As a libertarian it’s often a very frustrating proposition to have to read an establishment neoconservative article on Ron Paul. Not because they disagree with him, but because they don’t really understand his positions well enough to attack him. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece (What Ron Paul Thinks Of America) essentially calling Ron Paul an anti-American propagandist. This particular paragraph was stunning to me;
“Hear Dr. Paul on the subject of the 9/11 terror attacks—an event, he assures his audiences, that took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions. True, we’ve heard the assertions before. But rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us—and so resounding a silence about the suffering of those thousands that the perpetrators of 9/11 set out so deliberately to kill.”.
She’s never heard of any American political figure suggest we should have a humble foreign policy? What about President Bush in 2000? If establishment conservatives want to know why Ron Paul is gaining traction, look no further than this flaccid argument. It illustrates exactly why these war mongering pundits are losing.
Paul knows who the blame ultimately is put upon – that’s the hijackers. However, years before 9/11, Paul was out warning us that our meddling in the middle east put us in more danger from terrorists. His warnings turn out to be correct and what does Robinowitz do? She implies Ron Paul is anti-American because he pointed this out!
She then goes on to suggest we should ignore any notion that an interventionist foreign policy might be motivating acts of terror against us. It’s their arrogant dismissal, that they lose the argument to Paul. Why can’t we examine the results of our intervention overseas?
One has to wonder if Robinowitz would have a hard time examining potential unintended consequences of ObamaCare, and if she has that opinion, does that make her an anti-American propagandist? Of course not. She appears to lack the knowledge needed to articulate how Paul’s foreign policy views are wrong. In the article, I never heard one reason why his views were wrong – just that they were.
I was a Bush supporter and voted for him twice. In 2000, then candidate Bush ran on the same foreign policy as Paul is today. Was he an anti-American propagandist then? What this illustrates is exactly how unhinged the pro-war movement has become. Any attempt to look at our foreign policy objectively and reasonably is met with, “You hate America first”. We should always be willing to examine our actions as a nation, just as I will examine my own actions in my life. And when the United States has a non-interventionist foreign policy, and is attacked, then we’d have the moral righteousness to defend ourselves from an unprovoked attack. But as Paul is pointing out, often times we’re the ones doing the provoking.
Iraq was an aggressive war which endorses the doctrine of preemption. Preemptive war is, morally, no better than preemptive murder. It’d be wrong for me to kill my neighbor because I thought he could one day kill me. From that same moral principle we should look at our own foreign policy and understand the conservative choice we should make when it comes to war.
The United States should only go to war when directly attacked by another nation, and it should be declared through the congress. The offending country should be annihilated, and not rebuilt. Get in there, obliterate their government and leave them with the shambles to clean up afterward as a reminder to never attack us again. Since they’re the nation that committed the act of aggression against us first, then the mess is morally on them to clean it up. What’s wrong with a more humble foreign policy?
I know that may sound absurd to psychopaths such as Robinowitz, who think America can kill anyone, anywhere and escape any and all questions of responsibility or morality, but I believe it. Meanwhile neoconservatives still go on about the horrors of abortion, yet pump their fists in the air as our bombs fall and kill innocent children on the other side of the world. This is how crazy our foreign policy has become, and how crazy those who defend it have to be.
Take a look at all their foreign intervention has wrought on our nation. The reason the middle east is so unstable is because of their interventions. Iran is motivated to seek a nuke, because of our invasion of Iraq. The #1 motivation of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation and as long as we continue our foreign intervention the threats will remain.