I hear conservatives criticize Rand Paul’s foreign policy a lot. Some have even called it “scary”.
For the life of me, I can’t understand what is wrong with THIS foreign policy “doctrine”:
1- There should be a stated objective at the outset. It should be directly tied to U.S. national security.
2- We should use overwhelming force to that objective. We should not have rules of engagement that tie the hands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
3- We should get the heck out … It is not the job of the US military to engage in nation building to turn foreign countries into democratic utopias
Is this foreign policy doctrine “scary” to you? If so, please explain why
Comments 23
Brian, what would Prime Minister Paul have done differently than Chamberlain in ’38/’39?
Author
“Brian, what would Prime Minister Paul have done differently than Chamberlain in ’38/’39”
Had to become a British citizen before running for Parliament?
Why don’t we stick to the questions I asked about the foreign policy doctrine I outlined in the post? What do you see is wrong with them?
The question was posed in good faith as I’m still deciding my presidential preference. You asked what is scary about the Paul foreign policy. My feelings on Paul aren’t so strong as to rise to fear but I am challenged to distinguish between his views and appeasement in the ’30s. If you think I’m wrong tell me how and maybe you’ll win my support for your candidate. Insisting I respond to your strawmen won’t do it.
Author
I’m less interested in campaigning for any candidate in this post and more interested in the three tenets of what one candidate said would guide his foreign policy. I’m interested in how America will be seen in the world in 15, rather than 80 years ago.
Post-war American military forces in Germany and Japan were never intended to create “Democratic utopias” but they were both necessary to and successful in accomplishing the transition to consensual government. Aren’t they good examples of how such arrangements can work?
Fair enough. Then I would say any candidate espousing these foreign policy principles would still bear the burden of saying what our objectives should be. These aren’t policies so much as tactics. A few that are top of mind for me: Should it be the objective of the US to remain a uni-polar hegemony? Should preventing the proliferation of WMD remain a policy of the US and to what ends are we willing to go to prevent it? How will we deal with stateless actors that wish us harm and the territories that harbor them? What is the long term strategy for the West Pacific and does the candidate see China as a threat to that strategy?
1 is good. 2 is a discussion in itself. 3. But strictly with the context of Iran and its nuclear weapons development program that began in the 1980’s. Having two client states and a friendly Pakistan surrounding Iran would have delayed its nuclear program and allowed us to help the green revolution succeed thus eliminating Iran’s nukes. I’m sure that was one of the objectives in 2003.
Author
“Aren’t they good examples of how such arrangements can work?”
Good question, Craig. Those arrangements do cost the US Taxpayer a lot of money though Would you oppose the “get the heck out” idea then?
“What is wrong?”
Iraq. That doctrine describes exactly what we (our last two Presidents) did in Iraq.
In many cases I would oppose it, Brian. “Stay the heck in in” seems more appropriate in those cases where our absence might create chaos or opportunities for our enemies.
I disagree with the appeasement question. Didn’t George W Bush appease Putin with Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Wasn’t it appeasement with Crimea? Appeasement, as defined as letting other state actors achieve aggressive aims without the world stopping them, has happened A LOT since Munich. Most notably by our most recent hawkish president (and VP Cheney too).
Munich’s big problem was they weren’t willing to enforce the Treaty of Munich and Hitler knew it, they gave in to his demands and believed his promise of no more demands. This is bad for a bigger reason: Hitler openly challenged British global policy AND had the power to do it AND was an existential threat to the UK.
The only parallel situation for the US today would be China, which is being aggressive in the Spratleys and rearming. But if you are worried about Rand you should be worried about every other candidate for the same reason. Every single one of them is not willing to fight a war against China and thereby also appeasing them.
So can we stop trying to equate Rand Paul’s non-adventurism with appeasement?
Elliot – fears of appeasement will surround Mr. Paul’s foreign policy until the candidate or campaign explains when he would use force. All we’ve heard from Sen. Paul is when he wouldn’t use force – but what threats does he think do rise to requiring intervention? I don’t find your claim that Sen. Paul is just like the Bush administration and all the other candidates credible. He has made a career, as has his father, of being against foreign intervention. And good for him standing by his principles. But average voters understand from their own life experience that if a bully doesn’t think you will stop him then bullying will continue. Sen. Paul has the burden of explaining how America would maintain credible deterrence if he has elected, and so far as I can tell he hasn’t even attempted to do so. Until he does well justified fears will surround his foreign policy.
Author
Okay, I might have trolled people a bit with this post.
The headline is a question many ask of Senator Paul. In the second paragraph, I was careful not to ask what was wrong with “HIS” foreign policy (Rand Paul). Rather I asked what was wrong with “THIS” foreign policy.
I”m trying to make a point about two candidates. The “doctrine” set forth could be something Rand Paul would say but it was actually offered by another candidate– Ted Cruz.
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have similar foreign policy views– that’s why I’m excited about both of them
Author
I couldn’t be more excited that graduates of the service academies are asking the hard questions. It’s not surprising but it sure is educational for those of us who read what you say
“What’s wrong with Rand Paul’s foreign policy?”
It doesn’t understand the way the world works.
“…when America leaves a vacuum in a strategic location, bad actors quickly fill it.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425368/krauthammers-take-robert-gates-delivered-absolutely-devastating-takedown-obamas
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425368/krauthammers-take-robert-gates-delivered-absolutely-devastating-takedown-obamas
Besides Cruz being a supporter of the Patriot Act, I thought their biggest difference was on the issue of foreign intervention. Judge Napolitano took this position recently in differentiating the two.
What I hear most from the Paul campaign is a rejection of nation building and a vow not to launch a war “without the constitutional approval of Congress”. What remains to be seen is how he would define “national interest”. I think it is safe to say he would be the least likely to continue our nation’s involvement in foreign wars. That in itself is a big issue as it significantly impacts our national debt, blowback, economy and freedom.
Cruz is Hamilton to Paul’s Jefferson. Hobbes to Paul’s Locke. A median step from McCain to Paul for an electorate not quite ready for the great ideas of our Framers.
While I do not know how Paul would respond to Jason’s question, I do believe Paul has the best grasp of history. Thinking of the famous Santayana quote here.
Guys, By the time June (California primary) comes along, I think we will be down to 4-5 candidates and I don’t see how Rand Paul will be one of those.
I know for sure Ted Cruz will be there, Bush should be there, Carson should be there and maybe Trump…
I’m very excited to think that we could have the opportunity to vote for a Conservative like Cruz that could set us up for 16 years of Republican Presidents.
Author
“What I hear most from the Paul campaign is a rejection of nation building and a vow not to launch a war “without the constitutional approval of Congress”.
I think Cruz says the same exact thing
“What remains to be seen is how he would define “national interest”. I think it is safe to say he would be the least likely to continue our nation’s involvement in foreign wars.”
I wish Cruz would define “national interest” as well and, while I agree with you that Paul is least likely to intervene, Cruz’ track record in the Senate is almost identical to Paul’s on this point.
“That in itself is a big issue as it significantly impacts our national debt, blowback, economy and freedom.”
Agreed. The point I”m trying to make is that the “Cruz Doctrine” could be ascribed to Paul and nobody would notice. Some very smart people here didn’t notice it.
Author
“…when America leaves a vacuum in a strategic location, bad actors quickly fill it.”
That could be most anywhere in the world. At the end of the day, I wonder two things about the Pax Americana approach: (1) does it REALLY work? (I don’t think it does) and (2) who the hell is going to pay for the US military becoming the world’s police force?
“who the hell is going to pay for the US military becoming the world’s police force?”
Who is going to pay for the result if we aren’t?
Hypocrisy is right. I don’t think the role’s optional for a nation that intends to maintain the status we’ve traditionally held.
“I’m a big fan of Rand Paul; he and I are good friends. I don’t agree with him on foreign policy,” Mr. Cruz said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/9/cpac-2014-straw-poll-signals-paul-cruz-showdown/?page=all
Thanks, Eric. That’s a crucial distinction. Too often Paul sounds like his father–that is to say, like a crackpot–when discussing foreign policy.