Posted by
Catmman on Monday, July 30, 2007 2:49:39 PM
I received this in response to a post entitled
Why I don't Support Ron Paul:
Commenter is AMack
Isolationism...is characterized by both economic protectionism and military nonintervention. Dr. Paul is very pro-market. He is not, however, in favor of preemption. Thus, he is not an isolationist.
Yes, any country could nuke us in moments, but the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) cannot be ignored. The Russians could have nuked us, yet we didn't preemptively attack them. Iraq was, and Iran is, significantly less of a threat than Russia ever was. The fact is, staying on the offense is not a form of defense. Perimeter security is the absolute best form of defense, yet we are not terribly committed to that, as the border with Mexico continues to be undefended.
And on top of that, we cannot even afford this war against Iraq. We take out nearly 3 billion dollars per day in loans in order to fund it. We should have stayed and finished the job in Afghanistan, killed Bin Laden, and come home. Many Americans, myself included, are not willing to drive our country into extreme debt and inflation simply to preemptively attack nations which are no threat to us.
I know what Mr. Pauls stance on foreign policy is, I heard it from the mans mouth face to face last Saturday. Mr. Paul may be a learned man as far as that goes, but his idea of foreign policy is fundamentally naive.
To respond to your comments:
You assume a nation like Iran, a fanatical islamist theocratic state, cares about MAD. Right now you are correct that Iran is less of a threat than the Soviet Union was at it's height. But here's what's wrong with your assumption. We dealt with the Soviets with kid gloves, a hands off attitude after WWII. We didn't think much of them. Until they got the bomb. Then their starved populace and shattered economy had to be dealt with on an equal basis. We dealt with the Soviets as we did for so many years because we had too. The Soviets were perfectly capable to overrun Europe with their sizable military, a military armed with the bomb. That alone was the reason for the Cold War. But the Soviets are a bad example. They were governed by 'western' principles by and large. They had much to lose in a nuclear exchange with us. The Soviets, even though they were thought to be crazy about a good many things, were very reasoned when it came to nuclear poker with us. The Iranians are governed by no such thought.
What about North Korea? We deal with them diplomatically because we have little to lose in doing so. Even if the DPRK doesn't have nukes, we deal with them as they do. But sizable though their military is, they are regionally isolated. Economic pressures work better on them since they are dependent on the outside world for almost everything. This is only limitedly so with Iran. They also have little to offer the world to hold hostage. They don't control a sizable portion of the worlds petroleum reserves as the Iranians do. We also have regional neighbors who have good reason to fear DPRK and work with us to keep them contained.
Iran (as other islamist states) is not governed as these other nations are or were. The don't follow reason. Rational thought escapes them. They constantly refuse to abide by the words of the international community. They harbor terrorists. They sponsor terrorism. The evidence is there that these guys are certifiable wack jobs. How would you have us deal with them? More words?
They also control a sizable portion of the worlds oil supply. If we leave the Middle East, they would most certainly control almost all of it. What then? Who would be dealing from a position of strength in any negotiations? Who would hold the upper hand? Could we then trust them to just leave well enough alone as they have yet to demonstrate any capability to do or would they hold the world ransom?
Staying on offense is the only kind of defense! Don't you watch football?
And to continue with my analogy, playing prevent with an adversary is not going to work. It never works.
Are you suggesting we should we wait until Iran does become a threat?