty. Americans must resist this madness and insist on a sane, sustainable foreign policy.