Submitted by Patrick, Dec 19, 2007 20:30

Ron Paul is one of the rare politicians with integrity. I think he is right on almost every issue except military affairs where he is catastrophically wrong. There are physical and political realities that force us to be militarily involved in the world.

The physical reality is oil and it happens to be concentrated in the Middle East and a few other places. Other portable fuels are currently dubious, but even if we produce methanol and biodiesel at maximum rates, the costs will be tied to petroleum, at least for generations. It is irresponsible to say we should have let Israel and Saudi Arabia handle Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Why should either of these states wish to protect American interests? The Saudi's asked us to put bases there because they didn't want to be overrun by Saddam. If we leave the Middle East, other powers will take our place; then we will play from a weak position. If we choose to forego international trade, our standard of living will decline dramatically. Even Thomas Jefferson sent Marines to chasten the Barbary pirates.

We don't have forces in Japan and Korea just to show off. We have an interest in the political stability of Asia. The troops in Germany had, and still have, a legitimate purpose. Among other reasons, these "postings" further a--more or less--free system of international trade which lifts all boats. If Japan believed she had to ally with China, to protect herself, are we then better off? If Europe were effectively annexed by the Soviets, we would still survive, but would the world be a better place? We have to be assertive because others are. There are mistakes and successes but withdrawl is more dangerous than a reasonable assertive foreign policy. As long as we are strong we can minimize wars.

Ron Paul would accomplish few of his planned withdrawals. He would be hooted down by both houses of Congress. He might be impeached or murdered because he wouldn't go back on his principles. He is admirable because he follows principle. He is weak because some principles are terribly wrong and these weaknesses will doom his commendable libertarian goals. He reminds me of the Quakers.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.