The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk about spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It’s much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we’re defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters, and stupendous amounts of money, to spread our ideals through force.
— March 28, 2006There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security.
— April 6, 2006I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah — yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they come here to attack us because we’re over there.
— May 15, 2007Now, who is the author of these statements? Some liberal like John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich? Maybe some anti-American filmmaker like Oliver Stone or Brian de Palma? Or perhaps some militant Islamist from a group like CAIR?
No, the author is America’s most prominent self-professed libertarian: GOP presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. And his growing public profile finally merits the small spotlight of my attention.
And pay attention he does. I’ve written about the subject of Ron Paul’s misguided nonsense enough to fill a CD. But, Bindinotto speaks with some force here, and is worth noting.. In this case, as regard Ron Paul and his misguided foreign policy proposals…
For a detailed look at Paul’s warped foreign-policy perspective, sample his commentary “The Blame Game,” [2] where he declares, “There was no downside when we left Vietnam.” No downside? Here he blithely evades the wholesale butchery and the enslavement of millions that transpired after our ignominious retreat from Southeast Asia — and the consequent, devastating loss of America’s credibility, both as a military power and as a reliable ally. Add to this Paul’s infuriating use, in the same commentary, of the word “empire” to describe U.S. foreign policy aims — which claim, contrary to all historic facts, rationalizes the bogus charges raised against America by communists and Islamists, giving aid and comfort to these enemies of the U.S. Add to this also Paul’s indiscriminately declared hostility to “war” as such, which (regardless of his protestations) can only translate into a de facto pacifism and isolationism.
Is this foreign-policy outlook realistic? Not since about 1789.
The relentless advance of communication, transportation, satellite, and weapons technology has simply obliterated the geographic “isolationism” that was still largely possible at the time of America’s founding.
When a plot hatched in remote mountains in a backward nation like Afghanistan, with conspirators drawn from places like Saudi Arabia, can bring down iconic buildings in New York and Washington, DC —
— when Chinese rockets can “blind” in outer space the U.S. intelligence satellites that we depend on for our nation’s defense —
— when Iranian rockets and subs can threaten to shut down international shipping lanes, thereby interfering with free trade —
— when Islamist terrorists and despots can shut down at whim international traffic in a commodity as basic as oil, etc., etc.
— it is no longer possible to pretend we can draw any meaningful national-defense line at the water’s edge. Those days are long gone.
National defense today requires the ability and willingness to project credible power globally, in direct protection of the very trade, travel, communications, and contacts among peoples that Ron Paul and many other libertarians declare to be the pillars of international relations and peace.
It’s as I’ve been telling you here, and several other people in e-mail, Isolationism won’t work, in reality. It never has since the revolutionary times.
And speaking of things I’ve been telling you, Bindinotto also speaks to another topic I’ve pounded here over the years….the relationship [3] between rights, and a government…
His is the traditional, platonic view of “natural rights” shared by many other libertarians, which tacitly equates anti-government positions with pro-liberty positions — as if they are the same.
They aren’t.
At least we have one thing going for us… Ron Paul hasn’t a snowballs chance of getting to the presidency. However, as Bindinotto suggests, and as I suggested yesterday, damage is being done to libertarianism.