In a May 2007 Republican debate, a candidate argued that the United States provoked the 9/11 terrorist attacks through its aggressive posture towards the Middle East. This candidate was Ron Paul.
He was the only Republican member of Congress running for president who did not
vote to authorize the Iraq war in 2002. He remains critical of U.S. involvement in the
region and says the war “was sold to us with false information.” Paul’s campaigns
have always focused on typical libertarian issues: small government, lower taxes,
free market policies, and NON-INTERVENTIONISM abroad.
On almost every core national security and foreign-policy issue, he holds a position that is in fierce opposition to the views of mainstream Republicans.In a way, he brings a new dimension to the Replican Presidential race.
Infact, Ron Paul is unique among all the Presidential candidates, and in a tiny minority of US politicians, who are willing to challenge the prevailing poisonous atmosphere of military glorification disguised as hyper-patriotism.
Views on War on Terror
He belittles the war on terror as a "cliché" that is used to "con the people into thinking that all citizens must cooperate and sacrifice our liberties to ‘win' the war." He is openly disdainful of the use of torture and other extrajudicial tactics that have been used to fight it. He is dismissive of the need to kill top Al-Qaeda lieutenants, including Osama bin Laden; blames U.S. foreign policy and meddling in other country's affairs for the "blowback" that contributed to 9/11; and downplays the efficacy of the country's military might.
In Paul's view, if the United States simply stayed out of other countries' business we would be left alone.
He proposes to reduce the military budget, abolish the CIA, pull the United States out of NATO, end financial support for Israel, and do nothing in the face of Iranian nuclear proliferation, which he claims is a legitimate desire for Tehran to have.
Clearly, if ever there was someone whose thoughts were far off the mainstream, it has to be Ron Paul. Infact, his campaign is all about changing the conventional orthodoxies" that are articulated by the other GOP candidates. In his view, as Bruce Fein puts it, the United States should not exercise global leadership by the end of the sword but rather by the "influence of its example".
Despite his bizarre views on the gold standard, climate change, social security, and the like, Paul has put his finger on a number of issues that could resonate broadly with the American people, especially if discussion were not monopolized by think tanks and insiders who are strongly committed to the status quo.
And If he does say that excessive interventionism and other failed policies are a
primary cause of anti-Americanism around the world,
and that the United States
would be more popular and safer if we focused more attention on trade and
diplomacy and domestic issues instead of emphasizing military dominance and
overseas meddling, is it wrong? ..
And while the rest of the GOP candidates are mostly competing to see who can
sound the most eager for war (usually with Iran) or most willing to toss more
money at the Pentagon, Ron Paul wants to cut the military budget!
The fact is, in the backdrop of 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Ron Paul offers a much clearer alternative, one that is not easy to dismiss with a sound-bite or two.
And given the nuclear revolution, America's favorable geographic location, and the nature of the modern global economy, in fact, there's a pretty good case to be made for a much more limited global posture that shifts more of the burden for regional security onto others and focuses on fixing domestic problems like the economy and unemployment.
The good news is that Ron Paul's views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters.
That indeed is a good sign for the future!
Mohit Dayal
