The American Spectator : We Can't Go Home Again

Text Size

We Can't Go Home Again

By George H. Wittman on 10.7.11 @ 6:07AM

Ron Paul-style isolationists are dead wrong on America's place in the world.

Many serious thinkers and writers have commented on the need for the United States to get out of Afghanistan and cease attempting to dictate policy and action to the Pakistanis. This thought process is then accompanied by the seemingly logical reasoning that the U.S. should always stay out of foreign adventures, as political military operations abroad are often called. Not only is this view strongly supported by both liberals and conservatives in the U.S. (for different reasons), it is said that it would be applauded generally worldwide. The fallacy in this thinking lies not in its justification relative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in the basic assumption that the United States should have no role in projecting its democratic beliefs through military intervention anywhere.

This approach to American foreign policy certainly coincides with Ron Paul’s libertarian platform, but it also reflects a mood that can be found throughout grassroots America. Historically its antecedents go back as far as Washington and Hamilton in 1796. Unfortunately, what once was a widely accepted isolationist alternative when the United States was not a world leader is no longer available to a country that enjoys self-characterization as "Leader of the Free World." In simple terms, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Even if the U.S. would announce it no longer has a proprietary interest in world democracy, there would be no similar withdrawal from world ambition by Putin’s Russia. That country is seemingly set for his domineering leadership for the next twelve and a half years, as well as his newly announced desire for a Eurasian Union. Or consider a China that views vast portions of international waters as its private lake and independent Taiwan as a province. Adding to these obvious examples of avaricious giants are the hungry midgets such as Iran and North Korea and the perennial nuclear-armed antagonists of India and Pakistan. This does not include the Arab-nurtured view that Israel should be removed as a functionally defensible entity, and the ongoing focus of radical Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and the West.

The theme of withdrawal to fortress America is often on the list of topics at international conferences. Many conservatives as well as liberals still believe such a policy has legitimacy. In reality such a choice no longer exists. Oddly enough, it is crucial to the future of both Russia and China that the United States not opt out of the international contest of "poking one's nose in other people’s business." They need to repeatedly emphasize what they refer to as the “hegemonic desires of Washington” in order to justify their own ambitions.

The problem with the United States' involvement in various world crises is not that it tries to superimpose its desires and values. All countries will do that given the opportunity; it's part of the human condition. The problem -- or issue if one prefers that less precise connotation -- is that the United States has not been very good at the politics of international intervention. Admittedly it's not an easy thing to do. It's also not easy to extract yourself once you have become directly involved. Isn’t this the reason for all international action to have a built-in strategic end-game?

All of which brings us to why the United States becomes involved in the first place. The answer clearly reflects an inheritance of post-WWII altruism -- to say nothing of earlier Wilsonian perceptions -- which essentially accepted that all nations should be their brother's keeper. The United States as the richest and most powerful nation was deemed as having the greatest responsibility for assisting and protecting the less fortunate. As a result, the U.S. government under presidents of every hue has put the nation forward as the world's policeman, aid giver, moral arbiter and general benefactor. And the American public in general has accepted this burden of officially sanctioned altruism.

The practical argument that has been set forth by most of Washington's elite is that the United States actually is benefiting when it involves itself in good works abroad. During the Cold War there was legitimacy to this argument, in most instances. We saved South Korea from being overrun by the communist North, and we tried very hard to do the same thing in Vietnam. We intervened along with NATO in redefining Yugoslavia and pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. Many other smaller "adventures" occupied our interest -- too many to count. And after Afghanistan in 2001 there came Iraq in 2003. It seems that’s enough good works for at least the next century.

William Pfaff noted in his highly acclaimed book, Barbarian Sentiments, "Isolationism could be good for the country." He noted that isolationism may be the [U.S.] nation's "natural condition." Unfortunately, even if such a concept were true, the United States of America has grown too great, too powerful to exist without influencing the rest of the world. And the world has become used to that -- and never again will allow the U.S. to live uninvolved and unaffected by international turmoil. The dream of conservatives and liberals alike to live protected from entanglements abroad is just that -- a dream. The United States must stay alert and discriminatingly involved. Even as it prefers otherwise.

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (343) | Leave a comment

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.11 @ 7:13AM

Mr. Wittman,
I have written more times than I can count:
"To whom much is given; much is required."

That's my own personal handle on the concept you so eloquently highlighted.

richard ryan| 10.7.11 @ 10:03AM

I read the whole article, and I was not persuaded. I'm still asking myself, "WHY?" Why are we obligated to involve ourselves in all of these global messes?"

Harry the Horrible| 10.7.11 @ 10:20AM

And, if we have to get involved, why are not extracting tribute from our clients?

Alan Brooks| 10.7.11 @ 12:00PM

But Ron Paul is right about the Illuminati's fluoridation of our Purity Of Essence (POE)....

JimH| 10.7.11 @ 3:40PM

All hail Discordia!

Margie| 10.7.11 @ 2:16PM

Actually, those aren't your words, they're God's.

"But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more." Lk. 12:48.

Alan Brooks| 10.7.11 @ 3:24PM

You guys never get anywhere with your paleo v. neo.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:11PM

Ken that is out context and doesn't even apply here.

The Neocon vision is Wilsonian in its entirety. We really didn't have a dog in the fight in any of the wars of the 20th century. Wilson roped us into WW1, which was the primary cause of WW2, which we got roped into with Japan because of Acheson's mendacity, then Hitler's stupidity of declaring war against us because the Japs attacked us, which allowed Stalin's Soviet Union to ascend and cause trouble until 1989. Then we shoot ourselves in the foot in Panama, and Iraq.

There is nothing wrong with defending your interests. We just don't have any business going abroad, as one of our early politicians put "seeking monsters to slay." Freedom must be won by the people themselves. You can't hand it to them because they have no idea what to do with it.

That is the basic reason that the Islamic world is in the mess it is in. They have no philosophical or theological foundation for liberty as we have. All we can do is defend our interests against any attack from them. But, the neocons call that isolationism, but it is anything but that.

But, the Neocons are not conservatives. They are just national greatness socialists.

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 8:22PM

You nailed it.

Neocons are not real conservatives like Ron Paul.

Strider| 10.8.11 @ 9:41AM

Here's the full "monsters" quote you referred to:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America's heart, her benedictions and prayers, but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." -- John Quincy Adams

Of course, not chasing monsters doesn't fill the coffers of the weapons industry, as Eisenhower warned us 50 years ago.

And you're right about the neocons, whose roots go back to Leon Trotsky.

Nick| 10.8.11 @ 12:54PM

Strider,

"Of course, not chasing monsters doesn't fill the coffers of the weapons industry, as Eisenhower warned us 50 years ago."

Oliver Stone could not have said it better.
And we all know what a great conservative he is!

Bob K.| 10.8.11 @ 9:57PM

Ken,
We need to open our borders even more now so we can get immigrants to fill up our armed forces. We can't keep sending our State National Guard Units over there when we will soon need them here to protect us.

Jack in Wi.| 10.7.11 @ 7:28AM

We have to go home. This country is broke. What Ron Paul,advocates is nonintervention in the lives of other countries. We have no business being in 140 countries with thousands of installations. They haven't made us any safer. They have drained the defense of our homeland and run up most of our debt. Germany, Israel, the rest of Europe, The Arabs, the Koreans, and the Japanese all have the money and blood to defend themselves. We have allowed them to fund vast social security systems at the expense of the American taxpayer.

All the foreign policy of the last 100 years has done is give us one war after another war. We went into WW1 and we ended up with Hitler and the Russian Revolution and WW2. WW2 led to to a 50 year cold war. When that was over we kept all those bases and we ended up with endless wars for the last 10 years, projecting for another 100 years. All we have gotten for our efforts is to become the most hated people on earth.

Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Robert Taft, Robert Lafollette, William Jennings Bryan, the American Firsters were all right and the Wilsonians have been proved wrong. All this militarism has led to the bankruptcy of the American Republic and things like secret death panels by Obama and the huge loss of civil liberties under these wartime administrations. If the the American people are to survive and be free, the warmongers have to be brought to heel. Mr. Wittman likes to use the word isolationist. I like the word warmonger for his side. As the American founders said peace, trade, and friendship with all nations, but no permanent entaglements. Close down NATO, The UN, The FED, The IMF and the World Bank. Bring the troops home now. Let the world defend itself. We are broke and sick of all the lies and nonsense.

chuck| 10.7.11 @ 8:20AM

What is breaking this country financially is domestic spending, not defense.
Historically, you over simplify very complex situations. Yes, we went into WWI, at the end, broke the stalemate, and ended a horrific war. Then we went home. Back to our own borders, and basically forgot about Europe. There was no way in hell we were going to avoid being drawn into WWII. After that war ended, we decided, correctly, the Europe needed to be rebuilt, a la The Marshall Plan. When the Soviets refused to leave the areas they we occupying, we were force to defend virtually helpless countries.
Are there some areas we could cut back? Definitely. Europe can defend itself, as can Japan, but they need the assurance that we will be there for them if needed. Same with Israel, and South Korea.
I agree, close down the UN! NATO still has a function, but should be solely defensive. Libya was NOT a legitimate function of NATO. and we should have vetoed it. Close down the FED? And replace it with what? It does serve a function.
It is so easy for you to just spit out the words, do this, get out of here, close down this, but what then? Replace the FED with what? Are you going to completely replace the monetary system of the country, and how?
Give us some answers! Ron Paul never gets to the "what then" either!

Jack in Wi.| 10.7.11 @ 8:37AM

Domestic spending is spent on Americans and in America. The vast Debts and waste of needless wars are why we are in the mess we are in. These wars and bases have not made us safer. They have only increased our enemies who rightly want us out of their lives and business.

Ryan| 10.7.11 @ 10:47AM

If we pulled every troop out of the middle east, offered a mass apology, defunded Israel, would we still be safe from islamists?

Mal_Content| 10.7.11 @ 12:17PM

If bankrupting our nation in the search for safety from Islamists has not brought us to safety yet, what will pouring more money down the hole of military bureaucracy accomplish?

ChefM| 10.7.11 @ 1:01PM

We would be in worse shape if we did those things. The Islamist want us dead. It's a simple fact, taught to the children of Islam from the time they can talk. This idea that everything will be great and peaceful if we would just leave other countries and just protect our borders, is so far out of reality, it's hard to even understand that thinking.

First of all, how well have we done protecting our borders over the years? Not well. Even to the extent of the Federal Government suing the States for enforcing Federal laws.

What happens if we leave the ME alone and pull out of every country we have bases in? We can just sit at home while we monitor Iran becoming a nuclear power. Next up, who else will build nukes? While we sit back and relax in our safe homes, with the comforting thoughts of a strong military surrounding our borders, Iran and company will be doing everything possible to infiltrate and or destroy this country and the infidels that occupy it. That is of course after Israel no longer exists.

We have grown to a world power, stronger than any other nation. This from people who fought to secure a free nation unlike any other in the worlds history. An experiment if you will, that was so successful, Communism was able to be crushed in eastern Europe.

These days, with a weak leader, what have we seen? N. Korea taunting us with missile testing. Iran threatening to send ships to our shores, Russia on the verge of getting back to the Soviet Union, China scolding us for our weak economy, and the list goes on.

What will happen if we completely withdraw? We will become the weak nation every other strong nation and every country in the ME has been dreaming of. Sitting ducks in waiting to be over run by tyrants.

The ME and countries like China and Russia are not even close to being on the same side, but I assure anyone who thinks differently, two enemies with a common goal will unite for the greater "good" of their cause.

Sound far fetched? Of course it does. We have always been brought up with the idea that America was the greatest, strongest, most exceptional country on earth. How did we get there? Revolution against a Tyrant. How did we stay there? Strength........ through fear and respect. How to we continue? Elect a leader that believes in American exceptionalism and has a grasp on the realities of staying the strongest country on the planet, which includes bases all over the world in the company of our friends and those who need protection from losing their independence to Communists and or Islam and Sharia Laws which will strengthen them and weaken us.

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 8:19PM

Islamists want us out of their homeland JUST like you would want them out of your backyard here in America if they had bases in the States launching wars killing women and children. Oh but I am sure you chalk that up to collateral damage.

So according to all the war mongering occupying idiots to understand, would you all be happy if Russia, China, Libya, Pakistan, Iran, etc. has bases in America launching wars on our way of life or would you be angry? I rest my point.

Reformed neon.

View http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 4:59PM

Except Islamists kill far more women and children deliberately than we do by collateral damage, of their own people.

Europe by 2030-2040 will be Islamist. Watch and learn, Liberty.

I have instructed my wife to invest on the assumption that Europe will be a financial and social non-entity by 2030 (when we retire) due to Islamist take over and that the world will be a hungrier and colder and more brutal place. We have more optimistic fall back positions, of course, but demographically that's the way I see it, and more importantly, that's the way the UN demographic studies group sees it (and they aren't Conservative, but numbers are numbers).

I don't give a shit what the Islamists want or don't want. I want to beat them.

chuck| 10.8.11 @ 10:37PM

Jack,
You call yourself a conservative, but you dismiss the blatantly unconstitutional domestic spending. I truly believe you are no conservative, but instead a liberal fashioned after Dennis Kusinich.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.11 @ 8:40AM

Chuck,
some pretty good thought there.

John| 10.7.11 @ 10:29AM

just a quick comment on the Fed question - Humphrey Hawkins has always bothered me because it linked maintenance of employment, which is basically a political issue, to the mandate of the Fed, which started off in life with the mandate to maintain the stability of the currency. To me, these are conflicting goals which have resulted in the Fed becoming a political beast rather than a financial one. I was happy to see in Newt's contract, a repeal of HH.

Occam's Tool| 10.7.11 @ 11:50AM

Correct, Chuck. Paul is always filled with half thoughts, and his robotic disciples defend him like Charlie Manson's "family" defended him.

Chris Bieber| 10.7.11 @ 1:14PM

And you robotic disciple of globalism and interventionism...did you bother to attempt to try to read CONGRESSMAN Paul's numerous books on the subject WITH CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS????? guess not...as too many big words for ya and you are at your Georgetown coffee parties....

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:12PM

Dear Chris,

1)I live in rural Northwest Minnesota.
2)I have never been in Washington DC in my life.
3)I was Congressman Paul's constituent when going to Medical School in Galveston, TX (1984-1988). He SUCKED.
4)Thanks for proving my point about the robotic attack dogs.
5) I'm not really into Globalism. Having lived abroad, I believe that most furriners suck, with a few exceptions (Israelis, Guatemala, some Brits, some Canucks, some Ozzies, a very few Kiwis).
6) I am strongly against the expansion of sharia law, and oppose international law usage in US courts.
7) I believe in walls, meatchoppers (quad 50s), moats, artillery, and air support on the Southern Border. I also believe in NO education or medical care for illegals, and no anchor babies. I also believe in no friggin' instate tuition for illegals. I spent 8 years in Texas and 5 in LA.
6) I donate money to the Republicans.
7) I'm donating to Chip Cravaack when the time comes. I like Chip a lot. Check out his fiscal voting record.
8) My verbal SAT was much higher than yours, Chris---730. My ACT composite was 33. I fived my AP English. My doctorate was achieved before I turned 26. I am currently boarded in my medical specialty and am still practicing it. I can read "big" words. I think Ron Paul is weak on DEFENSE. I think he fails to note the most pressing international problem of demographics and the spread of International Sharia. I think he can't see farther than his nose. When I say I think he's STUPID, recall that I did the exact same academic regimen he did, only harder. (More to learn)
9) Sorry for annoying you and being tiresome, Quarterpounder.

Anthony M| 10.8.11 @ 6:33PM

But where is this international sharia we're all supposed to be afraid of? Is it in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Morrocco, Algeria etc.? Persia and Saudi Arabia, give me a break, they're absolutely no threat to the USA. The Arabs don't want sharia, just a few fanatics in a couple of backward countries. Like a flea on a rottweiller, they are annoying, but the Islamists are not a real threat.

chuck| 10.8.11 @ 10:42PM

"the Islamists are not a real threat."
Tell that to the victims of the Khobar Towers, the Embassies, the Cole, and.....what am I forgetting? Oh, yeah,......now I remember.......9/11.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:13AM

Look at Sweden, Germany, Norway, Britain, Spain, France, Denmark....in none of those states are Jews safe to live their lives normally. We are the canaries in the coal mine.

Wake up.

Bob K.| 10.8.11 @ 9:45PM

Senator Chuck (Putzhead) Schumer scored a perfect 1600 on his College Boards. Brags about it all the time too.

Bob K.| 10.8.11 @ 9:47PM

That would be his SAT's. 800 Verbal and 800 Math.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:13AM

Yup. If he actually did.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:07PM

I guess he did, I looked it up. Then he wasted it on HLS.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:20PM

And why did we have a dog in the fight in 1914? Wilson wanted us in because of his vision of national greatness. He wanted us involved in conflicts so he could realize his dream of having us globally involved.

Sorry, but that is not a reason to expend US blood and treasure.

I have no trouble with defending the US and her interests. We don't have to go abroad looking for trouble as it will come our way simply because of what we would be. But, don't tell me we have to fight endless war to give others freedom they never earned, and can't handle as they have not the civilizational foundations for it. All we should care about is ending a problem and not placing US troops in harms way with senseless rules of engagement to win hearts and minds. I don't care of they love us. I just want our people and stuff left alone. If Islamists can't do that, then they can be taught a very harsh, and brutal lesson, that it is in their interest to leave us alone. To do that, you inflict awesome pain then leave them to rebuild the mess they inspired us to create.

Strider| 10.8.11 @ 9:57AM

Wilson (whose 1916 campaign slogan was "He kept us out of the war") also wanted us in WW1 because the Brits (who owed billions to the US) informed him that they were losing the war, and if that happened those billions would never be repaid. But he couldn't rally the sheeple to go to war by proclaiming, "The world must be kept safe for the US Treasury and the banks."

al| 10.7.11 @ 8:43AM

You've made one huge assumption here: how do you KNOW what we've done hasn't made us any safer?

Drunken Sailor| 10.7.11 @ 11:54AM

Why because Ron Paul told him so obviously!

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 5:41PM

Therein lays the problem with a foreign policy build upon wishful thinking. When your wishes don't come true it is always someone else's fault and if they do it is because you were right. The foreign policy school of Chamberlain still teaches that as virtue.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:21PM

And then, Jack, they will come for us, when we are friendless and alone, and unworthy to be anyone's friend, since we will be faithless and untrue.

POST American| 10.7.11 @ 7:46AM

"The U.S. has one final task before
its own collapse is consumated, and RED China is
forward as 'world enforcer' and 'model for the
world' ---and that's to 'bring in' the recalcitrant
Middle East." ( ie GM food, franchise slums,
EUGENICS)
-ALAN WATT
(essential onine coverage)

"We are using MASSIVE third world
immigration to DESTROY British culture
once and for all, beyond repair, --FOREVER."
-TONY BLAIR
Fmr PM/ Future EU President/ Cutural EUGENIST/ Globalist
(Daily Mail interview cited by ALAN WATT)

AS our 'leaders' commit TREASON in broad
daylight viz a viz American taxpayer underwritten
and enabled RED China ------as Globalist collapsed
Mexico hemmorages blood on our border and
economic refugees across our land.

YES! --MORE glow-ball-ism!

-------MORE techno-crats!

----------MORE MBA's and actuarial psychopaths
making policy!

-----------------------BRILLIANT!-----------------------

Cpm| 10.7.11 @ 12:13PM

Paranoia Poetry Slam.

Solo| 10.7.11 @ 8:00AM

And....speaking of "lies and nonsense", I would point out that WWI did not give us Hitler. Hitler and the Nazi party gave us Hitler. The alternative offered in the form of this false utopian paradise would have been not to participate in WWI...or WWII....or Korea, et al.
We could have continued trading with Japan and stood by as they brutally swept across the whole of Indo-China murdering everyone and everything in sight.
"Friend and trading partner to all and enemy to none" is a half-baked pipe dream and unworthy of any serious foreign policy discussion.
While it is true that some of our Founding generation (and I emphasize SOME) were of that mind set, their world was considerably different than is ours. What was once the "Big-Wide World" is now our local neighborhood--or might as well be, given modern technology.

I will agree that we could (and should) reduce our footprint...and to a considerable degree, if done wisely. And...anyone can observe and agree that we have been less than prudent in the past as to the application of our power and influence.
But to use that as an excuse to crawl into a hole and pull the hole in behind us is just childish and short-sighted.

Jack in Wi.| 10.7.11 @ 8:33AM

More nonsense: Hitler was blowback from the Russian Revolution. The Jewish historian Richard Pipes, rightly says, without Communism Hitler never would of happened. If we had not entered WW1 the Germans would have won or there would have been a stalemate. Thus we would ofhad no Holocaust and no Hitler. The Russian Revolution would have been contained by the victorious Kaiser's Germany. Lenin would have never even have been allowed back into Russia.

Solo| 10.7.11 @ 9:51AM

That's interesting speculation Jack. But I remind you that one cannot describe the details and consequences of a journey not taken.

There are many reasons why "Hitler Happened". The only truly relevant fact is that he did "happen" and once on the march our choices were to join the fight or stay home and try to ignore it.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:32PM

Solo, Jack is correct. It is not mere speculation, and what Pipes said is not even close to being original with him. There is disagreement on minor details, but if WW1 had ended in the stalemate it had reached just before we intervened, Hitler would not have been possible. The NASDAP would have remained a small inconsequential party in a prosperous Wilhelmine Germany.

Our involvement in WW2 came about as a result of Acheson and his bunch cutting off resources from Japan, then placing the US battle Fleet in Pearl Harbor to dangle them as bait. The US Fleet Commander, Richardson, protested the move and was removed for his trouble. Acheson knew he was fomenting war, and FDR knew it as well. Worse, they knew, because the Navy radio traffic has been revealed, that they knew the Japs were coming to Pearl. FDr's maladminstration sacrificed over 3000 lives to get us into a war that took over 400,000 lives, all so we could end up in a cold war that cost more lives and treasure.

It all adds up buddy. We are broke in large part because of the Neocons, which used to be the Dimocrat right-wing, with a globalist vision who think it's an honor to spend American blood and treasure to police the world.

Sorry. I'm glad to give to missionaries to spread teh Gospel of Christ, but I think we've spent enough trying to save the world from the human condition by force of arms. We need to quit going abroad seeking monsters to slay and defend only our own liberty.

oldfart| 10.7.11 @ 11:10AM

Woordow Wilson, Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau helped significantly in creating the environment for Hilter, or something like him, to rise to power. By these three old men redrawing the map of Europe and Near East without regard for the peoples that lived there created the foundation for total disaster in 35 years.
That being said, it is what it is, so therefore what do we do?
First stop rewarding our enemies by pulling back all foreign aid. Most of this 'aid' does little except help the crooks running these tin-bit countries.
Second, realize that the age of the Pax Americana and Pax Europa is over. Don't keep hanging onto the facade, like Rome until everything is lost. This is the natural course of history - we ignore it at great risk to the point of our survival. Where is Rome? Where is Bzyantia? Where are the many Empires of India and China? We either learn from history or we are doomed to repeat the failures of history.

Anthony M| 10.8.11 @ 6:36PM

The communists who took over after WWII were much more benevolent than the Japanese, right?

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 8:08AM

"Conservative talk radio host Michael Savage has shocked listeners by agreeing with Texas Congressman and US presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has condemned the killing of American-born Al Queda leader Anwar al-Awlaki as an “assassination.”

“If Obama can kill an American without a trial, who’s next, you, me?,” Savage said on nationally-syndicated show on Monday. “If this guy in the office of the White House can kill a man, as despicable as al-Awlaki is, [....] something is wrong with this picture.”

chuck| 10.7.11 @ 8:26AM

Cut and Paste Clint,

Sorry, Savage is wrong. This scumbag was actively waging war against this country, while residing in a foreign land. American citizen or not, he was a legitimate target. It's not like he was living peacefully in a country home here in the US, and they just burst in and shot him!
Got what he deserved, hope he's enjoying his virgins!

aware| 10.7.11 @ 9:13AM

Any other American citizens you figure are "legitimate" targets for assassination? Traitors should be at least tried before they're shot, don't you think?

Warrior| 10.7.11 @ 10:36AM

Based on what evidence? If there was evidence of his activities (which there very well may be, however, I will not take Jay Carney's word for that) he could have been indicted in absentsia. Without evidence and at least minimal due process for the 2 American citizens killed in that blast, what gives the government the authority? If the government decides your speech on this blog is inflammatory and anti-American (please recall that our homeland security has no problem listing returning veterans as potential to probably terrorists) and incites an act of terrorism, what is to stop them from taking you out on the Interstate? While we can agree that the two killed probably deserved to die and were scum of the earth, do we truly want a President or other high level military commander ordering these executions? Many of us are very uncomfortable with this.

Occam's Tool| 10.7.11 @ 11:48AM

Well, Warrior, seeing as I was only rescued by an accident of fate from being Nidal Hasan's Clinical Colleague at Fort Hood, I take a different view of this clown.

He was engaged in active outspoken treason and aiding and abetting our enemies. He should have been captured, tortured in a secret detention area, then drowned in lard on camera.

We need to take off the gloves.

Warrior| 10.7.11 @ 1:00PM

We'll make an exception for these 2 American citizens because you have a personal grudge to factor in. You seem to be led by the masses instead of applying individual thought. I never said that they did not deserve to die, nor did I condone any deeds they may have committed. Are you comfortable with the President having the authority to execute American citizens without any due process? You along with many on this board are way to willing to sacrifice liberties through some irrational justification that the person was bad and deserved it.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:30PM

No. I do not believe that he should have the right to kill without some degree of due process. In this case, a trial in absentia perhaps by a military tribunal.

It's not a question of sacrificing liberties, however, Warrior. This guy was active in well publicized treasonable activities, deliberately encouraging the murder of American citizens. He was an enemy combatant, and we could not reach him by normal means.

I doubt that this will be used indiscriminately. Only 3 people were waterboarded under Bush, for example.

But the spread of Sharia will truly diminish our Liberties, and I don't see YOU, for example, up in arms over our erosion of freedom through that. I could ascribe it to malice, but I prefer to ascribe it to you not giving it due consideration, yet.

My views---we are up against vermin who wish to kill us or enslave us. They need killing.

My feelings towards people like this scumbag---anybody who does anything to try to intimidate or limit my daughter in any way sharia-ish will learn that I am an expert in human dissection and the infliction of death and pain. I don't use guns. I prefer scalpels and paralytics. (Have I ever done this? No. Do I have the professional skills to do this? Oh, yes, very much so.)

Warrior| 10.8.11 @ 6:29PM

You change to the discussion. This was not a discussion on Sharia or the spread of radical Islam. It is also a poor choice on your part to insinuate that my lack of denouncing Sharia is an indication of my support.

At what point has there been a burden of proof met for the execution of two American citizens. You state that there are publicized treasonable activities. Since when does publicity suffice as proof. Just because the media tells you they were guilty, does that make it so? Sorry if I'm not ready to use mainstream media information in lieu of factual evidence. And again, if the proper indictment is issued, based on facts, then I have no problem with the swift and immediate actions to end their existence.

Lastly, and sadly that you try to bring in another emotional and irrelevant to the topic argument. No one is advocating yourself, your daughter or anyone related to you should have their liberties limited. I would gladly stand with you as a brother in arms to defend against any such actions with swift and lethal force.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:07PM

Silence implies consent.

chuck| 10.8.11 @ 2:58PM

I am comfortable with this as long as they are actively waging war against us, and they are residing in a country where they are inaccessible to us by any other means. We are a nation of laws. Due process must be afforded those who are in this country. If you are outside this country, are a citizen, and are actively waging war..........SUCKS TO BE YOU!

Warrior| 10.8.11 @ 6:30PM

So according you, once we have decided to travel outside the borders of this country, we have forfeited all liberties afforded to American citizens.

chuck| 10.8.11 @ 10:47PM

No Sir, but if you actively wage war against us from a foreign land, then you do! I thought I made myself perfectly clear. Wage war against us in this country, then arrest, convict, and punish. Wage war from a foreign land where we cannot apprehend you, then the gloves come off, and it sucks to be you!
CLEAR ENOUGH?

Warrior| 10.9.11 @ 10:06AM

Based on what evidence? CLEAR ENOUGH? Is it enough for people like you that President has a legal opinion written on why it is legal to assassinate someone and then boom? If the evidence that all y0u keep stating is so easily obtained, then where is it? Sorry if some of us ask for due process as called for in the Constitution. Sorry if we need more than an ideological administration having the capability of telling us that someone is a threat and then take action. This is the same President who launched his political desires in the company of self admitted domestic terrorists Bill Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn. Again, this is the same administration that has produced policies stating that returning veterans are high risk terrorist threats. Where does this end?

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:14AM

Only if you are trying to kill American Citizens and have joined the Taliban.

Jack in Wi.| 10.7.11 @ 8:27AM

Good for Savage. He is right. He would be targeted by somone like Obama. Hell most of us here would end up in a concetration camp or worse if Obama gets to be our great and surpreme leader. I believe the term in German is Fuherer.

Louis Joseph| 10.9.11 @ 8:22AM

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unequivocal: no American shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." No amount of ducking and diving will evade the inescapable fact that, for the first time, U.S. military officials in an aggressive overreach of constitutional authority deliberately targeted an American citizen for killing. And no amount of legalistic wordplay will alter the reality that al-Awlaki was denied due process.
(No, Mr Gingrich, the signing of a death warrant by an American President does not constitute "due process," except perhaps in North Korea or Iran. Our Founding Fathers taught us better than that.)

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 8:35AM

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, it was confirmed that the campaign of 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has raised more than any other current presidential candidate in donations from members of the military. Of those donors who indicated their occupation and employer, Paul topped the other contenders, a distinction he also achieved during his 2008 presidential run.

“Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman, Jesse Benton. “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously, and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

POST American| 10.7.11 @ 8:39AM

--For the history challenged:

-Karl 'Marks' was a hack journalist taken in
and scripted by the capstone biz-nihilist/EUGENICS
circles of London.

Far from being any kind of genuine maverick,
he was a confirmed 33rd degree Freemason.

Darwin, of course, came from a famously
inbred family of EUGENISTS. His anything
but original THEORY of evolution is
nothing more than the elite doctrine of Brahminic
hinduism. Again, chosen and heavily,heavily
promoted. Also, needless to add, a God hating,
creation mocking Freemason.

-ALLLLLL of the major Bolsheviks were
'brought in' and themselves 'Order Out of
Chaos' Freemasons. Most had spent most
of their lives in suave exile in London and
Zurich and New York.

-Likewise our good friends at the Thule
Society ---soon to bring on Nazism using
a woebegone Austrian outsider who, himself,
may have had some murky bloodine
links to the very highest reaches of capstone
finance.

AGAIN ---think 'bennie violence'.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:36PM

Darwinism is Philosophy under the guise of science. It's already been discredited by Darwin's own standards, and should be tossed on the garbage heap. Atheists, however, can't leave it alone as the only other option is unacceptable to them.

Robert| 10.7.11 @ 9:01AM

"...the United States should have no role in projecting its democratic beliefs through military intervention anywhere..." - Now that is a true statement. What a sad time when supposed "conservatives" argue that the sword of war is for "projecting" political beliefs. It is an immoral position on so many fronts. 1. We are not a democracy and should have no interest in projecting democracy (tyranny) on other nations. 2. You fund this with money you don't have and have no right to. 3. It doesn't work. Need we go on?

Warrior| 10.7.11 @ 10:45AM

They act like domination of Europe and the middle east is a new sport. For all of recorded history there are conquerers and the subsequent fall of Empires. The same people who would want to bomb radical muslims back to the stone age for the imposition of their beliefs through force, wonder why we are not accepted with open arms for attempting to impose our beliefs through military force on unwilling nations. Seems like we have a very false sense of moral superiority which is leading to fatal consequences.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:32PM

I believe I am morally superior to child rapists and people who throw acid in little girls' faces, Warrior. I think you are too. I don't think you have thought this through. Mohammed was a child rapist, mass murderer, and thief.

Warrior| 10.8.11 @ 10:46PM

WTF?? What does the defense of Europe have to do with Mohammed? To take this even further, look at what all our interventions have caused. The actions taken in Kosovo to "stop ethnic cleansing" has led to the annihilation of churches and Christians in that region. The US is not preventing any of the perversions from the religion of peace you mention above in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our intervention is aiding in the most radical of muslims to take control. We are now enabling the Muslim Brotherhood to gain a stranglehold on power in Libya. There is no military action that we have taken in the last 10 years that has impeded the progress of the radicals, in fact our actions are producing the opposite effect. Stop trying your bullshit moral equivalency arguments when you all you are doing is triangulating information on any position I take to assume the lack of action assists in these atrocities while the direct evidence you have now shows our direct action leads to more of these atrocities. You are the one who needs to think this through. We can no more stop all the sins and atrocities in the world any more than we can prevent murder and rape in our own inner cities. You are bordering on insanity with your moral equivalencies.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:17AM

Warrior...have you been paying attention to the Islamization of Europe?

And I don't believe our interventions are making it worse---I believe they are keeping it from getting EVEN worse. Our actions in Iraq stopped the Libyan nuclear program, for example. It is failure to follow through or half asses measures that are causing the problem. Have you looked at the DEMOGRAPHIC data I asked you to look at yet?

PCC| 10.7.11 @ 9:04AM

There are too many free-riders enjoying the benefits of US power projection and too little accounting for whether we're actually benefiting from all that we do for international security and freedom of navigation.

Where we gain from these policies and actions, fine. But it just seems like we're carrying out too much of the burden for too little return.

China, for example, amongst many others, is only too happy let us spend billions and billions of our taxpayer dollars so they can enjoy the benefits of our actions. They have no desire or intention to join in such selfless idiocy.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 5:48PM

“There are too many free-riders enjoying the benefits of US power projection and too little accounting for whether we're actually benefiting from all that we do for international security and freedom of navigation.”

I would agree with that on the face of it but have you ever played the game of Risk? The one with the most pieces on the board always wins. Germany got stronger and stronger with every territory it acquired via its industry and population. Assuming others will step up to plate if we leave them to their own devices doesn’t have a very good historical record of success but a willing slave population under some one’s else’s boot does have a demonstrated negative consequence for us.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:43PM

Imperial Germany was at her practical limit in 1914. Her colonies gave her little advantage and were obtained mostly in an attempt to compete with Great Britain, which was little more than a blood relative.

Risk is a game that can teach a few lessons, but you have extended the lesson far more than the game will stretch. Reality is more along the lines of the game "Diplomacy" which also will not completely stretch to cover reality. Reality has far more uncertainty than any game can simulate.

We don't need others to step up to the plate. We simply need to defend our own interests and leave the rest of the world to defend theirs. As things stand now, all wee are doing is expending ourselves for almost no return. Long term or otherwise.

That is what Great Britain did from 1914-1950, and you can see where that kind of nonsense leads.

Kenny| 10.7.11 @ 9:07AM

No more nation building.

Crush any enemy and immediately come home.

ConantheContrarian| 10.7.11 @ 10:27AM

"Crush any enemy and immediately come home."
John Derbyshire has reduced this phrase to: "Rubble, and out." I like that.

Old Soldier| 10.7.11 @ 10:42AM

Yep. We won in Afghanistan 8 or 9 years ago - but for some reason we decided to hang around. What have we achieved since then?

Warrior| 10.7.11 @ 10:50AM

We did not win anything. We simply pushed the Taliban into exile. We then elevated a corrupt person in Karzai to lead and still have yet to figure out why the tribal mentality culture of these people conflicts with our ideals. We let the Taliban retreat and escape in order to regroup. The Taliban never surrendered.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 5:56PM

“We did not win anything. We simply pushed the Taliban into exile…………….. We let the Taliban retreat and escape in order to regroup. The Taliban never surrendered.”

A point people in high places wearing military uniforms with advanced degrees in Public Speaking, Business Administration, Public Relations and Diverse Sensitivities don’t want to admit. The question begs to be asked (and I have) did we have the capability to surround, cut off and destroy the Taliban in 2001. You won’t like the answer to that I suspect. You really won’t like to know the answer is the same today.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:46PM

The only way we could have "won" in the AFG was to pave the place with radioactive glass. Or, as one Roman put it, "create a desert and call it peace."

I have no trouble with going in and killing every male above the age of 12, for example, if they won't surrender Osama. But to have stayed in the place as long as we have has accomplished nothing. And, we are neither feared or respected as a result. They see us as fools, and they are not far from wrong.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:34PM

And I like trinitium in it's proper place, like, say, Kabul and Teheran. Purty.

chuck| 10.8.11 @ 10:54PM

Have to agree with you here, QM. The heavy-handed approach works. Kill them until they no longer have the will, nor the ability to resist. Dictate the peace, then leave. A bunch of people die quickly, but no more, and probably less than going in lightly, then battling an insurgency year after year. And it certainly would be less expensive in terms of money and American lives lost.

aware| 10.7.11 @ 9:08AM

"...enjoys self-characterization as "Leader of the Free World." the key word here is "self".

"...an inheritance of post-WWII altruism -- to say nothing of earlier Wilsonian perceptions..." Great, so we are all Wilson's children now. Again proving there is very little difference between the parties, only the names on the checks are different.

"Isolationism" is a myth. Nobody is pushing for it and it never existed. It is a term invented by the Left to justify massive government. Like "WW2 ended the Depression", it is a fabrication that defies reality. If the US was "isolationist" in the '30s, how to explain many treaties entered into, embargoes implemented, and even military action in nations in Central and South America during this period? Myths are the easy answer to complicated events.

This is a deliberate misreading and over-simplification of Paul's position. While I do not at this point support Paul, these innuendo filled articles are pitiful and sophomoric in their desperation to discredit the man. And they are filled with contradictions such as praising Wilson on a "conservative" site, but neoconservatism is nothing but a giant contradiction.

How does arming Egypt and handing them several billion in "aid" "defend" America? Or the Saudis? Who are we "defending" Europe against?

While I would welcome an article that seriously investigates Paul's non-interventionism, these silly, superficial hit pieces are getting very tiresome. Me thinks you doth protest too much if Paul is "fringe" and not a contender.

I would also point out that the National Institute for Public Policy is dependent on the military/industrial complex for funding. This helps to explain why they see potential enemies everywhere and the "need" for constantly expanding American bootprints in the world. I can't help but notice the pathetic attacks are always from "former" bureaucrats and think tank denizens who are completely wedded to the State in their thinking. And in some cases, their money too.

Occam's Tool| 10.7.11 @ 11:46AM

I certainly agree that money to Egypt, the Palestinians, and the Saudis is worthless expenditure. However, Paul ties eliminating that aid to aid to Israel, and attempts to eliminate that aid alone are fought by him. Why?

I was a constituent of his once. Terrible experience. Much preferred Aderholt of Haleyville, Alabama, who was my favorite Rep, ever. (Although Cravaack is moving up, moving up. He's Paul with an understanding of Jihad, which Paul is sorely lacking.)

Mal_Content| 10.7.11 @ 12:14PM

Please explain how you prioritize the subsidized financial/military aid of Israel over the financial solvency of the U.S. (ostensibly the nation of which you are a citizen?) and still call yourself a conservative.

Ideologically consistent minds are inquiring.

Sean| 10.7.11 @ 12:20PM

Occam just tried to become a NZ citizen. He has no special attachment to the USA.

Mal_Content| 10.7.11 @ 12:35PM

Ah. Makes sense now. Thank you.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:35PM

No, it was offered. I turned it down.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 5:58PM

3 billion is what part of 3.7 trillion, of which 2 trillion are spent on "welfare" programs that is not the Federal Governments responsibility at all?

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 2:39PM

I don't see where I defended welfare spending. Cut it all.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:35PM

It is an extension of our self defense. Haifa as a base for our navy, for example.

aware| 10.7.11 @ 1:57PM

"However, Paul ties eliminating that aid to aid to Israel, and attempts to eliminate that aid alone are fought by him. Why?"

Because it would make him inconsistent, he favors eliminating ALL foreign aid. I happen to think that Israel is more than a match for any combination of 3rd world toilets that surround them. And history proves that true.

Do believe government every time it tells you a boogieman will get you and they are here to save you? War is indeed the health of the State. It is the most useful tool to pry away your wealth and liberty, bar none.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:38PM

He doesn't support eliminating foreign aid UNLESS it is tied to elimating Israeli foreign aid. If he can't tie it together, he votes to leave it in place.

That's consistency, perhaps. It's also delusional. A real statesman would get what he could get each time. And Sean, I'm a US citizen and no longer a NZ Resident. I also pay more in taxes than you. I also was active in Conservative politics when you were puking into your bib. I also was being reviewed to run for NZ Parliament if I did get my Citizenship as a member of the National Party. So, shuddup, asshole.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 2:46PM

You pay more in taxes? You must be one of those "serious" conservatives.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:21PM

Yup. Serious as a crutch.

Please check the vote on cutting aid to Hamas and the PA and what Paul's vote was on that. Look it up in THOMAS.

HRes 268. Important paragraph: (11) reaffirms the United States statutory requirement
precluding assistance to a Palestinian Authority
that includes Hamas unless that Authority and all its
ministers publicly accept Israel’s right to exist and all
prior agreements and understandings with the United
States and Israel.

Paul's vote: Opposed.

That's my point. Too tiresome for you, Quarterpounder?

aware| 10.8.11 @ 5:10PM

Yeah, a bunch of "real statesmen" "getting what they could" explains why we are about to be bankrupt. That's not a statesman, its a politician you describe. Here's another way to describe them, career criminals, sociopaths, megalomaniacs, control freaks, manipulators, and mostly knaves who do the bidding of their masters while making you believe they are "your" representative in that grand conspiracy called government.

Provide examples of when he "voted" to leave foreign aid in place. You are just saying what you wish was true. If you want the truth here is the record: http://www.votesmart.org/votin.....ategory=32

I trust no politician, without exception. But like the conniptions caused by Paul in the real rulers and their lackeys. There was time when they just ignored him but are now compelled to attack actively. He at least shines a light into their dark world and they don't like it. And it shows.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:25PM

Aware. Look up Paul's vote on House resolution 268 from 2011, noting the paragraph above, which is crystal clear: failure of hamas to behave like humans would result in aid being cut off for them. Paul's vote on this, which passed 407-6 was opposed. Also voting with Paul was Dennis Kucinich. Voting Nay:

Amash
Blumenauer
Jones
Kucinich
Paul
Rahall

Votes are documented on THOMAS. That is the source of record. Thanks for playing.

aware| 10.9.11 @ 1:19PM

What kind of games are you playing? My request was for an example of Paul voting to keep foreign aid in place, this is clearly not such an example. As a matter of fact it is a pointless resolution at best. Symbolism over substance. Only symbolic resolutions ever get almost complete support. But what do our Neros do but fiddle while the flames grow?

How does having a Palestinian state help them(Israel) or us? We will rue the day we pushed such a stupid idea that is a clear example of us sticking our nose into a situation we have no business in or understanding of. I don't even understand the full throated Israel firsters who also support a "2 state solution" which our government is pushing and will be a nightmare for Israel. Obviously even the Arabs didn't think this was a good idea when they had the land or it would have happened then. A Palestinian state will be a disaster for the region, and once again, our disaster. If it is such a grand idea why not make it even better by having Jordan, Syria, and Egypt donate an equal amount of "their" land so the "Palestinians" can have a bigger "homeland"?

I asked for an orange and you presented an apple. I know you won't accept it but you are supporting politics as usual and the same elitists who think they have a God given right to rule. You are mesmerized by the python that has you in its grip. Do you really think government can be trusted with some face changing in the front office? While not sure about Paul, I adamantly oppose the rest as they represent only slight variations on a theme not a change in direction.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:19AM

It was a resolution that would cut Palestinian aid. Paul voted against cutting Palestinian aid. That's an apple to apple.

I'm sorry if his Lordship disappointed you. Look up his votes in THOMAS.

ohmy231| 10.10.11 @ 10:03AM

Thank you, aware, for your post. I was wondering why the auther of the article was so off-base, and your explaining about the NIPP says it all. Though the moment I saw praise for Wilson I dismissed Wittman's commentary. Wilson was not a good man, to say the least. After researching every candidate, I decided to support Ron Paul who I have never supported before. I believe he is the only choice if we want our precious Republic restored. It's rather pitiful how so many are refusing to vet these candidates, especially after the lack of vetting that was done 3 years ago that saw the advent of the usurper.

Tom Osterman| 10.7.11 @ 9:21AM

A huge part of the problem has been membership in corrupt and/or inept transnational organizations like the UN, NATO and the IMF. Membership in the UN is like participating in a crooked card game where you're not in on the scam. The place would likely fold without the US to prop it up, and staying in has more minuses than pluses. Similarly, the US should have withdrawn from NATO when the Soviet Union collapsed and the countries of eastern Europe became free. Instead we stayed in while NATO cast around for new missions to justify itself. And I think we can all agree that the IMF has done more harm than good.

The rational course for any nation is to ask itself who are its friends, who are its enemies, who are neither and set policy accordingly. Large transnational organizations which we prop up to no good result, which not coincidentally are pushed at us by liberals, are more trouble than they're worth.

ohmy231| 10.10.11 @ 10:17AM

Although I'm not sure about Nato, Ron Paul wants us not only out of the UN (even wrote legislation to do that) and IMF, but also the World Bank, NAFTA and CAFTA. He is also against the Patriot Act and would probably do his best to get rid of DHS and the horrid TSA. He is not an isolationalist as Wittman claims in his article, but a constitutionalist. And that is exactly what Amerians needs.

Notary Sojac| 10.7.11 @ 9:34AM

There's nothing wrong with America going to war when its interests are threatened.

What's wrong is going to war without naming the enemy. (Hint: "terror" is not the enemy.)

What's wrong is going to war without crushing the enemy's ideology and will to resist. Utterly crushing it.

If we can't or won't do those things, then yes, sad to say, we are better off staying home.

If we had utterly crushed the enemy -and the states that enable them- in 2002 and 2003, we would not be having this argument today, and Ron Paul would be a retired former physician and congressman.

Fight like WW2 - end like WW2.
Fight like Nam - end like Nam.

loulou| 10.7.11 @ 9:48AM

Excellent post, Notary.

Our military has been emasculated since Bill Clinton and at this point all they are is sitting ducks posing as social workers.

We need to clean out the political correctness and the left wing generals and get back to basics. Our brave men deserve nothing less.

Mike 3/505| 10.7.11 @ 10:31AM

Since Carter.

Solo| 10.7.11 @ 9:56AM

So...your plan would have been to carpet Afghanistan with Nukes and call it a day, huh?

I'm inclined to think it's a bit more complicated than that.

Occam's Tool| 10.7.11 @ 11:40AM

Only because you make it so, Solo, although you picked the wrong state to carpet bomb. (I normally agree with you...please read on)

One of our enemies should have been targeted for complete destruction to encourage the others. Personally, I would have chosen Iran. If Iran had been eliminated as a military power, Hussein and Gaddafi would have been intimidated, as well as the Taliban. Further, financing for the various scum that plague us would be crushed.

Sometimes, the indirect approach is best. Examine the power structure and hit where it will do the most damage, not where it is most obvious to hit.
It also works in dealing with disease.

The best discussion of this is to be found in the works of Captain Basil Liddell Hart, particularly his Strategy.

Solo| 10.7.11 @ 4:32PM

I understand your point (to a point) but I seriously doubt that you would be willing (or able) to argue that point to its conclusion.

Unrestricted, "no holds bared" warfare (which is what you're actually advocating) is not the methodology of a moral and just people.
And...once we restrain ourselves for an ounce, then, what of the pound?

This argument seems to always take place on the extremes: Unrestricted warfare vs. Politically correct "Nerf War". Neither is rational-- or productive, in the long run.

I think that we agree that 10 years in Afghanistan is absurd. Equally absurd, however, would have been a single day of unimaginable destruction making no distinction between friend and foe--enemy and innocent by-stander.

There are rules of decent conduct. Even in war.
It takes longer to do it right.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:54PM

"...making no distinction between friend and foe--enemy and innocent by-stander."

Who is advocating this? There is a difference between intentionally targeting the innocent and it happening incidental to war. Like it or not, Iran should have been utterly crushed when they took our embassy. We had the ability to do it, and it was stupid not to do so. We suffer the price of that bit of idiocy even now.

Yes there would have been good people killed in such a war. But there were good people killed in Germany and Japan as well. We did not shrink from do it in WW2 once we were in a shooting war, and we should not do so now. Civilized, and decent people regret it when it happens. Civilized and decent people go to war only when forced to do so. But, civilized and decent people also realize that pulling punches serves no one, not even the people of the country that is crushed in a war with Civilized and decent people.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:43PM

Solo:

1)Dropping two nukes on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives.

2) All of the assholes in Afghanistan aren't worth my daughter's safety being threatened to 1/100,000 of a percent.

3) Drop the nukes. Not a problem. They asked for it and bought and paid for it. But Afghanistan is not where I would start. Teheran is where I would start.

4) If you put undue restrictions on your forces, you will not win. If you do it like Grant and Sherman and LeMay and Truman, you will. And if you do it like Truman, you will win with fewer losses to your side.

5) Drop the nukes and go back to sleep. Busy day tomorrow. Did I make myself clear about what I would accept? I want to win.

chuck| 10.8.11 @ 11:00PM

OT, you should be Commander in Chief! All our wars(I think there would only be one more) would be over in a day. Let the world know you are serious, and maybe a little unbalanced, and they will leave you alone!

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:21AM

Indeed. Nixon used "the little unbalanced" part very well. Incidentally, you need only use Hiroshima type bombs. No point in overkill.

Thanks, Chuck.

Thomas| 10.7.11 @ 9:58AM

I have no idea how we became distracted with arguments about who was responsible for the rise of Nazism, Communism, et al. None of this is germane to the issue of American isolationism.

Those that would have the U.S. concern itself with only that which occurs within its geographic boundaries, fail to grasp the reality of the world in which we live. Up until the 1940's, it was possible for the United States to comfortably ignore the rest of the world, if it so chose. Intercontinental air travel was almost non-existent. It took several days for most people to get from the Western hemisphere to the the Eastern. Telephone and radio communications were in their infancy, as well. A letter would take that same several days or even more than a week to cross the major oceans. Virtually all of the manufactured goods purchased in the U.S. were manufactured here. And, neither of our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, were capable of mounting a military invasion of this country. None of this applies today, however.

Today, it is possible to, not only send a message by text or voice to any where in the world in less than a second, but even face-to-face telecommunications are used regularly. People can physically travel from the U.S to Europe or Asia in less than a day. Most of our consumer goods are manufactured outside the boundaries of the U.S., including a significant portion of our food. And, with the development of nuclear and biological weapons and the intercontinental ballistic missile, physical invasion of our territory is no longer necessary to conquer this country. We simply no longer have the luxury of sitting on our front porches and watching the rest of the world go by.

Isolationists are simply agoraphobics on a global scale.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 10:04AM

Do Your Homework.

" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.7.11 @ 11:42AM

Thanks for the terminology lesson, Clint. However, Thomas' point is very valid. Withdrawal of military forces from places where people want to kill us will not abate that desire and may help with the planning. You are not to be trusted with children, Clint. You do not forsee dangers. Perhaps too much rugby playing in scrums without sufficient head protection?

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 1:24PM

You're A Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Fanatic,Tool Job.

How many Israeli IDF Troops have been WIA & KIA in Afghanistan & Iraq, In The War On Terror ?

Answer : Zip

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 1:37PM

Also, Tool Job.

It Takes Balls To Play Rugby.

That Leaves You Out, Sport.

Margie| 10.7.11 @ 2:20PM

"..for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come." 2 Tim. 4:8.

Repent, Clint.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 7:25PM

Chase Cars, Pennsy Bitch Dog.

Margie| 10.7.11 @ 7:38PM

You're a lousy Catholic, and where are your "brothers" to hold you accountable? You need to repent.

"If a man does not repent, God will whet His Sword; He has prepared His deadly weapons, making His arrows fiery shafts. He has bent and strung His bow; Behold, the wicked man conceives evil, and is pregnant with mischief, and brings forth lies.
He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole which he has made.
His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own pate his violence descends.
I will give to the LORD the thanks due to His righteousness, and I will sing praise to the Name of the LORD, the Most High." Ps. 7:12-17.

Drunken Sailor| 10.7.11 @ 4:26PM

Let me guess, you played the hooker?

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 7:27PM

Let Me Guess, You Sniff Jockstraps.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:45PM

No it doesn't, fruitcake. What you call Rugby is not what I call Rugby. I've seen it at the highest professional level in the world, and it is not as brutal as NFL football.

Keep flashing your testosterone, Jihadist Catamite.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:10PM

Yes, and Rugby players are also known for roughing up Mormon Missionaries. The little teenie weenie balls of rugby players.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 7:59PM

Occam, Clint may be silly after your reply (which really is ignorant), but he is correct. What Thomas described as isolationism is a straw man. Paul is not advocating what the Neocons describe as isolationism. Neocons use the term isolationist to smear someone just as all leftists smear someone if they can't win them to their side.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:49PM

Quartermaster, allow be to be blunt.

I do not believe in nation building among scum who know not freedom. I do, however, believe that leaving them alone will NOT stop their attacks on us. Paul believes in kow-towing to them. He honestly does not see the problem in sharia advocacy.

He is advocating non-interventionism with people who want to kill us, and whose hostility to the US goes back centuries, and to Catholicism goes back over a millenia.

We should bash them, make for them a desert, and leave them nothing but their eyes to cry with.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 3:15PM

So we should bankrupt ourselves because you are afraid.

And they are the "scum who know not freedom", but here you are begging to trade yours away for alleged safety.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:26PM

Mal---explain how the use of nuclear weapons is more expensive in US money and lives than boots on the ground. I'll wait.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 6:47PM

I need clarification to answer better. Do you believe the US should use nuclear weapons against the threat of "sharia"?

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:24AM

Mal,

nukes should be used against sharia every day and twice on Sunday. Bombs should be substituted for boots wherever possible. 1 US soldier is worth more than 10 Million Iranian and Afghani Civilians.

Is that clear enough? I could re-write it in pig latin, if helpful.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:28PM

I'm sorry, am I ignorant or is Clint ignorant. You know, QM, I basically support your position, I think. But it's hard to do since you are a big fan of Blue on Blue.

Simon Templar| 10.7.11 @ 1:52PM

Do you have any original thoughts or are you just a quote machine and a Paulbot parrot?

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 7:30PM

Apparently, The Other Candidates Are Now Paul Parrots On The FED, States Rights, Constitutional Powers....

The tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 9:59AM

"Released on Tuesday, September 27, the latest Harris Poll surveyed 2,462 adults and was conducted between September 12 and 19. According to the poll, if Texas Congressman Ron Paul wins the Republican presidential nomination he would beat Obama by 51 percent to 49 percent in the general election."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Sean| 10.7.11 @ 10:19AM

Well according to The American Spectator Woodrow Wilson is now the founder of "conservative " foreign policy.

Vern Crisler| 10.7.11 @ 10:35AM

Ron Paul and his ilk are little better than the Hate America radicals of the Vietnam era. But even crazy people speak the truth sometimes, like a clock is right at least twice a day. We should be very careful about foreign entanglements and Wilsonian Progressivism. The only place that sort of thing has ever worked is (let's see) on Babylon Five -- a TV show. A science fiction TV show.

Mike Hawk| 10.7.11 @ 10:41AM

They are neo-isolationists and neo-confederate throwbacks in an increasingly dangerous world of 3rd world lunatics. In short , kooks.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 10:51AM

" When Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Mike Hawk| 10.7.11 @ 12:49PM

I was there and no it doesn't sound familiar. You are stretching the truth as usual. COmparing a kook like Rube Paul to Ronald Reagan is sheer chutzpah on your part. Obama is trying to invoke Reagan and that makes no sense either. Your guy has no chance of being the nomineee. Live with it.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 1:16PM

You're A Liar As Usual Hawk.

Dr.Ron Paul Was One Of Four Republican Congressmen To Endorse Ronald Reagan & Ronald Reagan Endorsed Dr.Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:49PM

And after that Paul backstabbed Reagan.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 3:21PM

"Allegiance to party comes before principle."

- GOP motto for the last half-century

Boar Hunter| 10.7.11 @ 4:58PM

Mike, the fact you confronted Clint about "stretching the truth as usual" shows you're familiar with his inane rantings. I would like to politely inquire as to what on earth compelled you to engage with and respond to this nit-wit's lunatic rantings?

As you already pointed out in your response, Ron Paul is irrelevant. Ron Paul's only value to the public debate is actually realized through his supporters who demonstrate how scary it is that there are members of our society who support his candidacy.

The subject of Ron Paul is quite boring at this point, after all how many times can this mentally and physically stunted nut job run for president and still be taken seriously?

Oh sorry Clint, so you don't wast any more of your valuable Ron Paul prayer time, let me save you the trouble in advance and tell you how terribly stunned I am with your possession of such keen insight into my character and your uncanny ability to strike me to the core with your critical insults concerning my manhood ...giggle, giggle, that was kind of funny. I think I cracked myself up.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 6:15PM

The Chairman Of The Bores Is Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

That's Relevant.

The Tea Party Steps On Little Giggles' Face.

That's Relevant Too.

Margie| 10.7.11 @ 7:38PM

Herman Cain's gonna win it. You'll see.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:29PM

You know, Clint, after you engage in sodomy, you really should wash up.

Sean| 10.7.11 @ 10:43AM

Yeah all those military personnel that donate to him more than all the other candidates combined hate America. Seems to me you are lacking a few brain cells.

Mal_Content| 10.7.11 @ 12:41PM

I have noticed an unwillingness to address this point from hawks of all stripes.

What is a hawk to do when he must criticize a veteran? He holds his tongue.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:50PM

Some veterans are more intelligent than others. Col. Kratman is more intelligent than Ron Paul, for example.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 3:23PM

And some conservative take their principles seriously, just as some don't.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:30PM

Well, Tom Kratman seems to think I'm fairly Conservative, and he was an instructor in Rule of Law at the Army War College. That's good enough for me.

I'm not sure what your principles are---run and hide from people who rape children and stone women?

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 7:26PM

As long as they rape their own children and stone their own women, I could care less what they do.

I'll work to fix our problems.

Enough of making their problems ours.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:12PM

Well, on 9/11 they made their problem ours. And in many different ways, in numerous honor killings and terrorist threats on the US, they continue to do so.

Of course, it started in 1979, when Jimmy did NOT nuke Teheran, which would have stopped the whole damn thing. Either that or support the Shah, which would have been ebven better, as the Shah was a friend of ours, trying to modernize those backward scum.

Charles Easterly| 10.7.11 @ 12:53PM

Sean,

Are you attempting to suggest that he or she should "Support the troops" and consider voting for the candidate they support financially in larger numbers than all other Republican candidates combined?

Prepare yourself for one or more attempts to disprove or discredit those donations.

Regards,

Charles

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 10:44AM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Mike Hawk| 10.7.11 @ 1:09PM

Yep, he was an officer. AN MD, flight surgeon. That is not a tactician, pilot, commander or anything in combat arms. Doctors are inportant, but they are not staff and command officers. Don't try to paint ROn Paul as something he has never been.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 7:33PM

Tell It To Ronald Reagan, Israel Firster PropagandaBoy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 8:05PM

Some of the hardest hit men by combat has been the physicians that have had to deal with the products of that combat. Dissing Paul simply because he was a flight surgeon shows the level of desperation your ilk has reached.

I am no Paulbot, but your ilk could persuade me to be so. A dishonest dislike is one thing. To act the same way any other leftist would act, all the while claiming to be a conservative shows what you really are.

I would say to you, don't paint people as something they are not. Yourself included.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 10:01PM

QM,
Just as a point of reference do you think there are any practical differences between what a Flight Surgeon might experience vs. the same in the Navy, Army or Marines in time of war? Even in Vietnam the overwhelming bulk of the causalities were suffered in Army and Marine units. Crashing planes tend to produce KIAs over wounded but even with our air losses in Vietnam I just don’t think any Air Force Flight surgeon was exposed to anything remotely like what the grunt side of the equation had to deal with. I think Mike’s point is more or less valid with regard to Paul or any other generally non-combat billet. Chaplains have to bear a lot too but no one thinks their service as a Chaplin gives them special insight in “warfare” as that would relate to being Commander and Chief. Same for JAG officers. I wore this country’s uniform when it was real unpopular with a lot of folks and I never saw or heard of any Flight Surgeon leading anyone in combat. In the Navy I know for sure there are Command rates and non Command rates and non Command rates do not Command people in war.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:52PM

Yes, and I was a VA MD dealing with men permanently scarred by war. Sorry, Paul DID NOT SEE THE ELEPHANT. Neither did I.

Tom Kratman did. And he agrees with me. Read Caliphate.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 4:16PM

Yes, Clint, we should all ignore the kooky Congressman Paul and pay attention to more super-serious critics like the Military Sci-Fi author Tom Kratman.

It's funny how the people we agree with are always the more credible ones.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:16PM

Colenel Kratman was also the head of training of Rule of Law at the Army War College.

Paul Linebarger was the author of "Psychological Warfare," STILL the ultimate textbook in its field decades later, and a Professor at Hopkins. He also was, in the fictional medium he chose to write in, "Cordwainer Smith," one of the greatest science fiction writers ever.

Jerry Pournelle writes Science Fiction.

Simply because one writes a certain type of fiction doesn't mean they didn't have a very serious day job. When Tom opines on Rule of Law in War he was a world renowned authority in it. When he notes what the Islamists are doing that is naughty, it should be taken with that in mind.

When Paul opines on legalization of Marijuana his professional training and knowledge on the subject is considerably less than mine, for instance. I have also been a character in a science fiction novel or two. That has nothing to do with my training and skills in psychiatry. Does that help, Mal?

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:17PM

Kratman also led an infantry battalion. In Battle.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:40PM

QM---YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT WITH THIS QUOTE, and I AM SCREAMING---"Some of the hardest hit men by combat has been the physicians that have had to deal with the products of that combat..."

I did my training in a VA hospital, seeing the end results of Omaha Beach and Vietnam. Unlike you, I have rounded on Combat Engineers paralyzed for 4 decades following Omaha. THERE IS NO FLIPPING WAY that I would equate my trauma from treating them with the trauma the boys who saw the ELEPHANT had.

I lay in a comfy bed, sometimes with beautiful women, eating Thai food and icecream while going through my training.

My training was tough intellectually and emotionally--- it included, for example, seeing the body of a Veteran who had hanged himself on my VA campus dangling from a tree---while he had NOT YET BEEN CUT DOWN (to verify that I had not treated him the night before). So, yeah, I saw TRAUMATIZING things.

BUT THAT WAS NOTHING compared to a combat vet. NOTHING. NOTHING. I know, because I heard their secrets as a psychiatrist. You owe them an apology, a profound one.

My G-d, what a putrid, stupid, MORONIC thing to write. Please become a Paulbot, QM. I don't want you on my side. Asshole.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:31PM

1976. During the Cold War. Against the Commies.

ConantheContrarian| 10.7.11 @ 10:56AM

"The United States must stay alert and discriminatingly involved."
Okay, I will buy that, but what is meant by "discriminatingly"? Some of these experts like Wittman are vague, and their analyses of historical events and their conclusions are found wanting. Here is my conclusion: our involvement in WWI was stupid, and France and England should have stayed out of it too. Who cares what the Japanese did in China? Were they any more brutal than Chinese warlords? Because of our meddling, we were drawn into another world war. Wittman is another neo-con who doesn't want to take a stand for the agenda: invade the world, invite the world.

Brian B| 10.7.11 @ 11:04AM

There is a third way between isolationism and nation building.
When our vital interests are threatened or attacked we need to smash our enemies. In a few very specific and extremely limited cases it might make sense to pacify or democratize the remains of the country, but in most cases we should simply withdraw with the clear understanding that if we are harmed or threatened again the same result will obtain, only more so.
I see little evidence that Afghanistan or Iraq or most other projects we have undertaken have much hope of long term stability, and if they do it was more likely an indigenous matter rather than one we imposed on them.
It seem to me we should be more concerned our potential enemies fear us rather than think highly of us or think we'll bail them out of the aftermath of harming us.

axbucxdu| 10.7.11 @ 10:34PM

"...When our vital interests are threatened or attacked we need to smash our enemies..."

What's about this is so hard to understand, or more likely, admit? I would only add: WE'RE BROKE.

Smirking Weasel| 10.7.11 @ 11:41AM

The author is a disgusting stooge for Empire.
Despite his onrushing geezerdom, apparent
in the attached photo, Wittman should take
his chickenhawk butt to an indoctrination
center and sign his own self up as a Hessian
for globalism; hopefully, he'll quickly become
the next to get his head blown off for nothing-
at least, nothing in the best interests of America
and its' citizens.

ohmy231| 10.10.11 @ 10:24AM

Excellent assessment!

Occam's Tool| 10.7.11 @ 11:43AM

Paul is down to 6 percent support. Enjoy your diatribes, Paulbots.

ConantheContrarian| 10.7.11 @ 12:07PM

Paul isn't perfect in every category of policy, and I doubt that he will come close to winning. But he tends to be correct in the foreign policy arena, and I like him and will vote for him as a protest vote against the go-along, get along Repubs.

Mal_Content| 10.7.11 @ 12:24PM

The Status Quo Republicans will always fight to support well-packaged, establishment mediocrity.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:53PM

So, Conan, you like Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy? That's Paul's compadre on these issues.

Sean| 10.7.11 @ 12:26PM

Latest poll shows Paul at 13% nationwide. Paul received donations from 100,000 people. Perry about 20,000

http://people-press.org/2011/1.....-matchups/

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 8:08PM

Hey, don't tell them the truth ;)

The fake conservatives all want to believe the BIG LIE that Ron Paul cannot win. I mean, seriously, don't encourage anyone to vote for the only real conservative running who has a SOLID RECORD to to prove it.

I'm voting against the status quo and helping Ron Paul be the people's President. He is truly the Thomas Jefferson of our times.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 12:56PM

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Dick Nome| 10.8.11 @ 8:22PM

I could beat Omama by that margin. Alfred E. Nueman could beat Obama bt 51-49.

Warrior| 10.7.11 @ 2:35PM

I would appreciate you Paul haters to do just one thing. Lay out an argument for one of the other leading candidates who appear to be inter-changeable McCain type candidates. IMO the best of the bunch was Bachmann, but she has effectively talked her way into obscurity. Instead of attacking Ron Paul, please let me know the values and platforms the other candidates are bringing to the table and why I should vote for them. The only other argument many bring is that they are not Obama, which is analgous to them not being Ron Paul. What difference does that make if they continue to spend us into oblivion, support the never ending wars, tinker around the edges of the unsustainbable entitlements and crap all over the Constitution from a different direction.

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 8:04PM

The values of the other candidates are simple - STATUS QUO and MORE OF THE SAME.

More taxes, , more spending, more debt, more welfare, more wars, and more police state.

Simply look at the records of Perry, Romney, Gingrich, and the bi-partisan chump Santorum. I like Cain but he supported TARP - the BAILOUT!

Only the ex Governor of NM, Gary Johnson, doesn't support more of the same.

I answered for you since the mindless neocons don't have a leg to stand on.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:09PM

But Gary Johnson's sooooo Tal Bachmann. ("He's so Hiiiiiiigggggghhhhhh!")

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 2:54PM

Cain sounds reasonable, especially if he goes with West as VEEP.

Paul will get a lot of Americans murdered. He's also not gonna win.

Warrior| 10.8.11 @ 6:33PM

What is Cain's foreign policy? How about his views on social issues? What will he do to reform entitlements? Just spouting a name does not mean he is a strong conservative candidate.

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 7:59PM

Rasmussen Reports has Ron Paul @ 12% today.

The status quo, fake conservatives are running scared as should the SYSTEM. It's so obvious...

Margie| 10.7.11 @ 10:18PM

"Fake conservatives."

Who made you judge, jury and executioner, toots?

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 3:41PM

Conservatives who support socialized industries like our defense industry without question are not conservatives.

They are foreign-interventionist statists masquerading as conservatives.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:41PM

Uh, huh. Mal, I got some tinfoil for ya, cheap.

Margie| 10.9.11 @ 3:54PM

Your screen name is fitting, Mal Content. Right up there along with the "Wall St. Protesters."
I bet you are in agreement with them, too?

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON FANTASY & DENIAL!

JohnC| 10.7.11 @ 11:48AM

Unfortunately most of the Republican presidential candidates are leaning towards isolationism, not just Ron Paul. Isolationism is what brought us WWII and its horrors. Remember: #All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing#.

The real problem with both Afghanistan and Iraq is that both Bush and Obama have fought PC wars instead of using overwhelming force for quick victories and this is what Americans resent.

ConantheContrarian| 10.7.11 @ 12:10PM

Isolationism didn't bring us the horrors of WWII. Buttinskyism in WWI and the UK's and France's defending Poland eventually drew America into WWII. Hitler didn't want to fight the UK, but Churchill sure had a hard-on for the Germans.

Sean| 10.7.11 @ 12:31PM

WWII start with GB and France interfering with the German/Poland fight over the city of Danzig. Notice they didn't declare war on the Soviet Union. At the start of the war people killed by Germany maybe reached into the low thousands. While the Soviet Union had killed millions. Way to stop evil in its tracks.

David T| 10.7.11 @ 11:56AM

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46687

Now that the Red Army has gone home, Eastern Europe is free, and the Soviet Union no longer exists, what is the argument for maintaining U.S. Air Force, Army and naval bases and thousands of U.S. troops in Europe?

Close the bases, and bring the troops home.

The same with South Korea and Japan. Now that Mao is dead and gone and China is capitalist, Seoul and Tokyo trade more with Beijing than they do with us.

South Korea has 40 times the economy and twice the population of North Korea. Japan's economy is almost as large as China's. Why cannot these two powerful and prosperous nations provide the troops, planes, ships and missiles to defend themselves? We can sell them whatever they need.

Why is their defense still our responsibility?

In the Persian Gulf we have a strategic interest: oil. But the oil-rich nations of the region have an even greater interest in selling their oil than we do in buying it. For, without oil sales, the Gulf has little the world needs or wants.

Let the world look out for itself for a while. Time to start looking out for America and Americans first. For if we don't, who will?

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 8:12PM

China is not capitalist. They are a fascist country and rising power who intends to threaten our interests. Like the idiots our crony capitalists are, they've moved the mass of our manufacturing to China and we are financing our enemy as they rise against us.

The crony capitalists that run the FedGov are asleep, and they do enough to keep the Neocons loudly squaking so they are distracted. So we expend blood and treasure in Chaostan while the real enemy rises.

Louis Joseph| 10.9.11 @ 9:04AM

Sorry QM they are not alseep, the crony capitalists are bought and paid for. Long ago in a Foreign land I over heard 2 ambassadors speaking "The cheapest thing to buy in America is a Congressmen. Look at congress's approval rate. It speaks LOUDLY at how corrupt DC,the multinational companies and Congress are.

Slacker| 10.7.11 @ 12:15PM

Any foreign adventure that doesn’t entail carpet bombing enemy civilians is an unnecessary adventure. A fight is a fight. Kill them all WWII style with cheap dumb bombs or stay home.
The interventionist (left and right) lack the will to kill civilians so we fail every time.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:07PM

CORRECTOMUNDO, Slacker, only.....

Trinitium sure is purty.

fundamentalist| 10.7.11 @ 12:48PM

Wittman defeats only a straw man of his own making. Those of us who want the US to quit invading other countries, and to get out of those it has invaded, don’t want the US to withdraw behind a fortress. What most of us want is a return to the Reagan doctrine of helping others achieve freedom without trying to do it all by ourselves.

Reagan sent the Afghan mujahedin all of the weapons they could use, and some they couldn’t. The mule and stinger missile contributed greatly to the pull out of the Soviets. He didn’t sent any troops anywhere after the Lebanon disaster, except for tiny Grenada.

Vietnam should have taught us that when our boys do the fighting the people we are trying to help set down and let us do all of the work. Our boys die and not theirs. Eventually, the ones we intended to help side with the enemy because they are the same race.

No one in the nation, including Ron Paul, wants the US to pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist. We’re not as stupid as Wittman thinks. What we want is 1) to supply freedom fighter; don’t do the fighting for them, and 2) humility about what we can achieve. We can’t change the cultures of Iraq and Afghanistan and that is what we have been attempting for the past decade.

Give them cash and weapons if you wish, but quit sending our boys to die for hopeless causes.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 8:17PM

IN Vietnam ARVN actually took a lot more casualties than the US forces did. They fought very well in the Easter Offensive of 1972 against the NVA with a small amount of help from our aviation assets with the NVA suffering nearly 50% casualties. They fought well in 1975 as well without our help. Until, of course, they ran out of supplies, which the US left in Congress would not supply because they wanted the North to win.

The history of the Vietnam war is as distorted in this country as that of the war of northern aggression. The left hates the truth.

The troops and ARVN won on the ground. The North won with a lot of help in the US Congress from Mansfield, McGovern and Kennedy.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 9:40PM

QM,
The NVA didn't go home after their actions in 72. They stayed in the northern provinces in strength and continued various actions throughout 73, 74 and into 75. ARVN had twice the force strength the NVA had in 1975 and still fell. What Congress did was certainly fatal in 75 but the fall started in 72. South Vietnam could have bought arms and supplies from anyone which makes the point I’ve made before if we had done the right thing before we declared victory and packed up and left the South might have had a chance to stand on their own. I’m not trying in any way to diminish the impact of Congress but it was we who said we had won and went home without the enemy being defeated. We probably shouldn’t tell the American people we have won when the enemy still has the means to fight.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.7.11 @ 12:52PM

sales pitch!

I have carefully laid the groundwork for the VICTORY ...in the war on terror in my book.
www.americaalonesaidno.com

The only question is how bad must the bastards hurt us before we respond and stomp their ass.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 7:23PM

Ken, I'm afraid the question might be would we respond at all?
One of the downsides to doing such matters half-arsed as we have since WWII is that it breeds cynicism and becomes habit forming....

fwb| 10.7.11 @ 12:52PM

Except that the limitations on spending in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1, limit US action to the political entity the United States, which are a geographical area. Treaties cannot be made that have the US help others because all treaties must conform to the limitations (the authority) of the Constitution. So it may be all well and good, BUT it is not legal under the Constitution. And the Constitution is our agreement with each other as to what we will allow the government to do.

If you want it different, get an amendment. If you don't amend and still want to go about doing things here and there, then shut up when the government fails to adhere to YOUR "untouchable" part of the Constitution.

Ron| 10.7.11 @ 1:45PM

This reminds me of the argument I hear around where I live (Juneau, Alaska) and how "war is not the answer" bumper sticker fanatics.

WAR is the ULTIMATE answer...When ALL else FAILS and the enemy is at the gates, then war is declared. Terror can be a war, just ask the Israelis how it starts...Bombing in market places, kidnappings, hijackings...AQ and it's ilk has declared an undeclared war. But it needs to be fought harshly, with finality, matching their evil and beating it.

If the government of our (or any country) cannot do that, then it needs to seriously rethink it's policies.

Does anyone on this board, really, seriously believe (except the Dr. Paul supporters) believe if we just withdraw from everywhere at the drop of a hat, that AQ or anyone else is going to see it as anything but weak on the US' part?

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 7:55PM

Leaving 130 countries would not be a sign of weakness. It's a sign of RESPECT for people in their homelands that do not want us there.

Ponder this @ http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

I'm a former neocon :)

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 9:24PM

We have a military contingent in every country we have embassies and consulates. We have advisors in a lot. All are invited and allowed by agreement between governments. Outside of that and where we have significant combat forces you are talking about a handful in the bulk of those 130 countries you speak of. You couldn’t find our military people in the bulk of those 130 countries if you were given a week in each to look .

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 2:56PM

Do they work for free?

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 5:43PM

No do you?

People doing my job in India a decade ago earned 1/10 what I did then. They are doing about 1/5 now. Has your income doubled in 10 years? They have first class education centers and training compared to what I have access to. I have a little better card board box house than they do however and don't have to ride mass transit to work. A former co-worker and US citizen lives full time in China today with his Chinese wife and child. China has a per capita income of 1/7th ours. He has a first class education and was my mentor on something I'm now responsible for. A can of Campbell's soup cost a fraction there of what it does here. Same Chicken, Can and Soup . China turns out engineers by the boat load and they have work around the world. Ours protest on Wall Street because they can't find anyone that will offer them a job starting at three times their age. Simple economic rule: Your labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If you can't fathom that join the Marines and ask to be assigned as a Marine Guard in one of those 130 countries not considered one of our allies and see how that changes your prospective on what you think you are worth.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 7:01PM

Taxpayers don't pay my salary, Thom.

It's not my fault that being soldier is a government job.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:15PM

No, it's a sign of running away with our tails between our legs.

Now, certain things we can do---dramatically cutting back on infantry stationed in Germany would free up our men, and Germany can pay for its own troops to protect it against Poland. But we are in a war with an evil ideology that hates us and wishes us ill. They, like Imperial Japan, must be crushed.

Dixie Pixie| 10.7.11 @ 2:11PM

OK Skippy
Let get down to the basics.

Pax America is a LUXURY item America can no longer afford.

There is a reason poor countries do no have expansive and costly foreign policies.
With limited funds available and unlimited needs, a country has to prioritize to those efforts that will bring the most benefits to the country.

America has greatly overextended itself and can no longer afford its current comments.
We must cut back to only those comments that can pay for themselves or better yet make a profit for America.

The current foreign policies are a holdover from when an expansive foreign policy made financial sense.
In an era in which the industrial base was growing it made sense to look outside the USA for raw resources and markets.
With a ever growing economy, there was little need to prioritize as there would always be more money next year.
Thus our commitments out grew our ability to fund them when the growth of the industrial base stopped and then reversed.

Today with a collapsing industrial base the current commitments are pure dead weight.
We simply do not have the income to police the entire planet and impose Pax America.
We have to draw the line at what America can afford.
The troops have to come home as they are to expensive to keep overseas.

The true horror is we have Ruling Class and Federal Government that can no longer tell the difference between luxuries and necessities.
They have certainly lost the ability to prioritize.
They have not needed to do so for over a generation.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 4:27PM

"There is a reason poor countries do no have expansive and costly foreign policies."

These are the same reasons poor countries are invaded countless times and carved up by larger countries too. By the standards of Israel we are a beggar by comparison as to what they have to spend to survive as a tiny country. We didn’t get to where we are on the backs of the Defense department. “government” consumes over half of GDP and most of the tax burden to fund that is thrust upon a tiny minority of citizens. The cost of government is skewed on many levels but not the least of which is where it is located and operates from. They pay garbage truck workers over 100,000 in NYC, what do you think they pay government workers and hand out in welfare payments there? In my city garbage truck workers make $12-13 an hour or about $25,000 a year. The same Hotel room I stayed in Atlanta cost $224.00 a night in DC area but $124.00 in Atlanta. It cost $79.00 in rural NC. Same hotel, room, services all in the same year. Most people receiving “welfare” in whatever form live in urban high cost areas. Most of “government” is located in the most expensive places to live. Defense of the Republic is the first enumerated priority of the Federal government in the Constitution. Welfare is not a function of the Federal governments at all. It doesn’t matter what you spend on Defense if it isn’t adequate. Dec 7th 1941 kind of made that point in spades for the generation that had to pay the cost of our short sightedness on that point.

Dixie Pixie| 10.7.11 @ 11:59PM

Greeting Thom

The above lines should read::::
“There is a reason poor countries do not have expansive and costly foreign policies.”
“The troops have to come home as they are too expensive to keep overseas.”
You have my humble apologies for not proofreading better.

Thom....My simple point is when the Federal Government is borrowing 40% of all funds spent thus we have overextended the foreign policy commitments and must cut back.
Comparative costs analyst is not helpful when we don't have the money in the first place.
The USA must start to prioritize between the necessities and the luxuries.

It is far better to cut foreign commitments than domestic commitments as money spent on domestic commitments stays in the USA.
Money spent on foreign commitments stays in foreign lands whose peoples do not vote in domestic elections.
The bottom line is is the Federal money spent is better spent on us rather than foreigners.

Bring the troops home so DOD money is spent on US citizens and products.

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 5:22PM

I agree the government is spending too much and that expenditures have to be prioritized. Where we part company is in ignoring the proportionate nature of the spending problem and how that stacks up against what the enumerated responsibilities are for the Federal government. Defense is the first and primary responsibility of the Federal government. We are in a shooting war that current polices won’t end successfully but the war exists none the less. That war and the one we are almost completely out of in Iraq didn’t cost us more than 1.5 % of GDP or a couple hundred billion a year out of a total Federal budget of 3.7 trillion in an economy of over 14 trillion. The bulk of the defense department spending growth has gone to consumables like fuel, ammo to support both operations overseas and training here. Bringing everyone home from Iraq and Afghanistan won’t make a dent in that 40% you mentioned. I hope you understand the conflict in your statement that spending 40% we don’t have can be solved on the backs of what we are spending in Iraq (soon to end) and Afghanistan while bringing the troops home so “DOD money is spent on US citizens and products” doesn’t really solve the spending problem. You do see that right? Government spending is spending and eliminating the entire Defense budget will still leave us with nearly a trillion deficit a year.

Dixie Pixie| 10.8.11 @ 9:34PM

Greetings Thom

( Item 1 ) To bring federal spending back into balance income, TOTAL spending must be cut 40% across the entire Federal budget.
To began to pay off the debt in an reasonable time period, a greater cut in spending must be preformed so let us round it to 50% for the purpose of discussion.

That means every department from SS to EPA to Treasury to Interior to DOD must cut spending 50% across the entire budget.
The easiest DOD cuts to make are in the foreign commitments and deployments as foreigners don't vote in American elections.

( Item 2 ) Thom, you must not be ex-military or you would have realized by all conventional military standards the US had won both the Iraq and Afghan Wars in under 60 days each.
In both cases conventional military fighting had ceased and the offending governments extinct.

The standard definition of total military victory is the extinction of a foreign government and is replacement by an outside military force.
That was done a year later in the Afghan War but Def.Sec. Rumsfeld buggered up the process in Iraq so a Iraq government was formed years later.

Both wars are a luxury items as any continuation after military victory is an unnecessary expense.
The Libyan War is illegal, unconstitutional and unnecessary and should be cut for those reasons.

The bottom line is the DOD budget must be cut at least 40% and preferably 50% or tell the Banks all loans be considered as grants and treated as income.
The proper place to start cutting is with the luxury items.

( Item 3 ) Thom.... In what Conservative Doctrine or Philosophy the current state of DOD, DHS and TSA considered good, sound ideas.

For example, All Conservative Philosophies state that a permanent war against an intangible and ever-changing enemy is always a social disaster.
All Philosophies state that what TSA is doing is a outright example of an active police state.

In short what Conservative Philosophy or Doctrine supports the continuation of the Iraq, Afghan and Libyan Wars?

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:26PM

No, Dixie, that's not necessarily true.

An overseas commitment that deters a terrorist blowing up the Pentagon is worth far more than a domestic outlay that keeps Black families incentivized to not have mom and dad in the same household.

Our moronic domestic outfor Cowboy Poetry/NPR and the like is worthless money. Our Special Forces in Pakistan are WORTH the money.

Dixie Pixie| 10.10.11 @ 8:29PM

O..T.. I am not disagreeing with your major point.

I am simply pointing out the USA no longer has the funds for military luxuries.
Cutbacks must be made.
Where, When and How Much is why we have military professionals.

The military brass knows where to cut given a set level of funding.
Of course rivers of ink will flow defending each service and branch from the cuts.
Expect a great deal of further discussion.

Rich Rostrom| 10.7.11 @ 2:36PM

Mr. Wittman is wrong. As other commenters have noted, the U.S. being drained and destroyed by its involvement with foreign countries.

Therefor the U.S. should end all involvement with foreign countries.

We should recall all our troops stationed overseas, and cancel all treaties with foreign governments,. And also:

* Liquidate all foreign investments by Americans.
* Liquidate, confiscate, or repudiate all foreigners' investments in the U.S.
* Ban so-called free trade with all foreign countries.
* Expel all aliens from the U.S. including so-called "resident aliens".
* Prohibit any entry of foreigners into the U.S., including so-called "refugees"
* Sever all telecommunications links to foreign countries.
* Jam all foreign radio and television broadcasts into the U.S.
* Deploy armed patrols off our coasts with orders to destroy any foreign vessel.
* Build impenetrable barriers along our land borders with Canada and Mexico.

This program would be ruinously expensive, and enforcing it would largely abolish our domestic liberties.

But anything less would leave the U.S. dangerously exposed to subversion by the gangsters and dictators that will take over most of the world if the strongest champion of law and freedom gives up. Also swamped by refugees from tyranny and its associated miseries, and exposed to crime and disease.

Or maybe Mr. Wittman is right. Maybe the U.S. is irretrievably entangled with the world at large, and the only practical way to protect ourselves against the evils of the world is to fight them wherever they are.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:32PM

Rich, you clever clever man.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 3:08PM

In matters of “war and peace” given its importance over every other matter for any nation and its prominence in our Constitutional outline of responsibilities for the Federal government I take a very pragmatic approach to the subject. I have no interest in theories and what if scenarios as justifications for or against this nation’s defense posture. Many people try to make a good living off of trying to change the past with both. Many try to do the same with the future by ignoring the past. Both are fools.

Fortress America was built upon one simple fact that has since pasted into history along with all the rest of the theories and what if scenarios you find on the ash heap of history. That fact was that there was no nation or means to threaten the United States across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. With the Atlantic being nominally 3500 miles across and the Pacific well over 7000 miles to the nearest possible threat, time and space were the principle factors allowing this Nation to maintain a somewhat isolationist view of the rest of the world. That fact, not the principled stances of politicians gave this nation time and space to grow and mature into what it is today. George Washington could afford to say what he said in his farewell address because the newly birthed nation hadn’t the resources to contest any major power in Europe and only two nations had the means to even get to our Nation’s shores. The Quai-French naval war and the war of 1812 demonstrate the folly of unilateral foreign policies built upon wishful thinking. Britain and France had the demonstrated means, just not the will.

The core tenets of the various flavors of isolationism running around our political landscape are built upon one part wishful thinking and one part willful ignorance of the past. The strident followers of this thinking have nothing but hope and change to offer in a world where substance tends to rule. The Iso-bots have a cut and paste quote for every situation but no answers of substance for all the failures of their polices throughout history. If isolation as a principle should work for us why didn’t it work for Europe prior to 1939? The Chinese prior to 1933? Why hasn’t it worked for Israel over the last 63 years? Israel took territory in 1967 after two previous wars where those territories were used to launch attacks into Israel and forces were massed on their borders again. Perhaps the Iso-bots should move and live in Israel and put their theories and lives on the line there first before they have the rest of us commit suicide. If Israel is too hot to handle then Kuwait, Sudan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iraq and Afghanistan are all fun loving places where Rodney King’s concept of getting along don’t work too well. Poland was such a place prior to 1939 too. They were occupied by both the Nazis and the Russians. As was several other lessor European countries that tried to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the rest of the world. History is full of the failures of this Iso-bot concept that many see as an infallible principle of life. Two very large oceans and our separation from the rest of the world made a world of difference until that no longer mattered starting in the early part of the last century.

Starting in WWI the means to project massed lethal force beyond the horizon was developed that changed the nature of warfare forever. Between the crude biplanes and Zeppelins produced in that war the means to bypass standing armies and attack population centers or industries came into being. WWII extended that capability into a massed effect capable of doing more damage in a single day than land armies took weeks to do before. By the end of WWII the means to project lethal force hundreds of miles without risking men to deliver such force was well on its way into our lives. The invention of a crude atomic bomb by today’s standards turned a single large bomber or long range rocket into weapons capable of killing in one attack more people than of ours that died in WWI. Land armies are helpless against such threats but fleets of ships and Air Forces can’t occupy a Nation that contains such threats either. It took us years to build the bases necessary to get within range of Japan so that planes that could fly thousands of miles round trip could drop but a single bomb to wipe out a few square miles of a Japanese city. This nation spent over 50% of its GDP for four years fighting an all-out war we did not start and were ill prepared to fight because the Iso-bots of that time practiced what the current Iso-bots want to return to in the age of ballistic missiles and atomic weapons 10 times the power of the ones we dropped on Japan and small enough to be delivered by FedEx to our front door. What do the Iso-bots offer as a response to the way the world really is today? They ignore the past failures of their ideology, current nature of threats and put forth theories of how all the past mistakes could have been prevented if we had kept our noses out of everyone else business, including the Nazis and the Communists whose stated goal was worldwide domination by both overt and covert means. To add insult to injury they would abandon hundreds of billions invested in bases and facilities over the last 60 years outside this country that are necessary logistic points else we have no means to project convention power for any length of time. Anyone that thinks our Navy can operate effectively from our continental and few territorial bases and that the Air Force can operate at all outside the continental US and its territories is beyond ignorant and delusional. Simply put the United States proper and its national interests cannot be defended from the continental US. That belief failed several times in the last century using crude means compared to what exist today. Sane people said Japan would be insane to attack us at Pearl Harbor (let alone the Philippines). Sane people said Hitler would be insane to start a war in Europe he could not win. Sane people said Saddam Hussein would be insane to attack Kuwait and Iran with twice the population of Iraq. Similarly sane people say North Korea would be insane to start another war on the Korean peninsula. Sane people don’t blow up one of their enemies naval frigates and shell one of their populated islands unless they think they can get away with it and do. If what sane people think ruled the world the history of the world would not be defined by its wars.

To the extent this Nation has engaged in foreign adventures of folly is not in itself an indictment of the need to deal with the threats before they reach our shores. If you send one engine company to a fire in the Sears Tower and hundreds of people die because you didn’t send or have enough fire trucks and fireman you blame the Fire Department for the failure? Our military is a tool just like the Fire and Police Departments. If we ask it to do something it doesn’t have the resources to do that doesn’t mean the mission was invalid or that the military is at fault for trying to do what we ask them to do within the limitations we as a Nation impose upon them. Since WWII we have perfected folly in a way. The Iso-bots use those adventures and failures as an excuse for not only withdrawing from the world but will at every chance diminish what military capability and capacity we have. The question the Iso-bots can’t answer is if we can’t subdue a 4th rate nations like North Korea in 1950, the same in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the same in Iraq and Afghanistan today all of whom have a tiny fraction of our population, wealth and industrial capacity for war what would make a sane person think we can actually protect this nation from larger more advanced threats from the shores of our own territory? The Iso-bot response to this is always the same. What sane person would attack us? It will be a very hard slog before we can achieve the Bang for the Buck that OBL achieved on 9/11/2001 with just 19 volunteers. Clearly OBL was insane.

Nick| 10.7.11 @ 3:26PM

For those who wrongly believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom is partly (or mostly) responsible for our current economic malaise, please educate yourselves and read:

http://www.americanthinker.com.....s_not.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....mulus-act/

It is the implementation of liberal policies by President Downgrade, and the rejection of conservative principles by President Bush, that are responsible for this double-dip recession. Not OIF and OEF.

Those who believe such things are in the same boat with San Fran Nan Pelosi, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Keith Olbermann-child.
You'd better bring enough tin-foil for everyone!

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 3:54PM

The President who said in his Farwell address something to the effect of beware of the military industrial complex…. also signed into law defense authorization budgets nearly twice what they are today as a percentage of GDP for most of his two terms in office and maintained defense forces substantially larger than today. That trend continued after he left until another 750,000 troops were added to the total forces for Vietnam and then declined back down to the levels before that with diminished funding and capabilities in decline. All Reagan did was to spend the money to make up for the lack of modernization with the same force levels. From 1988 on our defense spending has been closer to pre Pearl Harbor levels and that isn’t the half the story because Pre Pearl Harbor we had been mobilizing for war and expanding the total force levels for two years.

With two trillion of the Federal budget going to “welfare programs” or nearly 14% of GDP and rising and them combined with all the additional billions for the same from each state perhaps we should focus on which is more important to the survival of this Republic, a defense force actually capable of defending the Republic or having two thirds of the Federal budget consumed on wealth transfers from those who pay the taxes to those that don’t? If we can’t afford 100 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan each a year (.68 of 1 percent of GDP each) I can assure you we can’t defend this nation from the Mexican Cartels . They have more funds to spend on arms and our government is their chief supplier of arms.

Nick| 10.7.11 @ 5:32PM

Thom,

Agreed. FDR gutted the military to help pay for his foolishness.

If 'Peanut Brain' Carter had won a second term (yikes!) he would have slashed the military to the point where the Soviets probably would have been strongly tempted to invade Western Europe. They possibly would've even launched a first-strike, given how hard-line some of their generals and Politburo members were, at the time.

Weakness, actual or perceived, encourages attack. Always.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 6:19PM

The North Koreans committed two acts of war and what happened? Why did nothing happen? Why did South Korea not strike them back with their technologically superior but much smaller force? Because they don't have the means and they spend more on "defense" than we do as a percentage of their GDP. The South has no navy to speak of and their Air Force is smaller than Israel’s. The whole fallacy of having only a “defensive” force stands before our eyes in South Korea and Taiwan. The North spends a bit more on “defense” than the South and they aren’t afraid to commit acts of war because they know the South is a paper Tiger and can’t sustain an offensive capability without our considerable help and we won’t thus the perceived or real weaknesses there edges us toward war with each passing year. We are so committed to not being in a war there that we overlook obvious acts of war. Do this long enough in front of any adversary and they may “feel lucky” some early am morning…. Perception is reality in such matters. 50,000,000 died in WWII because perceptions were way out of line with reality in important places.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 6:36PM

" The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion)."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 7:02PM

Clint "cut and paste". When you adjust what other currencies buy vs ours those unconverted UDS comparisons turn out to be bunk. We pay people living in what we call "poverty" over $15,000 a year while that same USD amount sent to China would allow who every got it to live like Kings by comparison. When you are willing to move to China and Russia and live off what your job pays there get back to us. The same can of Campbell’s Chicken soup produced there cost a fraction of what it cost here. Same Chicken, water and can. Their bullets will kill you just as dead as ours. The only differences is that ours cost 10 times as much.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:43PM

Thanks, Nick.

Nick| 10.8.11 @ 7:23PM

No problemo, Occam.
(I threw in a little Spanish lingo there, as Rush would say. Ha-ha!)

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:37PM

Well, on matters of security large and small...

"The best Dee-fense is a good Oh-ffense"---Mel, the Cook on Alice.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:26AM

Correct as usual, Nick.

Mike L| 10.7.11 @ 4:05PM

Our current foreign policy has not worked in the best interest of the American citizenry. Although, the ideals you promote do seem morally sound. They also come with unintentional consequences.

Intervening in other sovereign nations affairs has actually weakened our credibility abroad. We have a tendency to mistakenly support individuals in positions of authority in other countries who more often then not become tomorrows enemies. For example, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, even Osama Bin Laden.

The entangling alliances we find ourselves in do not serve the best interests of those we serve, the American People.

Although Isolationism seems scary to those who have much to lose from it's implementation. It will actually be of benefit to our own people. I would support a psuedo application of this policy.

For example, a non-interventionalist foreign policy, but without the constraints on foreign trade.

Simply put, it is better to bring our troops home from overseas and focus on Homeland Defense. Rather than focus on a foreign offense. We as a nation should be doing everything we can to make sure our troops are not exposed to danger unless it is absolutely necessary.

It is folly to believe that we should be the policeman of the world, it is how all empires have fallen from grace. they over extend their reach, and demoralize their troops in the process.

That is why Ron Paul gets more campaign contributions from active duty military personnel than any other GOP candidate COMBINED.
Even more than our sitting president.

They have a sent a loud a clear message to the American People. Bring us home....NOW.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 4:40PM

“Our current foreign policy has not worked in the best interest of the American citizenry. Although, the ideals you promote do seem morally sound. They also come with unintentional consequences.”

You are entitled to your opinion but a majority of elected representatives in Congress have voted for and funded everything our Presidents have done with rare exception. Doing nothing also has unintended consequences too. History is full of examples if you need a list.

Mike L| 10.7.11 @ 5:42PM

@Thom. Yes and you are entitled to yours as well. I understand where you are coming from. History is full of monsters.
Just so you know, I am not anti-war. I believe in the Just War Theory. It's just these current conflicts do not follow those guidelines at all. Especially the Jus in Bellow .

I am not advocating ignoring histories monsters, but I am also not advocating creating them in the first place. But where is the balance in all this?

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 6:52PM

Mike L,
Just so you know, I’m not pro war. My generation had its “war” and we lost while winning all the battles the enemy chose to fight on their terms. War is the end result of differences that cannot be reconciled by peaceful means. The fallen nature of man can’t be perfected. The same nature that will cause a man to sacrifice himself for others will also drive him to want dominion over others. Same instincts drive both. You want “balance” don’t be on the losing side then. Just Wars is a clarian call to always let the other guy throw the first punch. The first punch in our time can kill millions in the blink of an eye. I really don’t think the dead care much for whether or not the “war” was just or not.

You won’t find me in the corner that thinks “watching the paint” dry in these low intensity defensive conflicts (less than war) is the only option on the table. I’m on record as stating I’m not for being involved in such adventures where we aren’t willing to commit the necessary forces to achieve decisive results. I’m also on record as saying that you win the overwhelming bulk of wars by killing the enemy faster than they can replace them, quickly. It is an open question as to whether our force pool size drives our failed strategies or political concerns. Some of both seem to be at work.

No sane person wants “war” including this one. The problem of course is that small wars are better than large ones. Those in the know will tell you that all this about preventing an even larger war down the road. I can assure you the one down the road will meet your standards of “just” but it will also be enormously costly at every level. The question then becomes how many people have to die before your “just cause” standard is satisfied? No sane person can really answer that question.

Nick| 10.7.11 @ 5:43PM

Mike L.,

"For example, a non-interventionalist foreign policy, but without the constraints on foreign trade."

Your statement shows that you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

How can you have no "constraints on foreign trade" and, simultaneously, have "a non-interventionalist foreign policy"?

Why would any American invest in, or set-up a company in a foreign country if they could not depend on the protection of U.S. diplomacy and force? Why would any American travel to another nation if they couldn't depend on the intervention of their country?

Mike L| 10.7.11 @ 6:14PM

Nick, the definition of non-interventionism is this.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense.

There would still be diplomacy.

But show me where in the Constitution it states that we should protect the interests of Corporations by using force? Especially on sovereign nations?

Nick| 10.7.11 @ 7:07PM

Mike L.,

"There would still be diplomacy."

Diplomacy without the real threat of force behind it is feckless and toothless.

"But show me where in the Constitution it states that we should protect the interests of Corporations by using force?"

So, President Jefferson was wrong to fight the Barbary Pirate Wars on behalf of American merchants? He must not have understood the Constitution, huh? Even though James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was his Secretary of State?

Was President McKinley wrong to participate in the Eight-Nation Alliance, to protect American interests, during the Boxer Rebellion? Was President Coolidge wrong to send U.S. gunboats into the Chinese interior to protect American missionaries and merchants? Or, when he intervened in Nicaragua?

Was President Reagan wrong to intervene in Nicaragua or El Salvador?

Where ever Americans do business (which is everywhere) they will need to be protected.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 7:17PM

I would add Nick that the people who came, to what became this nation, in 1607 have been trading around the world since day one. We cannot grow without international trade and we cannot satisfy our needs or wants without it either. Jefferson's actions went against his stated positions until his hands were on the yoke of power and would be held accountable for not exercising his responsibilities to protect American interest both at home and abroad. The central purpose of the Federal government is to deal with external matters while the “several states” deal with domestic matters. That point gets lost with those that want the Federal government to become just another “state” government which in many ways it has to the determent of the enumerated responsibilities of the Federal government as established.

Mike L| 10.7.11 @ 10:24PM

Nick,

"Diplomacy without the real threat of force behind it is feckless and toothless."

Maybe, but this is the United States of America we are talking about. We once led by example, and our famous motto "Don't tread on me." is a perfect example. We can be peaceful and maintain our pure Constitutional ideals, leading the world by example. And on the same side of the coin also put the fear in any country who decided to cross us by having the World's greatest military.

And we are opening up a can of worms with this comparing Jefferson to Reagan thing. But here I go:

Jefferson did the right thing. piracy against American shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance with France. Diplomacy failed with the Sultanate of Morocco, Algiers and Tripoli. (how ironic)

The irrationality of Muslim politics was key in the break down of words. The crisis was instrumental in the formation of the US Navy, it was the first congressional authorization of force without a Declaration of War.

Jefferson had no choice, pay ransom and lose face? Or defend Americans from being held hostage.

I agree with what he did. But Reagan however.That is a whole other story. Nicaragua did nothing wrong to the People of the United States. No the US was the aggressor for El Savador. And the US claimed collective Self-Defense. It was later found that the US was guilty of violating international law. The first judgement had 291 points! Do I really need to mention Iran-Contra?

You should read "When Corporations Rule the World" and get back to me. It is a great read

Nick| 10.8.11 @ 2:15PM

Mike L.,

"And on the same side of the coin also put the fear in any country who decided to cross us by having the World's greatest military."

How'd that work out for us in November of 1979, in Tehran?

"Diplomacy failed with the Sultanate of Morocco, Algiers and Tripoli."

President Adams didn't use diplomacy, he practiced appeasement. He paid bribes, or tribute as they called it; which led to more piracy. I'm no big fan of Thomas Jefferson, but, he did stand up to those Moslem thieves.

"[...] it was the first congressional authorization of force without a Declaration of War."

The first of many (although, the Undeclared Naval War with France was the first.) The U.S. of A. has declared war only 11 times in our 235 history. We have used military force over 2,000 times.

Should I assume from your silence that you don't have a problem with the interventions of Presidents McKinley and Coolidge?

"Nicaragua did nothing wrong to the People of the United States. No the US was the aggressor for El Savador [sic]."

Wrong. The Soviets were trying to establish another foothold in the West, like they had in Cuba 20 years earlier. President Reagan not only had the right to intervene, he had the duty to stop the evil from spreading. In El Salvador, the communist coup of October, 1979, had led to over 10, 000 deaths by the time of President Reagan's inauguration.

"It was later found that the US was guilty of violating international law. The first judgement had 291 points!"

I am shocked, shocked I tell you!, that the ICJ would rule in favor of a communist regime, and against the United States. You left out the fact that when a legitimate government finally gained control of Nicaragua, they withdrew the complaint, in 1992.

"Do I really need to mention Iran-Contra?"

No laws were broken in either case. Mr. Poindexter's and Colonel North's convictions were both overturned, which means they were innocent in the eyes of the law. Both men were persecuted by the corrupt democrat IC, Larry Walsh.

All of this misses my main point. Which is that the U.S. is obligated to protect her citizens, even in foreign countries. This is the purpose for diplomacy, first and foremost, and when it has been exhausted, then the credible threat of force is required.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:49PM

I gotta tell ya, if Teheran gets nuked, that will solve a lot of problems. It will demonstrate a certain resolve.

This is the Big Leagues, not tiddleywinks or club rugby.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:04PM

Brilliant as usual, Nick.

Nick| 10.8.11 @ 6:42PM

Thanks Occam.

I consider that high-praise, coming from someone of your intellect and education.
Shalom and be well.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:27AM

Thank you, sir (Nick).

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:04PM

You know, I worked with one of the Grenadan medical students Reagan had rescued. He was VERY grateful for that day, I will tell you.

I doubt a President Paul would have ordered the Grenadan rescue.

Nick| 10.8.11 @ 6:59PM

Occam's Tool,

I think non-interventionists believe that anyone who travels abroad is on their own. Or, that President Reagan should have been impeached for violating the Constitution, because he didn't declare war on Granada.

They're slippery, these NIVs. Whenever you try to pin them down on their doctrine, they change their criteria.

I guess that I could say that they are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, the Laws of Nations, and how the English Common Law developed over time. But, that might be considered to harsh. Ha-ha!

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:28AM

You know, I think bad cases make bad law, Nick. This fellow Al-Awlaki was a vicious scumbag and we had reams of public data on his scumbaggery. We wereNEVER going to be able to get him to trial.

Obvioulsy, if we have them, then military tribunals is the thing. But scratching this guy off makes sense.

Nick| 10.10.11 @ 12:37PM

Occam's Tool,

Agreed. We didn't send the F.B.I. to get Hitler, we sent Patton's Third Army. If, by some fluke, we had happened to capture Al-Awlaki, then, by all means, we should've tried him by military commission.

This hypothetical trial could have been completed in a few days, and after his conviction, he should have been hanged by the neck until dead, dead, dead. (As we used to say in the heyday of this great country.)

This was one of the biggest mistakes of President Bush's administration. We should not have treated every unlawful enemy combatant as if they all had crucial intelligence to impart to us. If we had hanged a few dozen of these jihadis in 2003/04, the insurgency in Iraq might have ended much sooner. Better yet, we should have started in 2001, in Afghanistan.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:41PM

Hmmm...so, American taxpayers pay money to buy, say, Pfizer stocks. Pfizer sets up (pre-Hugo) a plant in Venezuala to squeeze the local toads to get a muscle paralyzer for use in surgery.

Hugo comes on board, nationalizes the plant, and kills multiple civilian employees of Pfizer who are US citizens. This is met by a "caveat emptor" by President Paul?

Don't think that will fly among the Bocephus fans in 'Bama, Mike L. No sir, and I may know 'em better than you.

john dubose| 10.7.11 @ 4:06PM

This article is too darned vague. The wars we get into ought to be debated one at a time in congress. Then ( as a nation and not just the president ) we decide how to handle each one.
That is hard work and no doubt scarry to congresscriters. We need to fire the ones who fail to do it anyway.

As for Afganistan and Iraq.. time to exit explaining that if they do not behave, we will blast them good.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 4:34PM

Tell me which "wars" we got involved in that weren't debated in Congress and funded by? Please just one outside of Libyia?

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 7:49PM

Hey Tom, all wars after 1941 HAVE NOT been "declared" by Congress making them illegal and unconstitutional despite so called debate and funded.

I guess fake Republicans love pissing on the Constitution as the Left do as long as it fits their agenda.

So much for the rule of law. That is what Ron Paul would bring to the table as President. The Constitution doesn't give the President the ability to rule the world by FORCE.

I strongly support the non-interventionist policy abroad and at home with our people. If war is necessary, the Constitution must be followed and declared by Congress.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 8:01PM

See my comment at 7:53 to you below and answer the question if you can?

btw the people running China and Russia also " strongly support the non-interventionist policy abroad". They are the benefactors of that.

Mal_Content| 10.8.11 @ 3:59PM

"btw the people running China and Russia also strongly support the non-interventionist policy abroad". They are the benefactors of that."

So you believe that we must maintain our foreign presence costing billions if not trillions of dollars to prevent the possibility of putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage?

Should I also cut off my nose to spite my face?

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 4:30PM

You appreciate the difference between the spending .68 of 1 percent of GDP for each of Iraq and Afghanistan at their height and spending over 50% of GDP per year as we did in WWII because of people who think like you do? In 2011 adjusted dollars we spent hundreds of billions before WWII on defense and then spent trillions by comparison to fix what ignoring the problem didn’t seem to cure. We spent four years island hopping and building logistic bases across the pacific just to get within range of Japan. We invested hundreds of billions in bases in England to do the same against Germany. Do you have even a feeble understanding what giving up our bases in Europe and the Western Pacific would mean in terms of our capability to project any conventional military power beyond our shores? Any? Of course that is precisely your goal in the first place. A child like understanding of the world as it exists , is a dangerous thing.

If you have a “beef” with the decisions of the elected majority take that up with them. Making a baseless point about what we spend without putting that in context of what that expense is compared to our total expenses is not going to win any converts. The last time I looked this Nation spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year producing morons that can tell the difference between a billion and a trillion.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:50PM

The Moro war was undeclared, I believe.

Ron Paul Books| 10.7.11 @ 4:18PM

Here we go, another idiot in the media slandering Ron Paul with the word 'Isolationists' -- It's called non-interventionism buddy. Huge difference in meaning. Please learn the difference before writing another hit peace on Ron Paul. Not sure a chicken-hawk like yourself will, so look up who the men and women in the military give the most donations too first. Thanks.

Solo| 10.7.11 @ 4:52PM

Oh please! Spare us your sophomoric euphemisms.
He's an isolationist. Live with it!

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 6:19PM

Do Your Homework Before You Run Your Uninformed Big Mouth, Israel Firster.

" Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Dick Nome| 10.7.11 @ 6:37PM

You are an anti-Semetic bigot and your guy is an isolationist. Suck it up dude.

Clint| 10.7.11 @ 7:23PM

You're A Slandering Liar Israel Firster Asskisser.

Dick Nome| 10.8.11 @ 7:16AM

Thank you, 'Seig Heil" to you too.

Clint| 10.8.11 @ 8:34AM

Uh Oh !

The Israel Firster Dick Attempts To Play The Nazi Card On Tea Party Clint.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:53PM

You are an antisemite, Clint. And I would not trust my children's safety with you. That I believe that a man is untrustworthy of caring for a child's safety is the most vicious slam I can hit them with---indicating that I do not believe you are fit for civilized society.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:51PM

Clint: I am not arguing that your boy will deny trade to the Islamists. I am arguing that he will not stop the spread of sharia. Please give me one example of his concern with the spread of sharia law in the US.

Solo| 10.9.11 @ 3:24PM

I have done my homework, Clint.

Name for me one nation, anywhere in the world, which meets the narrowly defined criteria laid out by the Paulbots to define "Isolationism". Hell....even North Korea trades diplomats!

Ron Paul wants to withdraw our troops from strategic points around the world.
He objects to NAFTA...to CAFTA (both are "Free Trade" agreements).
And...he wants a return to the Gold Standard which, if undertaken, will eventually eliminate almost all trade with other nations--because they aren't going to go on the gold standard. And the RuPaul knows that!

Now...if you're not going to engage in diplomacy for the sake of mutual protection from existential threats...and you're not going to be trading...then what in the hell do you need diplomats for?

So...there you have it. The Trifecta of isolationism--even by your own standards.

Ron Paul is an isolationist. Plain and simple!

miguel| 10.10.11 @ 1:25AM

Better to be, as you say, an "isolationist" than a imperialistic empire destine for self destruction. Please give us specific historical examples of imperialistic empires that survived and did not self-destruct...or are you a just spouting your own flavor of "sophomoric euphemisms"?

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:42PM

Well, the Byzantine empire lasted a thousand years---and fell apart when it ceased to be properly aggressive and unified.

Wayne| 10.7.11 @ 4:21PM

I am tired of the lies. When George Bush went into Iraq he said No Nation building, and that Iraq oil would pay for our action. Well he did get involved in neocon nation building and we didn't get a gallon of Iraq oil.
We didn't learn a thing from Viet Nam. Ron Paul at least did. We should NOT be the world's policeman. China doesn't get involved in these conflicts and they have come out smelling like a rose.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 4:31PM

"When George Bush went into Iraq he said No Nation building, and that Iraq oil would pay for our action"

Can you prove either of those with statements he actually said in context?

Wayne| 10.9.11 @ 11:19AM

I go by my memory. If you doubt it, then prove otherwise.

Wayne| 10.9.11 @ 11:24AM

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

5 years ago
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

5 years ago
State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

5 years ago

Thom| 10.9.11 @ 11:47AM

Wayne,
Did Bush say any of this? Can you cite any offical source that breaks down what part of the money we spent went to "reconstruction" vs. military operations? The military gets paid for their time regardless of the task. I suspect Iraq did pay for the bulk of the reconstruction since no one ever reports on what the Iraqis spend their money.

miguel| 10.10.11 @ 1:35AM

Thank you Wayne for stating the obvious. They did learn things from Vietnam. Like, control the press. And, eliminate personal freedom in order to control the masses. That about covers it, ya think?

Liberty74| 10.7.11 @ 7:38PM

What a load of BS from this author!!!

Seriously, unless one believes in illegal and unConstitutional wars that kill innocent lives while leaving mothers and children fatherless AND causing more terrorism in the process, you are labeled an "Isolationist?"

Where in the Constitution does it give a President to circumvent the rule of law to launch wars? We have not declared war since 1941 people. Wake up!

So many Republicans are fake conservatives and love pissing on the Constitution.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 7:53PM

"We have not declared war since 1941 people. Wake up!"

And every undeclared "war" has been approved and funded by the very elected body that has the power to make it a "declared war". Just how would have declaring war changed the outcome of Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan? You know the phrase, “a difference without a distinction” or if you like “a distinction without a difference” applies here. Not liking the outcome of a Congressional vote is one matter; making pointless statements is another.

Quartermaster| 10.7.11 @ 8:44PM

Sorry Thom, but it won't wash. A declaration of war has a different meaning that a simple authorization of military force (AUMF). A declaration of war is an act to mobilize the country, it's manpower, and its natural and industrial resources to fight what is perceived to be an existential threat. That differed from the acts that took us into Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Military was mobilized for Korea, but only marginally expanded (calling up reserve components does not fall under this head). The Army and Marine Corps were greatly expanded for Vietnam, while the Air Force and Navy pretty much maintained their numbers as they were already fairly large to begin with and could not be conveniently expanded very quickly (they still have this problem and why it is alarming that their numbers and equipment are being allowed to decline). Desert Storm was the last hurrah of the Cold War military and the military saw only a short term expansion that is now being frittered away.

An AUMF allows the situation we have now. As one wag put it so well, "The USMC is at war. America is at the mall." That would not have applied in 1918, 1943, or 1951, but it sure does now. If you want real isolationism, that is what it looks like. Because eventually you will have the USMC back at Lejune and Pendleton, when they really do need to be out fighting. Instead, we are simply expending ourselves instead of actually fighting to defend our interests.

People like Solo may smear Paul, and other non-interventionists like the left-wingers they are, but their day is ending. Not because their smears don't work, but because the country won't be able to pay for it. That DoD is not the real money sink is immaterial. Our military power can not be maintained with a 3rd world economy. And the combination of wars of policy and power politics has added to the economic drag on this country. The money that has spent on Iraq and Afghanistan has been borrowed.

If Solo thinks Paul is an isolationist, then he will have to live with the term warmonger. If he doesn't like being smeared himself, then he needs to grow up and obtain a bit of political sophistication so he can actually call something by its real name. Otherwise he's just a naive liar.

Thom| 10.7.11 @ 9:16PM

Gee, I’m trying to figure out what your point here is? Perhaps you missed the point that a declaration of war gives the President greatly expanded powers, ones that would drive most Iso-bots to piss themselves twelve times a day just for starters. No Congress since WWII has been willing to give such power to any President and no President since WWII has asked for one so what is the problem here if you don’t mind me asking? It takes the same number of votes to get AUMF through Congress as it does to declare war. I really don’t think semantics has any real thing to do with your concerns.

POST American| 10.8.11 @ 12:18AM

"You will be hearing that Communism
(ie 'CALM--you---nism) ----is 'dead'.
DO NOT believe it."
-Mikhail Gorbachev
1990

"DO you Americans understand?
You ARE now A-MAL-game-mated.
Foreign troops operate on your soil.
Former STASI and KGB fill the ranks
of the Globalist CIA, the FBI and
sundry other security outfits.
Hundreds of thousands of foreigners,
awaiting green cards, fill your services.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND what's
happening to you----? ---DO YOU?"
-ALAN WATT
2011
(essential online coverage)

----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012----------

FeralCat| 10.8.11 @ 5:24AM

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available. - Ronald Reagan

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 2:02PM

What would Ronald Reagan done after 9/11?

John II| 10.8.11 @ 3:05PM

Those are great words, Our Ron's four points. But in the context of this appropriately contentious issue, notice that each of these four points of judgment contains terms sorely in need of definition and argument whenever the points are applied to any concrete situation. I believe the consequent public contention is one indisputable mark of residual greatness in America.

Meanwhile, perhaps we should all be at least ruefully grateful that America's continual military entanglements since World War II have given us the most flexible and experienced military on earth, against which the world's various punks and bigger-league People's Armies really are paper tigers--rather a hedge against the likely consequences of our cultural decline.

And now back to "The Longest Day" (1962), an unsentimental paean to human endurance, made decades before the culture had become soft enough to produce such navel-gazing whine-fests as "Platoon" (1986) and "Saving Private Ryan" (1998).

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 3:32PM

John II, read my comments below. When such matters can be made to fit a cookie cutters template I'm all for that. Unfortunately our enemies always seem to play by a different set of rule specifically designed to foil our simplistic template approach.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 5:56PM

John II---I believe that Stephen Ambrose thought that the OPENING of Private Ryan was brilliant, but the rest sucked.

As usual, I concur with you.

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 3:28PM

The thrust of what FerralCat posted at 5:24 AM as attested to Ronald Reagan I happen to support whole heartedly but….. note the multiple conditions upon which force is to be applied are based. Most are quite subjective in nature. We didn’t set subjective terms for the ending of WWII with Germany and Japan. Our demands for an “unconditional surrender” explicitly carried with it our intent to occupy them and change the way things got done in those nations and we did at great cost. Had Germany and Japan not been occupied how do you think that would have turned out a decade or so down the road. You can occupy Nation states because they can’t scurry across the border into another Nation State generally. It would be difficult to see how we issue a similar demand in this kind of war and it have any impact on the outcome. Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11 but the international criminal organization that did was centered there and their protection force, the Taliban was running the place thus the only way we could influence their future actions was to go to where they were. Ron Paul voted for the actions that put us in Afghanistan so I’d like to see his official statement on what his expectations and by what means we were to meet the conditions Reagan outlined in his time not 2001 time. Reagan didn’t have to deal with a direct attack on the US that cost 3000 lives carried out by people that call no Nation their home.

I have asked people in high places direct questions on why we didn’t attack Afghanistan with sufficient forces to surround, cut off and kill the bulk of the Taliban in 2001. That is a standard military doctrine when it can be accomplished. To date I have not got an answer but I do know the bulk of the reason(s) and it relates to our inability to satisfy one of the implied conditions laid out in Reagan’s conditions. It is not subjective in nature either. Our operation there was a text book example of economy of force. Economy of force is used normally chosen when you want to put maximum effort somewhere else or lack the capability or capacity to do otherwise. It is an open question as to why that was the choice in 2001.

I have asked people in high places similar questions about why we lost in Vietnam. Some try to convince me that we “won” and then I ask them if that black monument with 58,000 names on it is our victory monument to a Free and Democratic South Vietnam…… We didn’t defeat the primary enemy in Vietnam, the NVA and they came back and defeated our proxy in the South when we left. How is that a “win” given what the stated mission goal was?

Same question for Korea. Truman ordered MacAuthur into Korea knowing he didn’t have the available forces to conduct a protracted campaign and win if the Chinese backed the North Koreans. When MacArthur broke out of encirclement at Pusan by out maneuvering the North Korean forces Truman didn’t stop those forces at the 38th parallel in order to restore the status quo. He allowed our forces to approach the Yalu river in pursuit of the North Korean forces in order to finish them. When several hundred thousand Chinese (three times the size of the North Korean army) crossed the river and attacked south it was not their intentions to stop at the 38 parallel either. That’s when Truman found a need to turn defeat into victory by settling for an armistice and the status quo that plagues us to this day.

The same Economy of force was used to take down Iraq. The commanding General in both Afghanistan and Iraq’s initial take downs said quite clearly afterwards that winning the peace would be the hardest part of the entire operation. It took over three years for common sense in sufficient numbers to make an appearance in Iraq and positive results to emerge. When we leave no one knows how Iraq will turn out with regard to being our allie or enemy.

All the above “wars” have a common failing that is central to being able to satisfy the most critical component of Reagan’s outline for the use of military force. Can anyone figure out what it is? It is not leadership, strategy, will power or skillset based. Those things can be corrected and adjusted as needed but the missing ingredient is fundamental to the successful conclusion of any military operation on this scale regardless of how the others play out. Without it all else becomes moot over time. It is right in front of your eyes.

Reagan violated his own rules on several levels when he went into Lebanon but he also violated the fundamental one that governs all else.

John II| 10.8.11 @ 5:22PM

Okay, I've read your interesting post several times, Thom. Here's my guess. If the culprit has nothing to do with leadership, strategy, will, or skill, I guess the missing ingredient in all those military adventures has been commitment, as outlined in point #2. Since World War II, American military "commitment" has been "halfway and tentative."

If so, my guess is that we're still living with the consequences of using conscripted forces to fight Korea and Vietnam. As a draftee in the Vietnam era, I saw up close what can happen to leadership, strategy, will, and skill when your forces are there involuntarily serving disputable political goals. Our Ron's (actually, Cap Weinberger's, as I recall) four-point list needs a fifth: Never, ever use conscripted troops for disputable military engagements.

That trouble was taken care of in 1973, when Nixon ended the draft, thus obliterating all the "anti-war" street-protests two years before American disengagement from (read: American desertion of) Vietnam. But I think we're still living with the consequences of both. We're in the habit of fighting wars in a halfway and tentative fashion.

Just guessing. So what am I missing in front of my eyes?

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 6:44PM

There are causes and consequences or effect; Lack of commitment is certainly a driving force to some of this but the missing ingredient is material in nature. Think of the three rules of a Gun Fight (or any kind of fight you wish to fill in). The first rule is have the means, the second is the skillset and willingness (commitment) to act upon; and the third is “get a better gun” or know when you are outgunned or matched.
The 300 Spartans (and 7000 other Greeks) could not hope to stop or defeat the Persian army. They Spartans certainly had the skillset and commitment to their cause. Their cultural values made Rule 3 NA for them but not the other Greeks who retreated to fight another day. What was missing at the battle of Thermopylae as related in the Three Rules above that would have made the difference?

John II| 10.8.11 @ 7:33PM

Now I know how it feels to be one of my students. Serves me right.

For the Spartans, I believe, and regarding your three rules, nothing was missing, and the encounter at Thermopylae was a victory for Greece.

I mean, the de facto mission of the 300 was accomplished. They delayed the advance of the Persians long enough for the rest of the Greek city-states to pull together in the south for a joint resistance culminating in Darius' decisive defeat at Plataea a year later, in 479.

It helped, by the way, that most of the million-plus troops of the Persian Empire were hapless conscripts from more than a dozen mutually hostile cultures within the sprawling and prodigiously cruel Persian Empire.

But I suppose the correct answer is that the Spartans didn't have enough material, so to speak, to turn back the advancing Persians.

But again, they sure as hell had enough morale to give the bastards a permanent headache.

And now back to "Go Tell the Spartans" (1964), in which Burt Lancaster plays a hard-boiled Army major establishing a hopeless garrison with a handful of burned-out troops in Vietnam, utterly in spite of the hopelessness. The culture hadn't gone soft yet, and the liberals of those days didn't like Commies either.

"Go tell the Spartans, you who pass by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie."
--Simonides of Ceos

Damn.

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 9:14PM

Ok. I’ll spell it out. Had the 30,000 Greeks that met the 100,000 Persians at Plataea showed up at Thermopylae the Persians would never have been able to advance past them in that pass, secret bypass or not. The Greeks had the forces but chose to not commit them at Thermopylae for reasons only a politician would understand. Estimates vary all over the place as to Xerxes’s army size but something around 225,000 is considered possible for that time. Xerxes withdrew most of his army after the Athenians got through with his navy but those left to conquer Greece never the less met their end at the hands of people better skilled then they but it took numbers to do that. Beating somebody in open hand to hand combat like that with less than a third their number is still significant. And then there is Chancellorsville where a grossly smaller army routed a much larger one but could not defeat it thus nothing meaningful was accomplished in military terms for the Confederacy.

The Nation that put 12,000,000 under arms in WWII could not defeat the relatively tiny combined army of the North Koreans and Chinese over three years, both of who the Japanese wiped up the battlefield with for years to only be slaughtered by us in return because we never committed enough forces to the problem. Truman would not make that decision thus he went to the UN hat in hand looking for support for what he got us into all alone. Sound familiar? We had Air Superiority most of the time and Air Supremacy some of the time along with naval Superiority all the time and chose to fight a WWI trench/hilltop war of attrition rather than out flank and defeat the Communists in detail using all the tools in our tool box.

Same story for Vietnam. By our peak strength of 567,000 men of which not more than 60,000 were rifle toking infantry combat types or 72 battalions plus the combined forces of ARVN we outnumbered the Cong and NVA several times to one but not once in the decade we were there combined all out capability into an offensive effort to defeat the NVA on their own ground under our terms rather than fight a defensive war for 10 years on their terms. We slaughtered them by any objective standards but never did we break their will because we fought on their terms and depended on our technology to win vs overwhelm them with numbers and using technology as a force multiplier not a replacement for. They had a population of 22,000,000, we 200,000,000. No contest if we put the forces into the battle. That we had to “conscript” an army for Vietnam speaks to another problem. The qualitative differences of a “conscript” vs volunteer force are what they are but we did draft people in both WWI and WWII in large numbers. They fought well for the most part. Different time, different people.

Fast forward to Gulf War 1. A rare point in time when we had both qualitative and quantity superiority across the board and it showed. Despite the decisive results we got in Kuwait we had a “Falaise Pocket” moment and let the Republican Guard get away and that is what kept Hussein in power till 2003. We had the power and numbers at that point to both take Iraq down even if alone and occupy it with the proper force mix afterwards. That is key. The reason we didn’t finish the job then is directly related to “commitment”.

Fast forward to Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have half the forces we had in Gulf War I. We sent just enough to Afghanistan combined with the 15,000 Northern Alliance troops to rout the 45,000 Taliban but not defeat them. Think Chancellorsville. The Taliban losses are running about 3:1 against over the last decade of whatever you wish to call our efforts there. When you subtract out our causalities and non-Afghan allies the much larger Afghan army causalities become much more even compared to the Taliban. The Taliban has followed the same strategy that the NVA/Cong followed and we are trying to bleed them to death with $16 million model air planes and precision strikes. We are spending tens of billions while they spend tens of thousands.

The forces we sent to Iraq were able to take down the forces there relatively quickly because most of the Iraqi forces set in place and did not fight. Still they were adequate for the take down but as events showed we didn’t have anything like the forces (combat infantry) required occupy Iraq. At the height of the insurgency we had 135.000 of our troops, a division equivalent of security light infantry contractors and all those other allies including the British and it wasn’t enough. The 15 combat Brigades pre Surge were but 60,000 combat billets of all that. What we sent during the Surge increased our combat strength by over 33% but our total force by on 11%. We had to call up Reserve/Guard formations and train them up at considerable cost and time to pull off the Surge because we have a virtual iron clad rule that says we won’t commit more than one third of our forces at a time to keep peace in our all-volunteer force. There are downsides to having to “buy” an army.

As we draw down our forces in Iraq we have shipped most to Afghanistan that are of the suitable types. Our force pool (number and types of combat formations) has shrunk to the point where we no longer had the right type of formations for the task thus during the years that Iraq spun out of control we still had infantry poor mechanized formations in Iraq because we don’t have enough force level to a have a good mix of all the things that make up a modern military force. You don’t send Armor/Mechanized units to Afghanistan; you don’t try to take down a country had has a lot of heavy armor mechanized forces with light infantry for example.

In 2001 we didn’t have neither the right forces for the mission in Afghanistan or the ability to project enough of what we did have to defeat the Taliban thus we settled for routing them.

Simply put we didn’t have the “means” for all the above “wars” and still won’t face up that fact in our current one. We keep looking for a “cheap kill” using technology advantages in place of combat forces. The Israelis tried that not long ago and it did not work worth a shit. The rockets fell on civilian areas for a month nonstop. The force pool and our own peace time rotation rule dictates the defensive strategies we keep employing. Lack of commitment soon follows when tangible results can’t be shown for the effort. No Democracy will tolerate folly forever particularly when it becomes habit.

I don't have "Go Tell it to the Spartans". I have trouble wanting to send money to his estate even if he did play some great parts.

John II| 10.8.11 @ 11:39PM

"The force pool and our own peace time rotation rule dictates the defensive strategies we keep employing."

Okay, I think that's the heart of your argument, and I couldn't possibly agree more. Symbolically speaking, when the War Department changed its name to the Defense Department about 1947 (when I was a toddler, by the way--so I've grown up with this mindset burbling in my culture), we basically surrendered. Any high school football coach can explain in minute detail why a defensive strategy is a formula for defeat.

I'm not really arguing with you, Thom. I teach language and literature and philosophy and history, okay? Pretty worthless way to make a living, agreed. But I do it honestly and thoroughly. And I am persuaded that the soft nihilism of the West is no match for the hard nihilism of Islamic jihadism, and that we simply lucked out against the hard nihilism of fascism and communism.

I'm a literary type, largely useless except to my family. I admire the efforts of good people to resist something evil that they don't really understand. And in the military, as a teacher and a former soldier, I think morale is infinitely more consequential than materiel.

We need stronger morale, or we're finished.

John II| 10.9.11 @ 12:20AM

By the way, you're right that it was Xerxes who was defeated at Plataea; his daddy Darius was defeated at Marathon 11 years earlier. His great great grandson Darius III was defeated by Alexander a century and a half later.

I stand corrected in a devastatingly indirect way. You know, Thom, I can't keep anything straight anymore, although I hasten to add that I know the names and dispositions of all my grandchildren so far. What a strange feeling of utter inconsequence that comes with advancing years . . .

And now back to "Miracle on 34th Street" (1948), in which Edmund Gwen plays a tired old man gifted with a depository of wisdom rendered useless by vagueness about technical details.

Thom| 10.9.11 @ 11:39AM

“I teach language and literature and philosophy and history, okay? Pretty worthless way to make a living, agreed.”

The only class in college that taught me something about which I knew nothing was a Fine Arts class and my field of study is a heavy dose of logic, operational research and science of a type. What the Fine Arts class taught me wasn’t about “art” but about the advancement of civilization and how culture shapes our values. My interests in the Arts end with the Renaissance. The Arts ceased to advance after that and has generally declined. Our civilization is in decline. Look at what is considered Art these days.

I wouldn’t generally agree with your belief that what you teach is a worthless way to make a living. Classic literature has lessons for all of us and is no longer taught to our determent. All we have is about 4000 years of recorded civilization worth of lessons to draw up and most people today think all the world’s problems started when they were about 10 years old.

Much of what plagues this culture rest in our unwillingness to ask children to become adults and take on adult responsibilities. Our generation’s parents had to work full time jobs as teenagers to support their very large families. We let adults remain teenagers into their late twenties and beyond without carrying the first adult responsibility and we let them wheeled power they have no maturity for or the fiscal stake in paying for. A society full of unruly children masquerading as adults will be soft and rudderless just as real children are thus that’s why adult parents are so important to the advancement of civilization. We have children having and raising children and wonder why 30-40 something adults can’t manage money or keep a job.

I think the things you teach are important but it does take more than one class in college to put the fertile mind of a child on the right path for life. Too many adults live the lives of children and spend their days showing their arses to anyone who will gawk. We see it every day on TAS.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:43AM

Thom, a very minor point, because you could easily and correctly take me apart. Gibbon's Decline and Fall was written after the renaissance.

Christopher Wren worked after the renaissance. Don't give up hope.

Language and literature and history and philosophy properly taught (as you would John II, damn I wish I had you in college) is THE most important of classes. All else is details. Med school is deatails Titus Andronicus force fed style.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:44AM

By the way, Thom and JohnII, thanks for the civilized discussion. JohnII, where would you send a kid to college for a principled education?

John II| 10.10.11 @ 12:10PM

Well, I'm Catholic, so you have make allowances for the bias. I've sent all mine to Thomas Aquinas College. It's located in southern California (delicious irony), about ten miles inland from Ventura, on the outskirts of a small town called Santa Paula, abutting the Los Padres National Forest. Great Books curriculum. No textbooks. They start with Homer and Scripture in the freshman year and recapitulate the western intellectual tradition through Einstein and such in the senior year. It's not for everybody, I suppose, but for most (and certainly for my own kids) it's liberating in the best sense of the word.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:48PM

Yup. Or we need a Stonewall Jackson or three. Or we need a polarizing event that will put Pearl harbor to shame. Unfortunately, JohnII, that's what I think will happen.

However, I don't think we are through, yet. And the buttwhipping I forsee us giving the Islamic world after they hurt us horribly but not fatally I think will win it for us in the end. It's a shame what I think it will take, though. I think Tom Kratman has it precisely right in Caliphate. Scares me.

Clint| 10.8.11 @ 4:39PM

Ronald Reagan,
" Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 4:42PM

Clint "cut and paste dead people's quotes", can you tell us what Ronald Reagan would have done after 9/11? Please find us a Ron Paul quote to explain why he voted to violates Reagan's wisdom as you see it. Please.

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 4:53PM

If you don’t understand the question I can get it translated into one of several Iranian or Chinese dialects if that will help?

Clint| 10.8.11 @ 4:59PM

Yeah, Let's See Ya Do That Smart Mouthed Asshole ,Tommy Girl.

Clint| 10.8.11 @ 4:57PM

We Notice You Ain't Disputing What I Quoted From Ronald Reagan.

Knowing Reagan, He Would Have Gone After Al-Qaeda In Afghanistan & Stayed The Fuck Outta Iraq, Armchair Neo-Chickenhawk Tommy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:01PM

Ron's problem was that he listened to Islamophiles and went into Lebanon to protect the PLO. He should have stayed out and let the Israelis kill Arafat and destroy the PLO. Better all around.

Anytime you support the Islamists you are asking for trouble. Trying to help them is like this story about Leo Durocher: "Suppose you and Leo are on a raft. Leo falls in, and you rescue him, losing a leg to a shark in the process.

"The next day, you and Leo start off even."

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 7:18PM

He followed that up by getting between the Iraqis and Iranians in their Gulf war to protect the right of passage in international waters and got attacked by both Iraq and Iran, by Iran multiple times. Iran didn’t get the subtle message he was sending and it cost them what little navy they had, an Air Bus, a ship laying mines in the Gulf, a couple oil platforms, etc. He accepted Iraq’s excuse for firing on our Frigate even those Tankers don’t squawk military radar and sail in patterns like a warship does. Ronald Reagan violated this own rules yet again…..

Clint| 10.9.11 @ 10:56AM

Tell us all about Israel Inteligence withholding Their Intel from Our U.S. Military in Lebanon, that they were following the Mercedes Truck with the false bottom of explosives that Blew Our Marines To Hell In Their Barracks.

Youi're Up, Israel Firster.

Thom| 10.9.11 @ 11:04AM

Prove what you say happened.

Thom| 10.9.11 @ 11:08AM

One loaded heavy machine gun with orders to shoot and a couple of barracades would have prevented what happened. Did the Israelis order our troops to leave the path wide open and have not a single means to stop a VW Beatle from running into the compound? That's what happens when you enter a war zone and order your troops to act like Girl Scouts.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:36AM

We ignored Israeli intell all the way through, Clint. If we had listened to the Israelis, we never would have been there. THEY did not need our help, nor want it. Our troops were BLOWN up by the SCUMBAGS they were DEFENDING, dumbass.

Clint| 10.8.11 @ 5:14PM

"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until May of 2011."

Do Your Homework Before Ya Run Your Uninformed Armchair Neo-Chickenhawk Big Mouth.

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 5:59PM

First rule of a Paul-bot in losing an audience is to resort to name calling; second rule is to post a non-descript (nonspecific) solution. Real straight Cut-and-Paste Clint, we had to go through the Taliban to even get near OBL in 2001. They didn’t react well to that. If they had given up OBL and crew we wouldn’t be having this conversation and we wouldn’t be in AF but as long as the Taliban insist on making AF a haven for and protecting AQ and similar people the problem can’t be solved by childish wishful thinking. You do understand the concept of Overcome by Events? Nothing Ron Paul has ever proposed would have solved the AQ problem without direct military intervention in AF. Nothing. He voted for the mission as stated by Bush and you still haven’t answered the question as to how Ron Paul would have handled the mission after OBL got away? If you can’t speak to specifics you have nothing of value to add to this conversation. You are the poster child of what the Tea Party does not want as its message…..

Occam's Tool| 10.8.11 @ 6:02PM

Like your stuff, Thom. Nicely reasoned.

Thom| 10.8.11 @ 6:18PM

There may come a time when we no longer have the luxury of “reason”. You know the swamp and that alligator problem….

The views of the person(s) posting as Clint/Tim play on many of the negative stereotypes of Catholics toward “jews”. Mental illness takes many forms. His bigotry is a mile wide and deep in everything he post. Those that wish to not have the Tea Party mission and message become his message might want to consider not condoning and sitting silence while this raving bigot spews this non sense. Too much on the line to let a child show his considerable arse in public and not suffer for his pretentions of being an adult.

Clint| 10.9.11 @ 10:44AM

Uh Oh !
Neo-Chickenhawk Isreal Firster PropagandaBoy Tommy Attempts To Play The Anti-Jew Card On Tea Party Clint.

Now, Why Don't You Tell Us All About " The Catholic Stereotype Towards Jews" Tommy PropagandaBoy.

You're Up Tommy PropagandaBoy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On PropagandaBoy Tommy's Face.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:53PM

Well, I don't think it's a particularly Catholic thing, anymore. I think Clint is just an antisemitic swine. Most Catholics I know are more in Nick's line of thought. Most Tea Partiers are pro-Israel, because most know that keeping the initiative in war is invaluable. It appears that Clint has read nothing of Patton's views on the nature of war. His daddy may have served under him, but Clint is a moron.

In addition, he has a nauseating interpersonal style.

Clint| 10.9.11 @ 10:28AM

Duuuuuuhh !

Apparently, You're Overcome by Events, Plastic Pseudo-Intellect Armchair Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviator Tommy Girl.

Dr.Ron Paul Did Vote To Use Force In Afghanistan.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Armchair Neo-Chickenhawk Tommy's Face.

Thom| 10.9.11 @ 11:03AM

And we are still there 10 years later still using force and will be till 2014 and beyond , OBL is dead but the problem is no closer to being solved now then it was in Nov of 2001. Your horse wants to now cut and run.... which makes his vote to use force in 2001 a pointless gesture which is what Vietnam turned out to be . If you had anything above an infant’s brain capacity you would realize the problem in Afghanistan can’t be solved inside Afghanistan and your horse would never authorized doing what is required to defeat the Taliban. Never. Flight Surgeons know as much about warfare as JAG officers do. That means Beau Bidden is just as qualified as Ron Paul on matters of War and Peace.

Clint| 10.9.11 @ 4:33PM

Tell Your Israel Firster Crap To Our Post (/11 Veterans, Armchair Neo-Chickenhawk Asshole,Tommy Girl.

(CNN) -- America's veterans are proud of their military service, but in a new report published Wednesday, they expressed ambivalence about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a new Pew Research Center report on war and sacrifice, half of post-9/11 veterans said the Afghanistan war has been worth fighting. Only 44% felt that way about Iraq, and one-third said both wars were worth the costs.

More than half of post-9/11 veterans also felt that too much reliance on military force to combat terrorism leads to more terrorism. On this topic, the public view was nearly identical: 52% said too much force is not a recipe for success."

John II| 10.9.11 @ 8:20PM

Bullshit, Clint. On the other hand, the kind of thinking reflected in your 52 friggin' percent (some 68 percent of American colonists opposed the American revolution against George III) inevitably-- from a long, tedious repetition of experience--matches the mood and attitude of any put-upon constituency.

Come here, Clint and learn somethin': Within six months of Pearl Harbor, the 74 percent support for "Roosevelt's War" had dropped permanently below 50 percent. But Gallup was censored in those days.

Which may be just as well, come to think of it. I don't think Americans should support ANY war in any great numbers for any very lengthy period of time.

But don't think you've scored a point by pointing out the obvious. Get some historical perspective, and get your head out of your ass.

And now back to "Bataan" (1943), in which the personally troubled Robert Walker plays a GI fighting the Japs in the Philippines and delivering a rant against soft Americans back home complaining about shortages in bacon and sugar.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:34AM

As usual, brilliant, JohnII. Take the high road, and I'll call him a terrorist catamite.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:35AM

Thom, may you and yours be written in the Book of Life.

axbucxdu| 10.8.11 @ 8:41PM

There it is then, from both lily liberals and defense hardliners, the same tired chorus. Neither the domestic nor the miltary spending policies can be curtailed. The economic math and physics clearly indicate otherwise. The FRN is the "real" paper tiger here.

One's unfavorable opinion of Ron Paul will not prevent the hard times ahead for soft empire.

AlltheWayAirborne| 10.9.11 @ 6:23AM

Paragraph four of the article seems to state that it is crucial to Russian and Chinese foreign interests that we persist w/ our vast military endeavors. How is supporting China and Russia a conservative value.

Louis Joseph| 10.9.11 @ 12:07PM

Here is what Ron Paul means as Great People from the past have quoted:

"American Isolationism" is a label that has long been used malevolently by its opponents. Non-interventionism, a less emotive phrase, denotes disapproval, ranging from scepticism to outright opposition, with respect to a cluster of related issues: war (particularly ideological wars and crusades) and other government interventions (alliances, "aid," posting of military personnel, etc.) in foreign lands; the eclipse of the authority of the U.S. Congress to declare war, the concentration of authority and discretion in the Executive and the consequent ability of a President to execute war deceptively and secretly; America's abandonment of republicanism and limited government and embrace of imperialism and a welfare-warfare state; the erosion of civil and political liberties for the sake of "security;" and the linkages between a large military establishment and permanent war economy, industry, government and bureaucracy.(1)

Congressman Howard H. Buffett, (R-Nebraska), the Midwestern campaign manager for "Mr. Republican" Senator Robert Taft in 1952, was a leading opponent of America's increasingly interventionist policies, foreign and domestic, during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Criticising the proposal of FDR's Secretary of the Interior (whose bailiwick, one would have thought, could not extend beyond the then-forty-eight states) to build a $165m oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Buffett stated on 24 March 1944 "it would terminate the inspiring period of America's history as a great nation not resorting to intercontinental imperialism. This venture would end the influence exercised by the United States as a government not participating in the exploitation of small lands and countries … It may be that the American people would rather forego the use of a questionable amount of gasoline at some time in the remote future than follow a foreign policy practically guaranteed to send many of their sons … to die in faraway places in defence of the trade of Standard Oil or the international dreams of our one-world planners."

Congressman Buffett was a staunch anti-Communist who nevertheless questioned the morality as well as the efficacy of America's Cold War crusade. He declared "our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth … We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk co-operation and practice power politics …"

Patrick J. Buchanan uttered similar sentiments and outlined a stark choice during the 2000 U.S. Presidential campaign. "How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle."

Thom| 10.9.11 @ 12:52PM

Non-intervention would have left all of Europe speaking either German or Russian under either Nazi or Communist domination in the 1940s. It woudl still be that way today following your lead.

Same would have left greater East Asia speaking Japanese and under the thumb of a nation who attacked us both at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines simply because we stopped supplying their war machine with raw material and fuel. Took us four years to overwhelm them which speaks to the degree of unpreparedness we were in to deal with the problem.

Seems to me not supporting an aggressor with the fruits of your own labor is the ultimate act of non-intervention and it cost us dearly. The Ash Heap of history is full of Nations that practiced what you preach.

axbucxdu| 10.9.11 @ 4:30PM

If one looks hard enough, it's just as full of nations that ignored both their physical capacity and internal economics and thus overextended themselves. The losers quoted above would be a good place to start.

ohmy231| 10.10.11 @ 10:43AM

Thank you, Louis.

Dimitri Aleksandrovich| 10.9.11 @ 2:45PM

The idea of projecting of "democratic beliefs" through military intervention has worked out just perfectly since World War I hasn't it Wittman? I recall that the harsh terms of peace at the end of WWI made the Germans so bitter that we wound up with Adolph Hitler and the NAZI party less than a generation later.

Why is it our place to keep Putin's Russia in check? If I recall correctly the last external conflict Putin's Russia was involved in was caused by a nutjob American ally named Sakashvilli in Georgia who figured he had American military backing in such a conflict so he started shelling South Ossetia killing Russian peacekeepers and yes the Russian's responded with force the same way Americans would respond if it was their peacekeepers who were killed.

Even if Russia succeeds in creating a Eurasian Union how is that bad for America. A Eurasian Union of former Soviet Republics would more likely bring peace and stability to the region. It is only logical that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan form a customs union with free trade, one currency and military cooperation. It is even more logical if one day the Ukraine joins such a union with Moscow. No one except for maybe Zhirinovsky (who has no chance of winning an election in Russia) is crazy enough to try to recreate the Russian Empire by force. War is bad for business.

As for China. China is the monster that the U.S.A. created when they opened up trade with China back in the 70's under Nixon and then gave it favored trading nation status in the 90's. Globalist Free Trade ideology on Wall Street and in Washington DC created the monster that we once called (and some still call) Red China.

Furthermore why must we protect Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and other Southeast Asian nations from China? Taiwan, South Korea and Japan and the rest should do that for themselves. They have some of the most advanced economies in the world with some of the most advanced technology. Let them spend the money to defend their nations from China.

As for the threat from the Muslim world. Al Qaeda is not some kind of organization out for world domination. These are Saudi funded Wahhabist/Salafists who's war with us is largely based on our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East over the last two decades. Besides those with a long enough memory should realize that the Al Qaeda of today was the largely Arab mujahadeen of yesterday that we funded to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Unlike the Russians or the Serbs, Macedonians and Armenians the United States doesn't have any natural borders with predominantly Muslim nations or even a significant Muslim minority that is prone to insurrection. Therefore for the life of me I cannot understand why in the hell we would want to continue stirring the hornets nest in the Middle East by continuing the same foreign policies that preceded 9/11 in the first place. There will be no American style democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. It will never happen and as soon as we go there will be civil war in both countries (second time around for Afghanistan).

As for redefining Yugoslavia. I think the US led NATO forces made their point when they effectively stole Kosovo from Serbia and handed it over to ethnic Albanians who had been settled in the area first by occupying Ottoman Turks and later by the Communists in a fashion not unlike European Jews being settled in Palestine or Protestant English and Scots being settled in Irish Catholic Ulster. We stole Kosovo from the Serbs and now were shooting at Serbs in Kosovo who want to maintain control over border crossings with the rest of Serbia (which is basically their lifeline keeping them from being driven out by the Albanian government in Pristina). If you want to go back to the Bosnian war and argue that we stopped a slaughter there I disagree as well. It was a bloody civil war and America's Wahhabist Arab buddies volunteered in Bosnia too. There's pictures of them carrying the severed heads of Serbs around like some kind of Hollywood horror movie. Not to mention the ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Serbs from Krajina (a region of Croatia) that was overseen by a mercenary corporation (like Blackwater) working for the CIA.

That's just the tip of the iceberg Wittman. If you want to argue that Pax-Americana is necessary for the interests of global trade and Western based multi-national corporations I will most definitely agree with you and respect your opinion. I wouldn't share that opinion because I am as you describe a "Ron Paul type isolationist", but I would respect it. Only don't pretend that the mighty US military presence throughout the world is for purely altruistic and benevolent reasons. That would be kind of like saying that the Gambino family only has their enforcers in all five boroughs of New York just to keep the peace between the five families

ohmy231| 10.10.11 @ 10:45AM

I couldn't agree with you more. Wittman's hit piece fails on so many points it's embarrassing.

miguel| 10.9.11 @ 4:32PM

This article basically regurgitates the old PNAC neo-con line of Anglo-American world hegemony. Statements such as, "The fallacy in this thinking lies not in its justification relative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in the basic assumption that the United States should have no role in projecting its democratic beliefs through military intervention anywhere."

First of all, the author fails to define what our collective "democratic beliefs" are, since there is ample evidence that such democratic beliefs are mere pretexts. Moreover, the obvious lack of democratic beliefs never stopped U.S. foreign policy or military policy from supporting those regimes from material support. Words like "democracy" and "humanitarian" are simply talking points, meant to disguise the real motives. They make pundits and talking heads, the present author included, seem warm and fuzzy while in reality these policies often result in genocide, oppression and corporate-controlled puppet pseudo democracies.

The so-called threat from the Muslim world is just as the smear implies -- vague and ambiguous. Al Qaeda, or "the database", is a Brzezinski creation stemming from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6. Part of the CIA program was led by its elite Special Activities Division and included the arming, training and leading of Afghanistan's mujahideen (which morphed into a C.I.A. creation called "Al Qaeda"). Moreover, Brzezinski's master plan for geopolitical events in Afghanistan fits perfectly into his own published works (see The Grand Chessboard). This has little to do with real terrorism (except the manufactured type) and more to do with surrounding Russia and China. Little, if any debate surrounding the prepared talking points are allowed or tolerated which would expose the greater political and military aims in this debate.

Ron Paul "isolationism" is a euphemism for common sense. It has already been admitted that Osama had no role in 9-11. Ditto for Saddam. Yet, incredibly, this did not stop the invasions but merely exposed them as the pretext for something else. Ron Paul simply forces the myth-makers such as Wittman to debate the facts. The general public has a need to know and it is finally beginning to understand the myth, which may be reflected in the polls (many of whom are conveniently hidden by the mainstream media).

Kosovo is another example of Brzezinski policy. Georgia was in play earlier and that failed. NATO has morphed well beyond its intent to become a de facto imperialistic tool of conquest. What the author fail to mention was Libya.

NATO invaded Libya on the pretext of "humanitarian" grounds. Huh? Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa. Think it has that now? No...Libya was to become "Iraqified", meaning, a puppet regime controlled through NATO for the sole benefit of Western interests.

Sorry Mr. Wittman but the American public drank enough of the toxic, neocon Kool-Aid since the putsch of 9-11 and now wishes to go to detox. All the propaganda...the tighter the controls....the more censorship....only increases the publics thirst for the truth and the freedom at home from tyrants such as you.

John II| 10.9.11 @ 8:38PM

Miguel's (and Dimitri's) response basically regurgitates a smug hostility to all American international behavior anywhere of any sort since about 1898. I've lived with that hostility all my adult life among the degenerates I work with in academia: that's about 46 years of listening to the same-old, same-old.

So then: Go to hell, Miguel. And go to hell, Dimitri. No other response is necessary. You and your kind make me puke.

And now back to "An American Carol" (2008), a perfect reflection of the sickness of Dimitri and Miguel produced by David Zucker--although deeply flawed by a sentimental recollection of the Kennedy administration--which, when you think about it, started it all.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:31AM

JohnII, G-d Bless and keep you, and may you, like Nick, Margie, Ken, Simon, Dr R, and many others I may have accidentally forgot (Sorry, Pecos) have you and yours inscribed in the book of life this year.

Margie| 10.11.11 @ 1:01AM

Dear O.T.,

Just wanted to say, well done here!
And wishing for us that our names are written in the Book of Life is the highest and best wish anyone could wish for someone else.
Thank you, and that is my prayer for you as well.
Now, you do know though that it is the Lamb's Book of Life, right?
God bless you.

miguel| 10.10.11 @ 1:07AM

Going to hell? Not our decision to make. But lets both hope for the best on that one. Hostility to "all American international behavior"? Well, not exactly. Just the subversive, genocidal portion of it. All the other parts are off topic. This article discusses foreign policy, from a very biased point of view. It is not the only point of view, which you seem to have reduced the subject to in a nutshell. I do not invent the facts..but merely report them. It is not opinion. It is there for you or anyone else to see. Go read @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski . I didn't write this article. And no, it didn't start at the Kennedy Administration but rather blossomed after his murder...when Johnson seized power in the putsch. See, USS Liberty, secret Dimona Israeli nukes etc.

The degenerates in academia you refer to are both the neoliberals and neoconservatives. Both are subversive...different sides of the same coin. Somehow, you fail to see that there are other coins from which to choose but this is more a product of your institutional conditioning by the mainstream media (Fox?) more than a reflection on your ability to correctly interpret information.

The Cuban missile crisis was real, not manufactured like the current artificial crisis. I personally think you are afraid to realize the level of systemic corruption in the U.S. and this is understandably upsetting to say the least.

Your angst would be better directed towards the author of this piece in the instant matter rather than those, like me, who are not hired guns with an agenda to sell. After all, I make no profit from any of this while those who promote the never-ending hostile foreign policy reaps millions of our tax dollars with nothing to show for it. Instead of complaining, please show us what we got for the all the money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. What did these people die for and what is the end-point? Since you seem to know more about this than I, this should be an easy assignment for you.

You are being played as a sucker. Focus your angst on those who have done this to you...to all and not at the messenger. For a more factual analysis, see: Webster Griffin Tarpley, www.tarpley.net

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:29AM

OK, Paul's "non-onteventionalist. It means he will leave terrorists alone so they can build up the power to kill us and our friends, and he thinks Iran should have nukes.

A turd by any other name will smell as badly.

miguel| 10.10.11 @ 1:04AM

More people died in the U.S. from cantaloupes than from Muslim extremists. You have been played a sucker. There is no end to the terror war by design. It is a made-in-America phenomena, designed to create an enemy for subversive means....and you took the bait!

Iran is no threat to the U.S. Rather, it is quite the opposite. This point you missed. You are a stooge of the Zionist and to your own demise. If you like where America is now, then just wait. The totalitarian police state is just getting off the ground. If you don't leave your home, don't travel, you won't die from a terrorist attack you so fear. But you will probably perish from tainted water, tainted food, and alike while you bolt your door and praise the neighborhood drone flying above your home...ever watching...keep you safe and sound.

John II| 10.10.11 @ 10:41AM

"There is no end to the terror war by design. It is a made-in-America phenomena . . ."

The word you want is "phenomenon," Mickey. "Phenomena" is the plural. You need to brush up on your Greek in order to give more polish to your delusional rants. It was wrong of me to suggest you go to hell. Apparently, you're already there.

And now back to "The Snake Pit" (1948), in which Olivia de Havilland takes the lead in the first dramatic flick to explore mental illness. The late 40's film noir era was preoccupied with such themes. The distinguished Leo Genn plays the shrink to a T, but his methods of dealing with depression are a tad smug and barbaric.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 5:54PM

Really? How many US dead from Cantaloupes? I was unaware of the thousands.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:31AM

Sorry---"Non-interventionalist."

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 12:32AM

Al Qaida's not out for world domination? They want the world under a Caliphate. Hello?

miguel| 10.10.11 @ 1:15AM

Al Qaida = C.I.A. Occam's Tool. The best way to control the opposition is to become the opposition. War by Deception. All Mossad play book rhetoric. Don't take my word for it. Research it.

There is no end to the "war on terror" because it is a pretext designed for the real destruction of America. But, incredibly, you and your cohorts have swallowed the toxic Kool-Aid and now support your own demise! Incredible. Somewhere a KGB covert operative is smiling for this is exactly what the KGB was planning for the U.S. The former KGB agents I have interviewed told me only 20% or less of their budget went to actually "James Bond-type" spying, with the remaining 80% + going to subversive psy-ops....and to note, over a period of years. From what they told me years ago, I see it happening right here today. If you want to see proof, I will show you proof. Not the insulting sophomoric remarks taken from the Bill O'Reilly school of insults and innuendo.

Dimitri Aleksandrovich| 10.10.11 @ 5:26AM

In the words of Pat Buchanan the United States of America is meant to be a Republic not an Empire. Do you hear that John II? A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE. You probably consider yourself a conservative John II. What you don't realize is that your an idealistic internationalist liberal of the Woodrow Wilson type wanting to make the world "Safe For Democracy'"

BOB| 10.10.11 @ 5:27AM

RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!
RON PAUL 2012!