Sunday, December 04, 2011

Ron Paul's platform


I moused over to Ron Paul’s campaign website. He says some things I agree with. But to save time I’m going to comment on his problematic or wrongheaded positions.

Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
 
Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

i) This sidesteps the question of judicial review. As long as SCOTUS reserves the right to strike down acts of Congress, and as long as the executive and legislative branches of the Federal gov’t defer to judicial review, it doesn’t matter what Congress says. The Sanctity of life Act would be subject to judicial review. A law removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction would itself be subject to judicial review.

So unless Paul is prepared to challenge the principle of judicial review itself, his strategy can always be nullified by SCOTUS.

ii) While we’re on the subject of Roe v. Wade, it’s often said that if that ruling were overturned, the issue would devolve to the states. Each state would formulate its own policy on abortion.

However, that doesn’t follow. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, then, in principle, Congress would be free to establish a national ban on abortion, or abortion in most cases. Does Ron Paul support that? Or does his commitment to states rights trump that?

Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

What if state agencies fund Planned parenthood? Would Paul’s commitment to states rights allow that?

Vetoing any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.
 
Refusing to further raise the debt ceiling so politicians can no longer spend recklessly.

That sounds nice in theory. But in practice, there are frequently tradeoffs between Congress and the Executive, especially in times of divided gov’t. Congress doesn’t usually pass “clean” bills.

Suppose Congress gives Pres. Paul what he wants on abortion in exchange for what Congress wants on pork-barrel spending, which would involve deficient spending? Here’s a common tactic: a bill has something in it that the president wants. A lawmaker will then tack on something the lawmaker wants, but the president does not.

Would Pres. Paul rather get nothing by vetoing every bill that has something in it he doesn’t like, or will he settle for getting what he wants at the cost of accepting something he dislikes?

Ending the corporate stranglehold on the White House.

I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean. Is that code language for corporate lobbyists? Shouldn’t a libertarian take a laissez-faire attitude towards corporate lobbyist?

Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.

A president can’t unilaterally repeal the income tax. Wouldn’t that require a Constitutional Amendment? Is that realistic?

Help parents better educate their children by providing parents with a $5,000 per child tax credit for tutors, books, computers, and other K-12 related educational needs.

Doesn’t a tax credit assume the taxpayer was paying at least that amount in taxes, prior to the credit? If the taxpayer already pays less than that in (Federal) taxation, then isn’t a “tax credit” just a euphemism for income redistribution? The taxpayer is drawing more from the system than he puts into the system. So who takes up the slack?

Ensure that the federal government treats high school diplomas earned through homeschooling the same as other high school diplomas.

How is that relevant the admission policies of state universities, community colleges, and private colleges? How is that relevant to the hiring practices of private business? 

Congressman Paul wants parents to have the freedom to choose the best educational options for their children, and his commitment to ensuring homeschooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any other Presidential candidate.
 
Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda.

Given his commitment to states rights, what if a blue state requires compulsory public education for all minors?

Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
 
He has been proud to see states exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and protecting their citizens by refusing to comply with the unconstitutional REAL ID law.

But you can’t have national border security without a national border policy. If some states crack down on illegal immigrants while other states have porous borders, sanctuary cities, and so on, then illegal immigrants will simply reroute to the permissive states.

Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.
 
Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.

This sidesteps the question of why medical care is so expensive that people need health insurance in the first place.

Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.

Isn’t that a form of income redistribution?

Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.
 
Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.

i) Is he alluding to the Federal payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare? If so, why doesn’t he run on abolishing those entitlement programs?

ii) If he’s alluding to state and local withholding taxes, wouldn’t that be a states rights issue?

Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.

In what sense is that a “tax credit”? He’s alluding to tort reform. But how do malpractice suits or malpractice premiums fall under the rubric of taxation? Isn’t that a euphemism for income distribution?

Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.

Notice that he’s not challenging the existence of these entitlement programs.

As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first.

Isn’t that a silly statement? Veterans range along a wide ideological spectrum, with very different views on national defense. Compare Ron Paul with Donald Rumsfeld. Compare Thomas McInerney with Wesley Clark.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

As I recall, he voted to authorize military force to arrest bin Laden.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

It’s not as if they’re fighting in over 135 countries.

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 an historic economic crisis.

i) Are we actually policing over 135 countries?

ii) Of course we put our troops in harm’s way. It’s not a pillow fight.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

What about the role of military alliances in national security?

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

But a president has no direct control over Congressional dereliction.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

Where’s the hard evidence for that claim?


Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

“Constitutional means” is code language for what?

Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

He may say it was unconstitutional, but that’s an act of Congress, passed by the voters’ duly elected representatives.  For better or worse, that’s the democratic process at work.

Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

But he just told us that Congress has abdicated its foreign policy responsibilities. Should a president abdicate his responsibility as commander-in-chief if Congress is derelict?

Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

Does Ron Paul oppose overseas military bases?

42 comments:

  1. "What if state agencies fund Planned parenthood? Would Paul’s commitment to states rights allow that?"

    I think he would want each State to be sovereign and yet under the US Constitution. He, as well as all Candidates, have stances that have problems. Ron is staunchly pro-life.

    Thanks for putting this up. I need to learn more about Paul. I still think out of all the men we have he is "by far" the best man to be President. I pray we would get a man with his integrity, who really cares about the people of America, and about the Constitution.

    The military would be very different with Paul as Commander-in-Chief. And would agree with most of his Defense stance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Steve for giving some air time to Ron Paul! I'm not going to try a point-by-point response (because in any event, I certainly don't agree with RP on everything). But one point I will respond to, which seems to be the biggest sticking point for many conservatives:

    "Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

    Where’s the hard evidence for that claim?"

    Are you familiar with Robert Pape? He's one of the chief contemporary American researchers on the issue of suicide terrorism. Dr. Pape and his team have compiled a highly detailed and comprehensive database of suicide attacks around the globe (in fact, this database is so top-notch that the US military and defense agencies rely on it). The overwhelming picture that emerges from the data is that foreign occupation is what drives suicide terrorism, NOT Islamic fundamentalism.

    Check out this lecture by Dr. Pape on youtube (part 1 of 4 here). A few especially notable quotes from the lecture:

    “What do most people think is driving suicide terrorism? Religion. Any old religion? No. Islamic fundamentalism. It [this hypothesis] doesn’t hold up, ladies and gentlemen, it simply doesn’t hold up. The facts don’t fit.”

    “The empirical linkage between suicide terrorism and foreign occupation is tighter than between smoking and lung cancer.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I'm aware of him. I'm also aware of his critics. Cf.

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/2226/cair-academic-scheme-to-inflate-book-sales

    http://www.thebuggyprofessor.org/archives/00000261.php

    http://www.meforum.org/1826/contrasting-secular-and-religious-terrorism

    ReplyDelete
  4. So are you disputing the veracity of the data, which clearly demonstrates that suicide terrorism rises and falls with foreign occupation?

    I've never heard Robert Pape say that Islamic fundamentalism has nothing to do with much of the suicide terrorism around the globe. Certainly there's a relation. (Although, to be clear, over 50% of suicide terrorist activity around the world is carried out by secular--usually Marxist--groups.) But it seems that Islamic fundamentalism serves to rationalize these acts, rather than to motivate them. Foreign occupation is the motivation; Islamic fundamentalism provides a compelling rationalization (for some).

    If the US were to withdraw troops from the middle east, and if al Qaeda didn't then disband of its own accord, its support would largely evaporate its recruiting efforts would largely be thwarted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "..its support would largely evaporate its recruiting efforts would largely be thwarted."

    I think I can finally agree with this, after litsening to others, and Paul.
    It would be as if China occupied America, and there were troops walking about, and stationed everywhere to keep an eye on us, just because they felt we needed them here in our nation.
    I wouldn't like it. I may not go and blow myself up, but I would have heavy unrest in my heart.

    Just trying to experience how other nations might feel about US troops.

    Yet, even if the US left all other nations, we would still have those who want to kill us, and especially Israel. So Ron does need to be firm about this, which I believe he is, as I have read his Defense statements.

    ReplyDelete
  6. JEFF SAID:

    "So are you disputing the veracity of the data, which clearly demonstrates that suicide terrorism rises and falls with foreign occupation?"

    i) As far as historical data go, Islam itself has a long history of foreign occupation. Military expansionism.

    ii) In addition, "foreign occupation" is vague. What does that have reference to? Military bases? Oil companies? Support for Israel?

    ReplyDelete
  7. donsands said...

    "It would be as if China occupied America, and there were troops walking about, and stationed everywhere to keep an eye on us, just because they felt we needed them here in our nation. I wouldn't like it. I may not go and blow myself up, but I would have heavy unrest in my heart."

    And where are we doing this? You can't cite Iraq and Afghanistan, for that was only *after* a series of terrorists attacks on American assets, culminating in 9/11.

    We had a base in Saudi Arabia, but that wasn't a foreign occupation force. That was at the request of the House of Saud.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does Ron Paul oppose overseas military bases?

    I do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. But having overseas bases is a key element of military readiness and flexibility:

    "And as you start moving up the range of military
    operations, it also allows you to respond in a timely manner to crises. Many times you have hours, if not minutes, to provide the -- to respond to a crisis and you certainly can't do that from the continental United States and Naval forces are there on the scene able to be able to do that. The other thing that it does is it allows you to buy time and space for decision makers. When you have some forces there, they can contain a crisis as the rest of the joint force gets prepared to respond to something that may be a bit larger than the crisis that's being dealt with on the scene."

    http://www.army.mil/article/68210/Oct__27__2011___VCSA_testimony_to_HASC_Subcommittee_on_military_readiness__budget_cuts/

    ReplyDelete
  10. What "crises" do you think they're referring to there?

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's one of the problems. It's not easily foreseeable what kind of crisis will pop up. That's why we need to be prepared for various eventualities.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I guess what I'm saying is that right now far too many irrelevant situations masquerade as "crises" for the US military.
    Libya. Uganda.
    Not long ago, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Heck, Afghanistan.

    I don't care about any of those. It seems like the presence of these bases is adding temptation to the military to stick its nose where it doesn't belong instead of staying where it does - arrayed along the US border.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So you think we should eliminate the Air Force and the Navy?

    Should our military simply patrol the border? Will border control protect us from ICBMs?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Navy doesn't need overseas bases. It's in the water.

    Why would we want the Air Force to have military bases overseas? What's the purpose?

    How do our current military bases protect us from ICBMs?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Donsands said:

    It would be as if China occupied America, and there were troops walking about, and stationed everywhere to keep an eye on us, just because they felt we needed them here in our nation. I wouldn't like it. I may not go and blow myself up, but I would have heavy unrest in my heart.

    Say Ron Paul is elected POTUS.

    Say we were to immediately withdraw our troops from South Korea. I believe we have something like 30,000 men and women in uniform in South Korea split among the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force (as well as special forces in each branch). Not to mention the vast infrastructure to support them. Say we closed all this overnight and brought our men and women back home ASAP.

    I think that's a position many (especially younger) South Koreans as well many (especially younger) Americans would likely support.

    But from what I understand older South Koreans wouldn't tend to support US withdrawl as much as much as younger South Koreans do. For example, many of them remember the Korean war. Many of them are still wary of North Korea and China's designs.

    I don't know if it's true but I suppose maybe it's arguable it'd be a good thing for us (America) if we withdrew our troops from South Korea. But would it be a good or bad thing for South Korea and East Asia? Wouldn't that open the door for North Korea and China to make motions toward South Korea? If so, that'd seem to be bad for South Koreans, no?

    Or say we were to immediately withdraw our troops from places like Japan and Taiwan. Say we closed down our bases and so forth overnight in these places. American interests aside, do you think that'd be a good or bad thing for Japan and Taiwan?

    Of course, I happen to think we should station troops based primarily on American interests. But for the moment I'm just asking from the perspective of the South Koreans, Japanese, and Taiwanese. Would it be in their national interests for Americans to leave?

    ReplyDelete
  16. that'd seem to be bad for South Koreans, no?

    So what?


    do you think that'd be a good or bad thing for Japan and Taiwan?

    Might be bad for them. So what?
    Since when is it America's job to protect them on our dime?

    (Please take this in the way I mean it - spirited debate among appreciated brethren.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm attempting to respond to what you said. You indicated that overseas bases afford too much temptation/opportunity for misguided military intervention.

    Wouldn't the same logic apply to having a Navy? Isn't a submarine, battleship, or aircraft carrier a portable military base?

    What's the fundamental difference between an overseas military base and a Navy that can go overseas? In both cases it makes possible a US military presence abroad.

    To some extent the same holds true for the Air Force. And, of course, that's combined in the case of an Aircraft carrier.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rhology said...

    "How do our current military bases protect us from ICBMs?"

    For one thing it can put us within striking distance of an ICBM program in a hostile regime. We can take it out before it becomes operational.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Isn't a submarine, battleship, or aircraft carrier a portable military base?

    Sort of, yes.
    But it's portable, and that's part the reason for accepting its existence while not preferring on-ground military bases.


    it can put us within striking distance of an ICBM program in a hostile regime.

    So can a submarine or ship with cruise missiles, no?
    Or a stealth airplane...

    That said, how many of our military bases these days have deterrent power against ICBMs? How would that work?

    ReplyDelete
  20. RHOLOGY SAID:


    "Sort of, yes. But it's portable, and that's part the reason for accepting its existence while not preferring on-ground military bases."

    How is that preferable? Your initial objection was that overseas bases invite military adventurism. Once again, why doesn't the same logic apply to the Navy or Air Force?

    A portable military capacity would also invite military adventurism, si?

    "So can a submarine or ship with cruise missiles, no? Or a stealth airplane..."

    Depends on whether an airstrike is sufficient.

    And where does the stealth airplane originate? An overseas military base, perchance? (Possibly an aircraft carrier.)

    "That said, how many of our military bases these days have deterrent power against ICBMs? How would that work?"

    I wasn't discussing a deterrent. And I wasn't discussing actual ICBMs. I was discussing an ICBM program. Removing it before it becomes operational (in the case of a hostile regime).

    Keep in mind, too, that I was responding to your suggestion that our soldiers should be redeployed as border patrol agents. It's not like threats to our national security are confined to enemies walking across the border.

    Was that hyperbole on your part?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rhology said:

    Since when is it America's job to protect them on our dime?

    Well, I was responding to Donsands' comment which seemed to imply some people wouldn't quite appreciate an American presence in their nation. Maybe that's still the case. But I was trying to ask, wouldn't they be willing to put up with American troops if they saw it was in their interests as well?

    Also, I was bracketing American interests in my comment above. But I would agree we shouldn't necessarily expend American dollars let alone put our troops at risk for the sake of others. It depends on our interests as well.

    Speaking of American interests, though, if we did withdraw our troops from places like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, wouldn't that open the door for, say, China to move in one way or another, openly or surreptitiously, toward South Korea, Taiwan, and perhaps even Japan? If so, wouldn't this be a bad thing for America as well?

    (Please take this in the way I mean it - spirited debate among appreciated brethren.

    Oh yeah, of course, that's cool. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. steve,

    Your initial objection was that overseas bases invite military adventurism.

    Well, I said
    "It seems like the presence of these bases is ***adding*** temptation to the military"

    I hadn't laid out my entire case for not having overseas bases. I was just throwing out one reason, combined with others, b/c that was more on-topic.
    There are other reasons, like the huge expense, the thinning out of troops all over the place (fighting or not, they're still thinned out), the thinning out of equipment all over the world, the "don't worry, the US will protect you for free" attitude it implies not all that subtly, the motivation it gives to jihadists, the excuse it gives to anti-Americanists to hate on the US, the illusion of power extension while our borders are more porous than a L'Oreal's cheeks.

    There are probably more objections, but those are off the top of my head. :-)


    why doesn't the same logic apply to the Navy or Air Force?

    B/c they're portable. Bases aren't.
    Much less expense. No boots on the ground.


    Depends on whether an airstrike is sufficient.

    Which base did you have in mind from which a land invasion might be launched, and into where?
    Also, how would a land invasion prevent ICBM attack? That would have to be a pretty fast invasion, no?



    And where does the stealth airplane originate? An overseas military base, perchance? (Possibly an aircraft carrier.)

    Or a non-overseas military base.
    Or one where we have a partnership with a friendly ally.


    And I wasn't discussing actual ICBMs. I was discussing an ICBM program.

    Then I'm not sure about the relevance.



    It's not like threats to our national security are confined to enemies walking across the border.

    But isn't that the vast majority of the threat right now?
    Let's be specific - who is a threat to the US that an on-the-ground military base that the US currently has is going to deter effectively?



    Patrick,
    wouldn't they be willing to put up with American troops if they saw it was in their interests as well?

    OK, I see.
    I guess the feelings are always going to be mixed. Not even S Korea is all that happy about the base there, and it seems they'd have the most reason to love its presence.


    China to move in one way or another, openly or surreptitiously, toward South Korea, Taiwan, and perhaps even Japan?

    Perhaps, but is that our problem? Again, so what?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rhology said:

    I guess the feelings are always going to be mixed. Not even S Korea is all that happy about the base there, and it seems they'd have the most reason to love its presence.

    Well, I'm not talking about feelings or happiness. Rather I'm saying even if South Koreans are unhappy, maybe they'd be willing to put up with our presence if they see it as in their interests.

    Anyway maybe we could put it to a vote among South Koreans per what Dennis Prager has suggested?

    Perhaps, but is that our problem? Again, so what?

    Say China helps North Korea successfully invade South Korea. Say China successfully invades Taiwan. Wouldn't there be increased security risks for us with a more powerful and influential China? For one thing, China could potentially acquire a lot of US mediated military technology and the like. We share technology and much else besides with nations like South Korean and Taiwan which we wouldn't share with China.

    Also, this would influence alliances including trade alliances. Japan might move toward China for trade. Not to mention our allies in Asia like Australia and New Zealand could also begin to move away from US ties and form ties with the more influential China. So this would seem to negatively effect our economy as well, no?

    In other words, it might not be our immediate problem, per se, but it could potentially become our problem later down the line.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rhology said:

    Or a non-overseas military base.

    At least as I understand, I think there are different types of stealth airplanes. Depending on where we're intending to strike and in what time frame we'd need to do so, some stealth airplanes might not have such a long-range capacity to strike at a moment's notice like they currently do.

    Or one where we have a partnership with a friendly ally.

    Hm, but as I mentioned above, I think it's possible alliances could shift if we were to withdraw troops from certain areas or regions. If our allies can't count on us, then it's possible they'll look elsewhere. So we wouldn't necessarily have the option to partner with friendly allies.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'd also add if we moved all our overseas troops and redeployed them to secure our borders only, such that our troops would be entirely contained within US borders alone, then it'd place our military and thus our nation at a greater risk to be (at least partially) handicapped by something like an electromagnetic pulse bomb including a nuclear EMP bomb. However, if our troops are more spread out around the world, then an EMP bomb couldn't wipe our defenses off the grid as easily.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If we didn't have stable alliances with nations like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, whose scientists and other scholars often immigrate to study in the US and many of whom end up staying in the US, and if it's true our own nation doesn't homegrow as many scientists, engineers, and other scholars as needed to ensure our scientific and technological superiority, then it's possible this would be detrimental to our national security.

    ReplyDelete
  27. RHOLOGY SAID:

    “Well, I said, ‘It seems like the presence of these bases is ***adding*** temptation to the military.’"

    Foreign policy is ultimately the responsibility of the electorate. They get what they vote for.

    “There are other reasons, like the huge expense…”

    National security is not an option. We have to spend whatever we need. Of course, we can debate what constitutes wasteful spending, but that’s a different issue.

    “…the thinning out of troops all over the place (fighting or not, they're still thinned out), the thinning out of equipment all over the world…”

    I don’t see how they are any more thinned out living on some overseas bases than living on a number of bases scattered across the continental US, plus Alaska, Hawaii, and US protectorates.

    “…the ‘don't worry, the US will protect you for free’ attitude it implies not all that subtly.”

    Once again, it’s ultimately up to the electorate to set the priorities.


    “…the motivation it gives to jihadists.”

    Well, that cuts both ways. Having a nearby military base that can swat them like flies may also function as a disincentive.

    “…the excuse it gives to anti-Americanists to hate on the US.”

    Seems to me that resentment is built into their ideology, as well as their envy of American prosperity and economic clout.

    “…the illusion of power extension while our borders are more porous than a L'Oreal's cheeks.”

    What is Ron Paul’s actual policy for securing the border?

    “B/c they're portable. Bases aren't.”

    Once more, how does portability present less incentive for military adventurism? If anything, wouldn’t that be a greater incentive?

    “Much less expense.”

    Less expensive than what? A Navy? Aircraft carriers?

    It’s pretty expensive to build, fuel, feed, and staff an aircraft carrier. It’s a floating city.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cont. “No boots on the ground.”

    Actually, we use the Navy to transport troops.

    “Which base did you have in mind from which a land invasion might be launched, and into where?”

    You’re asking the wrong question. Because we can’t anticipate every threat in advance, or respond to a threat after it ripens, national security requires a certain amount of redundancy to deal with both foreseeable and unforeseeable contingencies.

    It’s like an insurance policy: better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. If you wait until the house burns down before you buy fire insurance, it’s too late to do you any good.

    “Also, how would a land invasion prevent ICBM attack? That would have to be a pretty fast invasion, no?”

    I’ve explained to you twice now that I’m referring to an ICBM *program*. I shouldn’t have to keep repeating myself.

    “Or a non-overseas military base. ”

    Fighter jets have a limited range.

    “Or one where we have a partnership with a friendly ally.”

    i) In exchange for foreign aid–which Ron Paul opposes.

    ii) Moreover, a friendly ally will have its own national interests to consider, which may or may not coincide with our own.

    “Then I'm not sure about the relevance.”

    If you wait for the program to become operational, then the threat level is much higher. And by procrastinating until it becomes operational, you lose military options you had before it became operational. If you procrastinate, you may forfeit your best military options.

    ReplyDelete
  29. RHOLOGY SAID:

    "But isn't that the vast majority of the threat right now?"

    i) The point of having things like overseas military bases is not simply to address some threat "right now," but to have resources in place in various hotspots around the world in case we need it. You're suggesting we should predicate our military posture on advance knowledge of what's coming down the pike. But while that's a part of natural security, another part of national security is not to be caught off-guard, having to play catch-up. There are things you can do before the fact that you can't do after the fact, or do as well. Better to build a dam before the flood than build a dam after the flood washed the town downstream.

    It can take years to build up military assets. If you wait until after an attack, after the threat has ripened, to begin that process, you're at a great disadvantage. At that point you're reacting to events rather than shaping events. And you’ve given the enemy a head start. So you’re in no position to strike back.

    ii) It’s also a mistake for us to unilaterally reduce our military assets. That gives us fewer options. Less to work with.

    “Let's be specific - who is a threat to the US that an on-the-ground military base that the US currently has is going to deter effectively?”

    You keep using the word “deterrence.” I didn’t premise my argument on deterrence, although that’s one aspect of national security.

    But sometimes you have to take action. If, say, Pakistan becomes a real threat to the US, it’s useful to have a base of operations nearby which we can use to launch an attack.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BTW, how would withdrawing our troops and closing bases around the world effect aiding or evacuating Americans living abroad such as in case of war? In some regions, wouldn't it make it more difficult to do so?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Again, I suggest persons disagreeing with Ron Paul's desire for a more conservative foreign policy read something such as Ivan Eland's book "The Empire Has No Clothes."

    Even if it would be more convenient to have military bases established in every single country just in case we happen to go war with one of or all of those countries, can we afford it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jonathan said:

    Again, I suggest persons disagreeing with Ron Paul's desire for a more conservative foreign policy read something such as Ivan Eland's book "The Empire Has No Clothes."

    Speaking for myself, I don't disagree with everything Ron Paul says about foreign policy. I don't disagree with his desire to reassess our foreign policy either. I think a lot of things could be improved.

    Rather I've been raising questions and concerns over whether it's in our national security interests to unilaterally shut down all our overseas bases and bring all these military personnel home.

    Even if it would be more convenient to have military bases established in every single country just in case we happen to go war with one of or all of those countries, can we afford it?

    Again, speaking for myself, I don't favor having US military bases in every single country.

    And I would agree we could be less wasteful in our defense spending and the like.

    ReplyDelete
  33. JONATHAN SAID:

    “Again, I suggest persons disagreeing with Ron Paul's desire for a more conservative foreign policy read something such as Ivan Eland's book ‘The Empire Has No Clothes.’"

    To disagree with Ron Paul, I only need to evaluate Ron Paul’s arguments. He’s the one running for Prez, not Ivan Eland.

    “Even if it would be more convenient to have military bases established in every single country just in case we happen to go war with one of or all of those countries, can we afford it?”

    So you’re going to resort to cutesy caricatures of what I (or Patrick) said? Do you think that contributes to constructive debate?

    i) No, I don’t think we need to station bases in Haiti, Luxembourg, the Maldives, or Monte Carlo.

    For one thing it’s a question of risk assessment. Clearly some countries pose a greater prima facie threat to American national security than others.

    ii) In addition, the purpose of having a military base in one country is that it gives you access to surrounding countries. One base per region.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "To disagree with Ron Paul, I only need to evaluate Ron Paul’s arguments. He’s the one running for Prez, not Ivan Eland."

    Ron Paul's conclusions on foreign policy may be supported by arguments Paul fails to make for one reason or another.

    "So you’re going to resort to cutesy caricatures of what I (or Patrick) said? Do you think that contributes to constructive debate?"

    I suppose it would be constructive to do something like your tin-foil-hat post?

    "No, I don’t think we need to station bases in Haiti, Luxembourg, the Maldives, or Monte Carlo.

    For one thing it’s a question of risk assessment. Clearly some countries pose a greater prima facie threat to American national security than others."

    Right, which is why some argue forth arguments to the effect that the pros don't outweigh the cons of our current foreign policy.

    "In addition, the purpose of having a military base in one country is that it gives you access to surrounding countries. One base per region."

    We could have even quicker access if we already had a base in 'x' country.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Wow, good stuff to think in, and chew on. I shall keep listening, and truly appreciate you having this good old 'Triablogue' to kick these things around.

    Ron Paul needs to be more rounded out for sure, but he is by far the best Candiate running to be our Commander-in-Cheif; for me that is. The rest I don't trust, even a little tiny bit.

    Thanks agian.

    May our Lord have mercy on us as a nation, for our children, and children's-children's' sake. And for His honor and glory in the Gospel. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  36. JONATHAN SAID:

    "We could have even quicker access if we already had a base in 'x' country."

    Which is redundant if one base gives us access to several countries.

    In addition, you can only put a base in a friendly host country. An ally.

    The alternative is to first invade and subjugate a hostile country, install a puppet regime, then put a base there. But in that case you wouldn't need the base to gain initial access to the country.

    You're not raising serious objections. You're just raising frivolous objections to deflect the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You guys are giving me a lot to think about. Thanks.
    I am certainly not a Ron Paul drone, and you have made me rethink my position. At this point I am wondering whether my position does have the heavier weight of argument on its side, but you have inserted numerous doubts in my mind. The sharpening is appreciated.

    A few reflections on what you've said.

    steve:
    Foreign policy is ultimately the responsibility of the electorate. They get what they vote for.

    1) Well, sorta, yes, but I'm not the electorate. I am one mostly unrepresented voter.
    2) Generals and military decision-makers are not elected. There are numerous levels of insulation from the electorate. Yes, I know "we" pick those who pick the decision-makers, but that's a lot of room to lose touch with the electorate.



    National security is not an option. We have to spend whatever we need

    If only.
    Do you have an argument for why keeping military bases overseas is that much more important than, say, securing the border?
    And don't say "What's Ron Paul's policy?" I don't care about RP in this convo. I care about the issue at hand.




    I don’t see how they are any more thinned out living on some overseas bases than living on a number of bases scattered across the continental US,

    Really? Why not? On the one hand, they'd be IN THE USA, whereas now they are literally all over the world. The US's landmass, while large, is far less than the entire world.



    “…the ‘don't worry, the US will protect you for free’ attitude it implies not all that subtly.”

    Once again, it’s ultimately up to the electorate to set the priorities.


    Ron Paul, to his credit, is one of the only candidates on the nat'l stage to even remotely mention this in his platform. See my comments on the electorate above. At this point, the candidates aren't even going there, and that limits the electorate's options. And yes, the interplay of candidate to electable candidate to electorate's overall preferences/tendencies is very complex, which is why I don't think your response here answers the concern.



    Having a nearby military base that can swat them like flies may also function as a disincentive.

    Fair enough, though outrage can travel much farther than the US can project workable military force.



    Seems to me that resentment is built into their ideology, as well as their envy of American prosperity and economic clout.

    Yes, it is, and the bases don't help.
    It may be that they'd just find sthg else to hate about the US if the bases weren't there, which is true enough.



    ...the illusion of power extension while our borders are more porous than a L'Oreal's cheeks.”

    What is Ron Paul’s actual policy for securing the border?


    I don't know and I don't care. What's the answer to the actual issue?



    Once more, how does portability present less incentive for military adventurism? If anything, wouldn’t that be a greater incentive?

    It's harder to stage invasions and other excursions from ships and planes than from land bases.
    But perhaps that is balanced out by the portability advantage. This may be a wash.

    ReplyDelete
  38. steve continued:




    “Much less expense.”

    Less expensive than what? A Navy? Aircraft carriers?


    Yes. Yes, I know carriers and other large craft are insanely expensive, but they are multi-use, moreso than a base that is in one place forever.




    “No boots on the ground.”

    Actually, we use the Navy to transport troops.


    Yes, and those are boots IN THE WATER, not on the ground. That's not the same.




    Because we can’t anticipate every threat in advance, or respond to a threat after it ripens, national security requires a certain amount of redundancy

    So keep a Navy and Air Force. If we can't anticipate every threat in advance, shall we seek bases in every segment of the world?
    That's impossible. Far better, ISTM, to protect our borders and maintain a strong deterrent force, rather than spread ourselves so thin that, like the British Empire and Rome before it, we collapse from within.



    It’s like an insurance policy: better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it...The point of having things like overseas military bases is not simply to address some threat "right now," but to have resources in place in various hotspots around the world in case we need it.

    Except you have to balance your monthly premiums against your deductible.
    Are you taking into acct that the US budget is insanely in debt? And that massive military expenditures, while far from the only piece of the puzzle, are nonetheless ONE piece of it?




    steve: Will border control protect us from ICBMs?
    Me: How do our current military bases protect us from ICBMs?
    steve: For one thing it can put us within striking distance of an ICBM program in a hostile regime. We can take it out before it becomes operational.
    Me: So can a submarine or ship with cruise missiles, no? Or a stealth airplane... That said, how many of our military bases these days have deterrent power against ICBMs? How would that work?
    steve: I wasn't discussing a deterrent. And I wasn't discussing actual ICBMs. I was discussing an ICBM program. Removing it before it becomes operational (in the case of a hostile regime).
    Me: I'm not sure about the relevance. Which base did you have in mind from which a land invasion might be launched, and into where? Also, how would a land invasion prevent ICBM attack? That would have to be a pretty fast invasion, no?
    steve: I’ve explained to you twice now that I’m referring to an ICBM *program*.


    I'm sorry if this reveals my density, but I don't see what you're talking about here. How does a land base help where a stealth aircraft or a cruise missile barrage doesn't? Yes jets have a limited range, but that's what tanker aircraft and mid-air refuelings are for. Yes, those are a bit dangerous, but they're done all the time. Lots of things are dangerous. Sorties into enemy territory to bomb ICBMs are dangerous too, as are land incursions from a nearby base. I'm not seeing your suggestion.



    “Or one where we have a partnership with a friendly ally.”

    i) In exchange for foreign aid–which Ron Paul opposes.


    I don't care whether RP opposes it.
    But in this case, I'm not a big fan of foreign aid either, so let me answer for myself. Why "aid"? Why not a rental, a lease?



    ii) Moreover, a friendly ally will have its own national interests to consider, which may or may not coincide with our own.

    Yes, politics can be complicated, just as they are when the US has lots of land bases. I don't see how this gains ground for one side of the argument over the other.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Then I'm not sure about the relevance.”
    If you wait for the program to become operational, then the threat level is much higher


    How does that speak in support of lots of land bases over and against the alternative?


    It can take years to build up military assets

    Surely you're not suggesting that the US "build up military assets" in every part of the world.
    Since that's impossible, how does this speak in favor of land bases? And be specific, please - what kind of threat we talking about responding to? If ICBM, we've discussed that above. If a large-scale invasion, a land base can't teleport men or materiel. The same buildup will be necessary either way.


    If, say, Pakistan becomes a real threat to the US, it’s useful to have a base of operations nearby which we can use to launch an attack.

    Useful, yes, sure. It would be "useful" to have a base everywhere in the world where there MIGHT come a danger.
    However, it would be much better just to concentrate on our own not withering from within, and if some danger comes from without, we deal with it. Portable assets. If we're talking massive invasion, I'm open to listening to how a land base 500 miles away is a good investment.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Patrick,

    maybe we could put it to a vote among South Koreans per what Dennis Prager has suggested?

    Not a bad idea. Also, a vote in the USA would be cool.


    Wouldn't there be increased security risks for us with a more powerful and influential China?

    Yes, but a whole lot more than China holding US$trillions? I don't know.
    Besides, a lot would need to go bad for China to invade those countries. Will US land bases there prevent it?
    Is it our responsibility to prevent every single land grab that anyone will ever perpetrate? Is it in our best interest? that's up for debate IMHO.


    China could potentially acquire a lot of US mediated military technology and the like.

    All the more reason not to share with places that are not US states.



    Also, this would influence alliances including trade alliances. Japan might move toward China for trade.

    Then we'd need to analyse the trade-offs and risks, true.


    So this would seem to negatively effect our economy as well, no?

    Perhaps, but what if we weren't throwing $hundreds of billions per year in foreign entanglements?


    If our allies can't count on us

    By which you mean "if our allies can't rely on us to be their military"? I'm not too interested in that, TBH.



    greater risk to be (at least partially) handicapped by something like an electromagnetic pulse bomb including a nuclear EMP bomb.

    I see what you're saying, but the US is vast. Spread them out across the country and that risk isn't really very big.


    scientists, etc ... it's possible this would be detrimental to our national security.

    Do those people come to the US b/c the US has a military base in their country?


    how would withdrawing our troops and closing bases around the world effect aiding or evacuating Americans living abroad such as in case of war?

    It would make it more difficult, true. But is that "insurance policy" worth the monthly premiums? You want a lower deductible, you pay a higher premium. I'm doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "You're not raising serious objections. You're just raising frivolous objections to deflect the argument."

    In fact, I was just making the point obvious that was made in response to my rhetorical statement: the issue isn't simply "Having a base in country 'x' would help us more quickly evacuate troops."

    Well, if that's sufficient than we should have a military base in every country. But of course, you think there are other things to consider. So too do those who think we should close such bases.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rhology said:

    Not a bad idea. Also, a vote in the USA would be cool.

    Well, I was assuming for the sake of argument that we would withdraw if Ron Paul was elected POTUS. Hence no need for a vote in the US since we're agreed the US would withdraw, yeah?

    Yes, but a whole lot more than China holding US$trillions? I don't know.

    Hm, I don't see why not? Although it's true we're beholden to China for trillions, things could still get worse. Such as in ways which I've mentioned above.

    Besides, a lot would need to go bad for China to invade those countries. Will US land bases there prevent it?

    If there are US bases in South Korea, then I think it'd be reasonable to think North Korea would think twice about attacking South Korea. Likewise China and Taiwan. It doesn't mean it won't happen. But North Korea and China would take a bigger risk in attacking South Korea and Taiwan if there were no US bases than if there were, no?

    Is it our responsibility to prevent every single land grab that anyone will ever perpetrate? Is it in our best interest? that's up for debate IMHO.

    I agree it's not necessarily our responsibility to "prevent every single land grab." But that's a different debate than the current one.

    Generally speaking I think we should do what's primarily in our best interest. Is it in our best interest to unilaterally close down all overseas bases and redeploy these troops to protect US borders alone? Again that's what we're debating.

    I don't question whether it's a good idea to close down some overseas bases. That could very well be the case. But to close down all the bases ASAP seems drastic and I would argue not necessarily in our best interests insofar as national security is concerned. As well as other things such as our economy, which in turn helps to keep our national security strong.

    All the more reason not to share with places that are not US states.

    Would you say we shouldn't have any allies? Part of having allies is a certain amount of quid pro quo.

    Perhaps, but what if we weren't throwing $hundreds of billions per year in foreign entanglements?

    Actually, even if we weren't in debt and didn't have any fiscal waste, I think it could still possibly negatively effect our economy if certain nations decreased or altogether stopped trading with us. Of course, it depends on which nations we're talking about.

    BTW, I think people like Ron Paul are able to say the sorts of things he says about national security primarily because we are the world's superpower (e.g. biggest ecomony, best science and research, strongest military). However if Ron Paul's policies were enacted, then (as I outlined above) it could negatively effect our economy, which in turn could negatively effect our status as the world's superpower.

    By which you mean "if our allies can't rely on us to be their military"? I'm not too interested in that, TBH.

    I'm afraid that's not what I mean. For example, Taiwan has their own military. But without the US military it would be more susceptible to invasion by China.

    Likewise we benefit from having bases in places like Japan since we can gather intel on other nations. It's hard to send stealth aircraft from say Alaska or Hawaii to China even if they can refuel mid-air. Mid-air might be over China.

    Do those people come to the US b/c the US has a military base in their country?

    I was alluding to the fact that if our economy were to be weakened as a result of poor trade with other countries, then it's possible there would be other repercussions including less people (e.g. scientists) desiring to remain to live and work in the US.

    It would make it more difficult, true.

    But doesn't Ron Paul want to protect Americans living abroad?

    ReplyDelete