Ron Paul is many things. But St George beating back the dragon of American Imperialism?
Come now.
I admit I don’t know Greg Scoblete from Adam, and that I find these types of hagiographic pieces uncomfortable to read, so embarrassed am I for their authors, who come across as nothing short of political groupies. And after reading Scoblete’s piece, I had the uncomfortable thought that, once he finished it, he put it up on a pedestal and threw his undies and a hotel room key at it.
But tone aside, Scoblete’s argument is worth addressing. First, Scoblete distinguishes between non-interventionism (Paul) and isolationism — a fair distinction, but one that he believes we should use as a prism through which to view the current problems in Iraq. Paul is correct, I think, that our military shouldn’t be used for nation building, or to “coax democracy” out of rogue states. But the suggestion that Scoblete’s piece turns on is that the Iraq war was, in fact, not in the national interests, and was instead part of a push for American Imperialism.
And it is here that he — and Paul — beg the question: Bush, and supporters of the Iraq campaign, did not view Iraq as elective in the sense that the goal was to turn Iraq into a democracy for reasons purely idealistic. Neocons are not Wilsonian, necessarily, nor do they believe in Imperialism. I can think of no one, offhand, who wants Iraq as a US client state in any other sense than that it joins the community of free countries, and so is less likely to engage in wars of aggression.
Scoblete writes:
Unraveled terror plots in the U.S. and Europe discredit the notion that “freedom is the antidote to terror” or that we must “fight them over there so they don’t come over here.”
How so? The fact of terror plots themselves simply point to the determination of terrorists, and their continuing ability to plan attacks. But in no way do they “discredit” the notion that freedom is the antidote to terror. In fact, one can argue that the premise has yet to be tried, even — and that it is a premise that is based on a long-term view of terrorism as being nurtured and cultivated in totalitarian backwaters, and countries where internal repression is projected onto a host of external villains, from the evil Jews and their Zionist enablers, to the cultural decadence and debauchery of the West and western liberalism.
Scoblete, it seems, is willing to use instances of (failed) attacks to prove that a policy of fighting terrorists “over there” will lessen the likelihood that we’ll have to fight them over here.
But if the last several years have told us anything, it is that terrorists, when found and confronted, die, often in large numbers. Only by making the argument that in killing terrorists, we’re creating more and more, can one argue that taking the fight to them as an effective strategy for troubling their plans, has been discredited.
And such a position is defeatist, precisely become it proceeds from the premise that to combat terrorism is to enable it. Ron Paul and John Kerry, in that respect, aren’t too far apart on foreign policy — though Paul is likely less legitimately averse to using force should he believe the situation warrants it.
And that’s the real rub: Paul’s “non-interventionism” — and Scoblete’s defense of same — is born of a faulty (or, at least, dubious) premise, namely, that the Bush strategy for fighting the war on terror was NOT part of a larger strategy to defend national interests.
Or, to put it another way, Bush and Paul simply disagree on the nature of the threat Iraq posed, and where it was situated with respect to a longer term strategy for fighting terror.
Paul, we’re told, is not a pacifist; he supported the campaign in Afghanistan, after all. But what non-interventionism is, by its very considered nature, is almost necessarily reactive — and it is on the repudiation of this mindset that the Bush Doctrine was built.
Being non-interventionist in response to an enemy that has stated its goals and declared war against you is not, using Paul and Scoblete’s metric, in our nation’s best interest. Or better — it represents only one opinion of what is in our nation’s best interest, in the long-term, rather than some empirical point of policy difference that can be determined dispassionately and according to some doctrine of non-interventionism.
For whatever problems it has created, the Bush Doctrine, at the very least, has changed the moldy thinking that constrained the US from actually protecting its national interests in advance of being attacked. This is not imperialism — particularly when the fight is being waged both against those who have declared war on you and their abettors (and the fight does not necessarily need be carried out using the military, which is but an option used in particular instances where it tracks with a larger strategy to protect national interests); instead, it is a different take on what comes to constitute our national interests to begin with.
Paul may give it a label with the hopes that he can distinguish it from Bush’s strategy. But the difference lies in the when and the why, not so much in the how — and it seems to me that being reactive to terrorism is precisely the wrong way to fight it, just as “acceptable levels” of terrorism is an odious surrender to thuggery, and a tacit acknowledgment that the universal ideals we supposedly embrace are negotiable.
Sadly, Scoblete’s conclusion — that we, as a country, may be heading down the road to embracing a “non-interventionist” foreign policy, may prove prescient. Let’s just hope that if this is indeed the case, the non-interventionist (which, you’ll recall, is the platform on which Bush ran in 2000, with respect to foreign policy) running the show will recognize that non-interventionism is only workable if there is a corresponding willingness to intervene when doing so seems the best course forward for correcting a lingering threat and protect long-term US interests.
Otherwise, no matter what it calls itself, it is a form of foreign policy isolationism at worst, and a return of “realism” at best.
****
update: Response from Scoblete here.
Off to workout. Back later. WITH IMPRESSIVE CALVES!
“Democratic statesmen like Delaware Senator Joseph Biden”
Sorry, but this litte gem damn near disqualifies the author’s entire thesis. “Statesman?” Biden??
But seriously, I would like someone to explain to me how “non-intervention” wouldn’t naturally over time evolve into isolationism.
That is funny, kelly, to use the term “statesman” for Joe Biden, the dim bulb of the Senate.
We have to lead by example. If the USA practices non-intervention then everyone else will all also adopt policies of non-intervention and the terrorists will just look silly and extreme and no one will want to join up with them.
And especially silly when the body parts are scraped up at the mall or the subway station or the corner Starbucks.
It makes me wonder who the starry-eyed idealists really are in this scenario.
Well, it’d be nice not to have a standing army, either. But I’m not sure the modern world permits of that.
It is kind of interesting to see someone at least acknowledge (albeit incoherently) the paradox of “paleo-Libertarian foreign policy,” which essentially boils down to “Yes, we’re enthusiastically in favor of free trade as something essential to our peace and prosperity. But, no, we won’t do anything to protect or defend or preserve free trade from threats, because that would be all militaristic and shooty and wrong….”
Speaking of standing armies, a couple of Paul’s ideas do resonate with me and those are the removal of US troops/bases from S. Korea and Europe and withdrawing from the U.N. and NATO. Does this make me a non-interventionist?
As far as the rest of the essay goes, I’m reminded of Steyn’s quip that if America is an imperialist nation, we’re piss poor at it (paraphrasing.)
Paul and his Ron Bots are mixing up Principles and Strategies. Sort of reminds me of many liberals, eh?
It is useless to define a policy of non-intervention in the way that the author of this piece attempts. World events and our national security interests will dictate a review of strategies to insure our legitimate, nonimperialistic interests will be served.
This sort of Doctrine Dogma Principle pimping serves no purpose and represents a paucity of critical thinking.
tw work,” diplomats Maybe, maybe not, depending on the principle.
I’ve always been perplexed (not to mention terribly annoyed) by just that argument you pointed out; even if some on the right were literally saying that by “fighting them over there we avoid fighting them over here”, isn’t it being merely pedantic to point at one or two exceptions and state the entire point is flawed to the core? Couldn’t people at least look at the facts on the ground and allow a good-faith assumption that what is really meant is that the enemy’s resources will be tied up to such and extent that further 9-11’s will not be possible? If not, why not? I get that the left does it to further their party’s ascendency, but why so many on the right? Is it just being intellectually lazy? Is burying one’s head in the sand really such a powerful motivator that it can actually be elevated to a single-issue platform, the implementation of which is so important that even losing on every other issue (and surely the isolationists on the right know full well that giving the Democrats the reigns in order to meet that one end will mean every other issue they fight for would become a lost cause in short order) is well worth it?
It’s not so much the non-interventionism that bugs me, but in my conversations with Paul supporters, I keep hearing how free trade with the U.S. is a panacea to everything wrong with the world.
What about China, I asked.
It is not about religion or culture, politics or economics…
http://www.wmgt.com/node/3723
It is civilization against savagery. Good vs. Evil. However you choose to frame it, I don’t see isolationism or non-intervention as moral options.
dwa:
I raised that very point several weeks back and engaged in a circle jerk with “shine.”
My question was related to the so called “amateurish” level of recent terrorist plots. Perhaps, I surmised, this is because an inordinate amount of really good operatives are involved in Iraq and Afganistan. Doesn’t this mean that both places place a burden on terrorist resources? I wasn’t stating this as proven fact, just a question for discussion.
Despite several back and forths the best I could get out of shine was that “those terrorists are in Iraq because they want to be in Iraq and they are different from the ones on western countries.” He/she never gave an explaination, just repeated the meme over and over in slightly different ways.
This seems so fundamental that its dismissal even for discussion is perplexing.
tw: impossible drag QUAGMIRE!!!!!
Holstein? Angus? Hereford? Doesn’t matter I suppose, they’re all cute when they’re little.
Unraveled terror plots in the U.S. and Europe discredit the notion that “freedom is the antidote to terrorâ€Â
This is such a stupid statement, I can’t help but keep re-reading it. Is his theory that once they’ve experienced the majesty of parliament, they’ll forgo their murderin’ ways without any undue influence from the rest of us?
I’m betting Scoblete was one of those folks a few years ago that saw something nefarious in statistics showing that even as crime was at an all time low, there were more people in prison than ever before.
Non-interventionism (a/k/a isolationism) were viable foreign policies for the United States in the 19th Century. Here in the 21st Century, problems on the far side of the world literally blow up in our house. We are involved whether we like it or not. We must be interventionist just out of self protection.
Frank J says: The first 10 amendments are what Ron Paul refers to as the Bill of Wrongs.
dwa.
it has always been a common military doctrine to take the fight to the enemy. Make him defend his territory rather than having to defend your very doorstep. So in that sense, yes, it is better to fight them over there rather than here. If GW is dumb, al queda is even dumber. They sent their best and brightest to Iraq and Afgahnistan.
tw; ordinances pray. Isn’t that against the constitution or something?
The “fighting the terrorists makes more terrorists” meme plays right into the goals of those who use terrorism as a tactic and strategery. Which is capitulation. Why is that concept sio hard to grasp?
kelly:
But seriously, I would like someone to explain to me how “non-intervention†wouldn’t naturally over time evolve into isolationism.
The same way “interventionism” doesn’t evolve into imperialism.
Fat Man:
Non-interventionism (a/k/a isolationism) were viable foreign policies for the United States in the 19th Century. Here in the 21st Century, problems on the far side of the world literally blow up in our house. We are involved whether we like it or not. We must be interventionist just out of self protection.
That’s just nonsense. We’ve had an interventionist foreign policy for 50+ years. Some of that is tied up with the Cold War, but regardless we’ve been interfering in other nation’s internal workings for a long time. The sine qua non being Iran and our installing the Shah. To say that more interventionism–the heart of the Bush Doctrine–is the solution is to ignore the results of past interference. It’s a circular argument: we need more interventionism to correct the results of our past interventionism.
Rusty:
it has always been a common military doctrine to take the fight to the enemy. Make him defend his territory rather than having to defend your very doorstep. So in that sense, yes, it is better to fight them over there rather than here. If GW is dumb, al queda is even dumber. They sent their best and brightest to Iraq and Afgahnistan.
While we have killed many jihadists in Iraq and Afghanistan, what we don’t know is how many we have provided valuable on-the-job training to. And, for all the talk about taking the fight to the enemy, we really haven’t done that at all. al Queda is back to 9/11 strength and shielded in Pakistan under a nuclear umbrella. Big man Barack thinks we should waltz in and take him, too.
My position on this is based primarily on libertarian philosophies which dictate you really can’t impose your will on others through force, but I don’t necessarily mean that in terms of international relations. I mean that all this talk about the GWoT being a “long war”–a multi-generational war–means we’re spending the lives and livelihoods of people who aren’t even born yet. It is wrong to do that with Social Security, and it’s wrong to do it with and adventuresome foreign policy.
The common retort is usually “if we don’t fight then those future children won’t even be born”, which beyond being remarkably similar to the fear tactics of socialist-leaning liberals is patently wrong. Islamic fascism is not as severe a threat as Communism as it is even less productive financially and socially. There are no great Islamic fascist thinkers, and they certainly aren’t chock-full of nuclear physicists. The philosophy is a loser philosophy, but their one asset–savage enthusiasm–makes them prime candidates for alliances with unstable regimes who have nuclear physicists and guns and bombs and are willing to trade those for cooperation against a common enemy. Which would be us, if we make the security of the world our business. Left to its own devices, fundamentalist Islam will collapse upon itself. I think Gingrich suggests this with his latest salvo. Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t have to produce because it is artificially supported by oil dollars. Energy independence would do more to crush Islamic terrorism than any interventionist policy you can dream up.
“My position on this is based primarily on libertarian philosophies which dictate you really can’t impose your will on others through force…”
So you must persuade them with words? Here’s a tip on your path to becoming a silver-tongued devil: The phrase ‘adventuresome foreign policy’ is insulting to 90% of the people on this thread.
Lets, for a moment, assume the assertion that alqueda is noe up to it’s pre 9/11 strength are true. Consider that the quality of fighter isn’t there. Alqueda in Iraq has gone through their first and second strings. They are resorting to murdering their host population rather than confront coalition forces.
To get back to first principles though; to have done nothing in Iraq would have improved matters?
Rho, interesting post. I find myself OFTEN conflicted as to a foreign policy and find myself always drifting between one that looks like what I would imagine yours to be or one that’s a bit more muscular. Possibly named, neocon lite. I was all for Afghanistan as I thought it was the right thing to do and it, too, would breed (or to be more precise, it would bring them out) the jihadi vermin, and they would be disposed of quickly. Iraq? Wasn’t a fan of restarting that battle, but understood the real reasons behind it. Just disagreed with them. I think I may feel the war against islamofascism is going to be longer and more intense than you may, however. This is much more about their religion than about our hegemony. These rats will be with us, indefinitely. Extermination will not come from one battle, one war or one, or a thousand, mini Marshall plans.
I’m not opposed to intervention, but I think our attempts to democratize Iraq, and by extension the middle east are flawed. I understand the urge to spread democray to those who do not live with it. It is international, political evangelicalism. Noble in it’s goal, but flawed. I would love to believe that all of mankind is ready to embrace natural rights and democracy, but i am not convinced that’s the case. Democracy came about in the west as a result of centuries of philosophical evolution, from Christ to Locke and Jefferson, et al. Along the way the culture of the west adapted to the new ideas and prepared the masses for democracy. That process hasn’t happened in the Middle East and, in my view, is the death blow for our attempts to establish a government modeled from ours.
TW: infected Roman – Ick
Long before Christ. Aristotle, Plato, and if you want to walk it back even farther, babalon and early hebrew comentators. Some people in Iraq must have thought that democracy was worth a try. They voted for it three times. In the end it may not look like your Minnesota populism, but it is a representative form of government.Had we done nothing, where would Iraq be today?
Non-interventionism is a very strange concept in a world in which communications have shortened the time to get a message from one side of the planet to another down to that limited by the speed of light and processing of messages. That has been coupled up with this lovely and unaccountable global trade system that realism has gotten us, which allows for the cheap armaments of any group of individuals nearly anyplace on earth. Hard to be ‘non-interventionist’ when so many groups are looking to intervene with us on that scale. Unfortunately those are not Nation State actors upon this stage, and realism falls face first on that and has made the world less safe by utilizing appeasement to try and keep things economically stable. This idea of not intervening when attacked goes back to the era that set the groundwork for later realism by trying to establish that trade with despots and tyrants would eventually bring some sort of freedom to those under such rule. This goes back before the rise of transnationalism and would serve as the basis for it. Before the Cold War, before ‘containment’, before ‘realism’, before WWI and takes place it its first readily identified form with the start of Wilsonianism. American ships had been attacked before the sinking of the Lusitania and lives lost before then, and yet the Isolationist and Non-Interventionist President Wilson did nothing. And when he did, finally, decide for war it was so limited as to go only after one Nation of many… and leave its allies alone. Today we live with that decision to put economic stability and trade in front of attacking an enemy… a decision to allow this splendid concept of trade make the world into such a bright and democratic place. That started with the Ottoman Empire. After 90 years can we now say that it hasn’t worked out like it was supposed to and go back to the more idealistic views of how to run foreign policy?
Because this ‘realism’ seems to have made the world deadlier and the threats more distributed than previously, because calling terrorists by what they do and not by their ideology would mean having to confront them with the tools available for such. Of course that would mean a distributed confrontation that would tend to pick up their supporters, too. Require a confrontation or five to get the point across. Apparently we are too civilized to do that, and will die like a hot house flower put out into a winter gale.
Paul is correct, I think, that our military shouldn’t be used for nation building, or to “coax democracy†out of rogue states.
Whilst it may be the case that the military is not the best instrument, I do find the whole “we don’t do nation building” idea pretty stupid.
Bush was elected as a non interventionist, almost his first foreign policy initiative (which significantly pissed off the Europeans) was trying to get US troops out of the Balkan’s. Now whilst I think that the US could have done with a draw down of troops there, and a sotto voce request that the Europeans pull a little more weight, the way Bush went about it actually threw away some very succesful diplomacy and prestige that the US had earned from it’s intervention, not to mention that as difficult and full of setbacks as the reconstruction effort has been in the Balkan’s and as bedeviled by the endemic problems in the bureaucratic way that NATO and the UN work, it has overall been more succesful than it had a right to be, and that success had been hard won to a great extent by the US military. That in addition the US excercised force and money on behalf of Muslim’s in both Bosnia and Kosovo si something that would have made for a powerful ideological point in the GWOT, but the administration has usually been too clueless to make use of it.
But my bigger objection to the rejection of nation building or democracy promotion is just what anyone proposes to do instead? I mean if you survey likely conflicts that the US could end up involved in militarily the only one that really fits the bill if a classic Westphalian conflict that would end (assuming an American victory) in such a manner that a functional rational state is left behind on the other side to negotiate an acceptable treaty the only one that seems to fit the bill is a possble clash with China over Taiwan. Even a Korean war would almost certainly end up with a collapsed NK and at least some involvement by the US in the reconstruction, even if only to make sure the new Korea does not become just a Chinese tributary state.
But where else in the world is it possible to say that a state or non state group could get into a shooting match with the US and the aftermath is one the US could just walk away from without just leaving a problem that will re-appear in due course ?
Now there are many imaginative solutions that may shift some of the burden from having to maintain a garrison army, from a better trained and mre suited recosntrcution cum peace corps run from State or even a new agency, directly paying foreign militaries of especially close allies to man Grunts on ground specialist peackeepers (Mongolia, Eastern Europe, some favourably disposed African countries), building on one of the best bits of diplomacy this administration has actually accomplished – the renewed deepening of relations with Japan and India to get them to work in a closer partnership. Nation Building is tedious, frustrating, and takes only a few mistakes to &*^%-up royally, but the alternatives seem to me be either Isolationism, recurrent intervention (Haiti, Iraq), or really inflicting such utter destruction, even if completely disproportionate, so as to permanently remove a threat.
So Nation building and Democracy promotion really are pretty lousy ideas, it’s just that the alternatives look so much worse.
[…] pushed by, among others, the crew at Reason? Evidently it needs itself a better Paul Revere: the “non-interventionist” egomaniac, who is quickly becoming the John McCain of contrived John McCain mavericks, finished a […]