Is Ron Paul Capable of Providing for the Common Defense?

In an earlier article I posited that presidential candidate Ron Paul is dangerous in his views on foreign policy. In this article, I will examine, in more detail, why I believe this to be true.

Paul has expressed his desire to gut the military,  has also shown persistent reluctance to use the military, or to even spell out under what conditions he'd be willing to defend the United States. A Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to protect the citizenry, per the Constitution Paul loudly proclaims to support. Ron Paul's foreign policy tenets need to be more closely examined against the backdrop of some real world scenarios now occurring.

Paul's supporters portray him as non-interventionist. This is the first thing Ron Paul proposes about his foreign policy - non-intervention. This is just another way of saying Isolationist. An example of this non-intervention is Paul advocating for leaving the Iranians and the Mexican Drug Cartels alone. This is dangerous policy. I will explain why later. Paul's "hand's off" policies are actually no different than the current Obama Administration's policies toward Iran and the Cartels. To choose to do nothing is to make a choice.

Sanctions have been proposed as an answer to Iran, and are summarily rejected as ineffective by Congressman Paul...I disagree. South Africa and their "Apartheid" policy was dismantled because of foreign sanctions. Sanctions usually have a better desired result when supported by most, if not all, nations. The reason they haven't worked with North Korea is because of China's continued support. The proposed sanctions on Iran would have a higher probability of working because what is being proposed is to sanction banks and companies that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, the main financier of the Iranian government. Most of Western Europe is ready to do this, but again, the Obama Administration is dragging its feet. By impinging their money supply, of which 80% of its exports are oil and gas related, the drop in business would strangle Iran. The internal unrest this would bring would help create a climate of political change such as we witnessed two years ago. At that time, the Obama Administration refused to speak up in support of the Iranian people who marched in the streets for democracy. Here are the Iranian people, who desire democracy, and our government wouldn't support them. Yet we backed the Arab Spring that toppled three countries governments and has served to advance the Anti-American Muslim Brotherhood in its efforts to acquire power in the Middle East. What is ironic is that we have advanced the radical Islamic agenda, and are proud of having done that, while rejecting a nation of people who truly desire a more democratic government.

Iran is not on a par with a nation such as Imperial Japan was, in its reach militarily. Sanctions did provoke Japan to attack us. Japan was, in that era, unlike Iran today, a world class military power. The impact Iran has, militarily, is economically driven. They can make oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz a problem, rattling international markets and driving up the price of oil for awhile. Their proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, can create similar problems by stirring up Mid-East issues with Israel. But, over a long period of time, Iran isn't equipped to sustain a military response such as Japan was able to do - unless they acquire a nuclear weapon. That is a game changer that cannot be overstated enough.

In the meantime, consider this: Iran and Venezuela are in close cooperation with each other. There is a growing body of evidence that Iran, with Venezuela's help, is conducting military exercises and ops in our hemisphere. Evidence is also coming forth of an attempt to ally with the Mexican Drug Cartels to place agents near or inside America for the purpose of expanding the drug trade and implementing cyber warfare upon our government. Iran's terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, are currently major players in the Venezuelan and Mexican drug trade of financing and shipping drugs to the United States and Europe.

Place this in the context of the recent Iranian attack on the British Embassy, the attempted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador on our own soil and, as stated above, its expanding influence in Latin America, and it's easy to see that they are already at war with us. There is definitely a linkage of criminal organizations, terrorist groups, and rogue governments coalescing against the United States; and the Obama Administration is sitting idly by doing little to nothing. All of this, by itself, is disturbing. When you factor in the stated foreign policy objectives of a Ron Paul Presidency, it is an inescapable conclusion that Paul's foreign policy would run to the left of Barack Obama's. Then too, the issues of the ever increasing military power of China, and Russia with its nuclear arsenal, are topics that Congressman Paul hasn't adequately explained.

With the advent of the Internet's capability to marshal the power of a society's people, and it's unquestioned ability to spread information, the United States must be prepared to meet any crisis at a moment's notice, both conventional and unconventional. Who could have predicted all of the unrest we've witnessed in the last ten years? The rise of Islamic Jihad and terrorists who brought us 9-11? The Arab Spring?
In just a matter of months our government has had to switch its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, to Israel, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Iran, and Japan. Today's challenges are more apt to be instantaneous and unpredictable than pro forma, as they were, in the Cold War of the 50's to 90's. Our military today is roughly half the size it was during the Reagan Presidency, and yet, the demands upon it are increasing while we continue to downsize in a world that is becoming more unstable and volatile.

I honestly believe that the best way to engage these challenges is to expand our military, be prepared to engage in new military technologies that will protect our nation, and to become more involved and coherent in our foreign policy, including appropriate sanctions, to prevent nations such as Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. All of these foreign policy positions are ones Congressman Paul has continuously rejected.
Based upon the evidence presented, Congressman Paul would not be the best suited to protect this great nation of ours. His non-interventionist policies would only serve to embolden our enemies and place us in greater peril.

At this moment, sanctions may be the only way to contain Iran, short of war. We all should fear a nuclear armed Iran. Congressman Paul has stated his willingness to let Iran acquire nuclear status. I am also fairly certain that the Israeli's will have something to say about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. That's a topic for another day.

Submitted by:

Joe O'Neill