Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy

I took this from Paul’s site:

War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

I could agree with him had it not been for September 11th, 2001. I’m not playing that card just to make my point but I do believe that Jefferson and Washington lived in a different time. While I respect their opinions and would generally agree with them, there are certain circumstances which require the United States to intervene overseas.

I will agree that in Iraq, the Bush administration wasn’t as aggressive as it should have been. We have a Navy and Air Force which should see some more use. I also agree with him that there should be a formal declaration of war.

However, I cannot agree with this:

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.

The area was never any less dangerous. Furthermore, we had 3,000 innocent people murdered way before there was an Iraq war. Absolutely any action we take in response to terrorism is going to create new recruits in some fashion, you can’t use that as an excuse to do nothing as Paul seems to be proposing.

I would like to find Paul’s stance on Afghanistan, perhaps someone can comment and enlighten me. I have emailed the campaign today for an official response and will post and comment if I receive one.

Update 5/23 @ 7:18pm:

I received this response from Paul’s campaign:

Mr. Ashworth

Congressman Paul supported the authorization of force in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Thank you for your interest,

Michael Krekel
Ron Paul 2008

So let me ask this question. What about the recruits who joined the cause of radical Islam because of our presence in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t that be an equal excuse for exit from that arena?

Weak.

  • R. Harmon

    Nice post, some items for your consideration:

    “Furthermore, we had 3,000 innocent people murdered way before there was an Iraq war. ”

    You need to remember that we were involved in the Middle East even prior to the first Gulf War in the early 90’s. The troops stationed in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Guld War was a large factor as far as listed grievances.

    Here’s what Michael F. Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Unit had to say about it:

    http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/22/fmr-chief-of-cia-osama-unit-why-they-attack-us/

    As far as the invasion of Afghanistan goes, Ron Paul supported and still advocates bringing the architects of September 11th to justice. Ron Paul made this statement before Congress:

    “Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan– and diverting resources to Iraq– have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort.

    Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan.”

  • R. Harmon

    “So let me ask this question. What about the recruits who joined the cause of radical Islam because of our presence in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t that be an equal excuse for exit from that arena?

    Weak.”

    What’s so hard to understand? There are always ramifications and consequences from any action. Just because an action is justified doesn’t mean it won’t/can’t have consequences, negative or positive.

    But, if you are carelessly intervening repeatedly, with little thought or understanding, you will compound the level and intensity of counter reactions.

    Concerning your question about Afghanistan, the Campaign answered you, if you want more detailed information ask a detailed question. Ron Paul supported our military action in Afghanistan because he believes that the architects of September 11th should be brought to justice. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with that objective.