The slow, sad reveal of Rand Paul as a Neocon has taken yet another step forward, via the written words of Rand himself in a recent article to ForeignPolicy.com. The article, titled “Peace Through Strength,” virtually sums up Rand Paul in 2013: Half the GOP stooge we never thought he would be (we were wrong), while at the same time peppering in some libertarian thought – however far too much of the former and far too little of the latter.
Rand’s article doesn’t mince words – he lays out very brazenly his views that the United States should apply its “military might” more often, more quickly and more broadly in order to maintain our role as the world’s peacekeepers and assure our safety at home. He begins by using the hackneyed old example of the Cold War to back up his vision, drawing on scare tactics and the threat of nuclear holocaust even though the circumstances then and now are drastically different and it’s absurdly ridiculous to compare a global superpower spanning half a continent to the likes of Iran or Syria. Said Rand:
Peace through strength. It’s a philosophy that guided the United States to victory in the Cold War and a policy that protected us from the calamity of nuclear war. But in the heated debate over Syria, our commitment to this approach has wavered — and it’s time we reasserted its prominence.
Yes, because Syria (which poses no threat to the US in any way) used chemical weapons during its civil war, the US has to reassert our military dominance to dissuade them from…what? How are these related again? They aren’t, in any way. Moving on…
Some say that America’s credibility was threatened when President Barack Obama drew a red line on the use of chemical weapons and then allowed the Syrians to cross it without repercussions. We couldn’t disagree more — that would be a profound misreading of Obama’s response to the Syrian civil war. Our nation’s democratic principles give priority to the voice of individual liberties and freedoms. We will defend them with all of our nation’s might. We will not allow any nation or group to terrorize the free world — now or ever.
Did you see that? Yes, that’s Rand Paul giving his assent and kind recommendation that the US continue to enhance its role as the “World’s Police,” or as the US Navy puts it “A Global Force For Good.”
We will stick our noses in if anyone’s democratic principles, or liberties are threatened (all the while eroding them at home), even if they are across the world from us and we have no business getting involved. You have to be a terror to the free world. And we all know the US definition of terror is exceptionally broad.
Now here’s what’s extra crazy: Rand goes on to admit that Syria has no value to the US, and military action there would be ill-advised.
The world should be on notice: the United States will act with overwhelming force if it is attacked — or if vital national security interests are at stake.In the case of the Syrian civil war, there is no clear American interest. In fact, U.S. intervention might upset the stability of the region and work against our national security interests. By going into a war on the same side as al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists, we might end up aiding the cause that attacked America on 9/11. While Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is clearly a bad guy, there is no clear military objective in Syria.
Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of “Speaking out of both sides of your mouth,” by Rand Paul!
Rand goes on to say that some believe North Korea and Iran would be emboldened by our non-action in Syria, then states that this isn’t the case.
North Korea sits atop a stockpile of weapons in close proximity to tens of thousands of U.S. troops. If Pyongyang ever used these weapons against our troops, they would see a massive response from the United States. The American people would be united, and Congress would declare war in a heartbeat. For anyone to think otherwise — be they a hawkish American pundit or a North Korean despot — is crazy.
Rand is correct here. North Korea would never think of attacking our troops. And Rand is gleefully pointing out that our military presence there is the reason. Of course, I question why we have troops there, still, decades after the Korean War. South Korea has its own troops, it’s own weapons. The US doesn’t need troops to be stationed there, and should North Korea attack South Korea, an American ally, the US would take military action (for better or worse) regardless. Our “strength” there is wasted and unneeded.
Likewise, Iran — or any nation developing nuclear weaponry — should not doubt the military strength and unified approach of the American people toward the terrorizing of U.S. citizens and allies in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Nor should these nations doubt that international resolve will coalesce and extract harsh penalties on nations that pursue these activities. Ultimately, the United States cannot and will not take any option off the table in order to protect Israel and other regional democracies, and to deter Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Do you like how Rand specifically calls out Israel? Don’t be shocked, he’s 100% Neocon when it comes to Israel and the United States. He has already stated that “an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States.”
I will concede that Rand does push diplomacy in his article, over military action. That in itself is good, however he also supports increased sanctions, or economic warfare that essentially only impacts the working and lower class of these countries. As our editor-in-chief Marc Clair discussed with Ron Paul Institute’s Daniel McAdams in a recent podcast interview, sanctions are indeed an act of war. Thus, sanctions aren’t any less likely to win us the hearts and minds of those countries we are trying to convert to our way of life, or help. At the end of the day, we’ll still be making enemies.
I’ll leave you with Rand’s closing paragraphs, as I’ve said enough on this for now. You can soak in his new-found love for militarism and “Peace Through Strength” on your own.
American foreign policy leaders should heed this advice — and learn the lessons of recent entanglements. We can and must use military force when necessary, and be willing to leave the option on the table when our security is threatened. However, we also need to engage politically and diplomatically to further our interests — as well as the interests of our allies — as long and as often as possible.In the past, America’s winning strategy was to seek peace through strength. It’s a philosophy that served us back then — and one that will serve us again in the future.