Private foreign policy: mercenaries and militias

[dircha]

Some people supported the Iraq military invasion as a superogatory moral act - some as a moral obligation - liberating the Iraqi people from an abusive tyrant, and establishing a representative government, selected through free and fair democratic elections.

Some people support a preemptive strike against Iran to disable its nuclear programs on moral grounds.

Some people support deploying peacekeeping troops to Darfur to end the humanitarian crisis.

These actions would not have official support under a Ron Paul presidency.

However, would - should - a Ron Paul presidency act against private individuals privately funding and carrying out these foreign military operations through private militias and mercenary companies?

Should a Ron Paul presidency act against George W Bush and Dick Cheney personally orchestrating private foreign military activities through Bush's Freedom Institute in Dallas, were they to do so?

Should a Ron Paul presidency act against U.S. based officers of international oil companies were they to privately fund and orchestrate foreign military activities to overthrow Venezuela's government and seize control of its oil production?

If so, on what principled basis - independent of pre-existing U.S. federal law, a significant portion of which Ron Paul disagrees with - should a Ron Paul administration act against such activities?

I think this is an interesting question. It presses the issue of whether a person opposes these activities because they are said not to be the proper function of the federal government, or whether they oppose these activities universally.

It's similar in some respects to the issue of abortion. Many people who oppose federal jurisdiction over abortion because it is said not to be the proper function of the federal government, do support state prohibition of abortion.

[dircha]

I believe this issue has significant policy and strategic implications.

If it is the case that a Ron Paul presidency would take a principled position of not opposing private foreign military and military-humanitarian activities, then the answer to those who say we should stay in Iraq to continue nation building is:

"We recognize that many citizens support continued military and humanitarian nation building activities in Iraq. We decline to support continued U.S. military and other foreign involvement in these activities in Iraq because they are not in the critical national interest of the U.S. and therefore involvement is not the proper role of the federal government.

We recognize, however, their right as private individuals to provide emotional, economic, and logistical support to these and other private foreign policy and military activities through private militia and mercenary groups such as Blackwater USA."

This is remarkably similar to the traditional conservative Republican position on federally funded medical care. While as a policy we believe it is neither the proper nor the Constitutional role of the federal government to provide for the medical care of all individuals, we recognize the right of citizens as private individuals to privately provide, for market value or through charity, for the medical care of all individuals.

This is a sentiment that rings true with committed, traditional conservative Republicans.