Even If Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy Is Wrong, It Is In Noways Dangerous
Do rich people have an obligation to feed the poor who are too lazy or foolish to feed themselves?
How is the philosophy of bailing out other nations any different than that of bailing out corporations, subsidizing failed business models, and giving checks to the able-bodied unemployed?
The best physical cures for the world’s ills are the same as the best physical cures for America’s and the individual’s problems: Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!
Ron Paul may be personally non-interventionist in his outlook, but this would not prevent him from doing his job as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, it would be a net advantage in terms of law, public order, expenses, diplomacy, and I dare say, national defense. We would go to war not to build a nation that would be better off, all around, building itself. We would go to war only against mortal foes, and then to win. If we were in Iraq and Afghanistan to win, the wars would have taken a year or two. We were never there to win. It was always about nation-building and pocket-lining, and was always justified, in the last resort, as a humanitarian mission. US Troops should be stone-cold, trained killers when in the field, and nothing more. They should still agree to abide by certain parameters, of course, but should NEVER sacrifice blood, men, treasure, and I dare say VICTORY for the sake of some misguided altruistic social experiment imposed upon them from on high. Let the Generals (including the top civilian-General, the President) command the troops! Not the think tanks! Not the media! Not the special interests! Not the politicians! Not the bureaucrats!
It is also worth noting that Ron Paul has stated, on numerous occasions, that he would, as President, go to war with any country that the Congress legally declares one on, and would fight to win, force our enemies to make concessions, and then leave, even if he personally objected to the purpose or justification of that war. It is the Executive’s job, on all fronts, and in all times, to enforce the law. When he ceases to do this or goes outside of this, he is no better than a criminal. That is why a Formal Declaration of War, i.e., a piece of legislation, is crucial.
That is the beauty of a Republic (Nation of Laws, not a Nation of Men). Even when a leader may be wrong about certain things, if he is a good man, a faithful man, he won’t let his opinion, no matter how high-minded, get in the way of his duties, for which he has placed his hand on the BIBLE to swear an oath to and for.
If Iran truly is a threat, why do we need a President to aggressively say so when it is the Congress’s job to make a Declaration, and the President’s job only to direct the logistics of the operation? Especially when the man has stated he would obey Congress in such a situation?
Even if Ron Paul’s foreign policy is wrong, to say that it is dangerous is to admit that you think that the President’s decisions are independent of the constraints and restraints imposed by the Constitution. You have given in to, accepted, or embraced the theory that the Executive does, can, and/or should have supreme, arbitrary authority, limited only by his whims and not the by Congress or the People, let alone a piece of parchment signed by property-owning dead white men twenty-two decades ago!