Jan. 16 issue
A unique stand against militarism
Among Republicans running for president, Ron Paul stands out as the anti-militarist candidate. For those who look back with regret on a decade of foreign intervention, Paul’s rejection of recent wars — as well as a currently contemplated one — is part of his appeal.
The 76-year-old congressman from Texas is the only candidate who declares the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan disastrous mistakes. He has called them “useless wars.” His strong third-place showing in the Iowa caucuses challenges conventional wisdom that Republican voters demand hawkish rhetoric.
Paul builds his argument for an isolationist foreign policy on fiscal responsibility and realism about national security. He says the U.S. has an “empire” it can’t afford. He recognizes that military intervention fuels terrorism.
“Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more people to take up arms against us,” he says. “Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of a historic economic crisis.”
In contrast to candidates who say they would pull the trigger on military action against Iran to keep it from becoming a nuclear power, Paul dismisses the idea. “I’m afraid what’s going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq,” he says.
Paul advocates closing all U.S. military bases overseas. He often cites the lack of purpose in maintaining vast outposts in Germany, Japan and South Korea, where U.S. forces last year numbered 52,000, 35,000 and 28,000, respectively. “Why stay in any of these places?” he asks. “There’s no economic or military advantage for us to be so involved.”
Paul has pointed out the contradiction between insisting on small government at home while pursuing grand designs of nation-building abroad. The war in Iraq has taught a painful lesson at a price of more than $800 billion, 4,484 American lives and more than 100,000 Iraqi lives. The futility of attempting to remake the Middle East by force has become clear. A decade of war in Afghanistan has reinforced the realization that such ventures are not worth the cost.
Paul’s chances of winning the Republican nomination are about as slim as the odds of U.S. lawmakers closing all overseas military bases. Nor would he make a good president. Many who agree with his non-militarist stance reject his extreme libertarianism on domestic policy. His vision of small government leaves no room for a social safety net.
On matters of war and peace, Paul is practically a party unto himself. His uniqueness stands in contrast to the seamless transition from Bush to Obama — a Democrat continuing a Republican’s war policies (or expanding them, in the case of drone strikes in Pakistan) and following his predecessor’s timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
But Paul is starkly different. He’s done the unexpected, building a real following for the idea that projecting military power across the globe is not the path to peace. His antiwar approach to foreign policy deserves a wide hearing as the campaign continues.
Comments
-
Ron Paul is more practical than you seem to realize. His 'charity not welfare' approach is a philosophy. He is the ONLY candidate who has actually put out a budget plan showing precisely where he would cut. He would balance the budget in 3 years, without touching social security (he thinks of it as a contract right), medicare or veteran's benefits, and would send the money for the safety net to the states to determine their own programs rather than staff oversight of federal mandates for those programs at the federal level. He would bring the troops home, but not discharge them within that period so instead of their wages and upkeep funneling out of the country to foreign lands, that money would be spent here.
Here is the overview of his plan: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
-
“Nothing good can come from the Federal Reserve. It is the biggest taxer of them all. Diluting the value of the dollar by increasing its supply is a vicious, sinister tax on the poor and middle class." — Ron Paul, End the Fed
You know Dr. Paul as the only clearheaded guy now running for president. Which is why the mainstream media calls him insane. Anti-intervention is not isolationism. He would make an awesome president, because the nation is sick. The president he wishes to be like is Grover Cleveland, I encourage you to look his history up.
-
Mr Fromm- I suggest that you 'look the history up' on why the federal reserve was created and is required for modern economics. I am very fiscally conservative and Ron Paul appeals to me on many levels but the 'End the Fed' campaign is the biggest red herring and turn-off of his whole campaign for me aside from his also outrageous idea of returning to the gold standard. A bunch of pandering to individuals who don't grasp economic essentials. I am a fairly dedicated enemy of Keynesian economic models but his proposals are a bridge too far.
-
Thank you, editor Schrag, for addressing the candidacy of Ron Paul
Although I find it difficult to watch or listen to campaign coverage, I find encouragement in Ron Paul's contributions. Within a context where truth is in short supply, he is speaking honestly about how the war-based foreign policy of the U.S. foments hostility and erodes our economy and our civil liberties.
I am praying Ron Paul's voice will be used by God to stop the rush toward a U.S. war of aggression against Iran. Just this morning, we heard reports of another terror attack against a Iranian civilian, this one a university professor. These terror attacks are widely attributed to U.S.-funded agents.
As Mennonites, we know the value of participating in a conversation with the purpose of shifting the direction of that conversation and thus the actions that follow. This is what Ron Paul is doing.
Readers will be interested to know that Congressman Paul recently became a co-sponsor of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act (HR 1191). This bill, which was introduced in the current session by Congressman John Lewis, would restore the rights of citizens whose conscience does not permit financial participation in any war to direct their tax payments away from military purposes.
-
While I am sympathetic to Paul's anti-war stance (let us be honest that he is not pro-peace, but anti-war, there is a difference as the former is covers a wide range of issues, the latter is a single issue), I am troubled by his comments regarding things like the Civil Rights Act. He has said that he would have left it up to the states to make those sorts of decisions. However, it is absolutely NOT the right of individual states to discriminate against its own citizens. TO BE CLEAR, I am NOT calling Ron Paul a racist. What I am saying is that Ron Paul's libertarian political philosophy (from which he makes his very articulate anti-war arguments) makes racism as valid a voice as anti-racism. The same thing can be said of sexist/anti-sexist voices.
I am worried, and have been worried about this for some time, that Mennonites are confusing anti-war with peace. One can be anti-war but not really be following the fullness of the teachings of the Christ. A good example of this is Pat Buchanan, who has criticized many of the wars the US has fought in (anti-war), but has a well documented history of overt racism (including courting the favor of white supremacist groups).
-
Justin, you might not be calling Paul a racist, but many others are. The "newsletters" published under the name of his own organization in the 1990s are full of the worst kind of hateful schlock. He states that he wasn't responsible for their contents and that an anonymous editor inserted these materials, but this seems like a desperate attempt to deny the truth. Surely he must have been aware of what went out under his name, even if he didn't write it directly (which itself is open to question).
This is truly unfortunate, because Ron Paul really is the only candidate on EITHER side who actually has an anti-war platform.
Comment on the article A unique stand against militarism
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
