Foreign policy -no transition plan

[Dsylexic]

Dr Paul's domestic ideas are brilliant. Plus he has absolutely practical transition plans to handle SS and other unconstitutional stuff.
My worry is,while his foreign policy is moral,outstanding and logical, does it not need to have a transition plan?

I can understand withdrawing from Germany ,Korea,Saudi peninsula and ending Iraq,afghanistan wars immediately.say within 3 weeks.
But,why not have a transition plan for the rest of it? Why not leave the warships in the persian gulf just there,monitoring,without threatening to be in their face?why not mention,some of the airbases in some of the friendlier middle east nations like Oman will continue for strategic reasons.
If he had a great transition plan ,the isolationism smears will go away. Why not mention that 'strategic interest' will be taken care of in the transition plan?

am i wrong i saying that paul's foreign policy is drastic since there seems to be no transition plan?

[sailingaway]

His three year budget drops funding to 2006 levels but cuts the war funding. That IS a transition.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Discretionary-Spending1.png

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

[Dsylexic]

His three year budget drops funding to 2006 levels but cuts the war funding. That IS a transition.

hmm ,yes.does it mean warships will still patrol the international shipping routes? didnt they do that in 2006? if so,why not mention it.currently all we are hearing is close ALL bases.come home ASAP.it does have an impractical tone to the rhetoric

[crh88]

I think that he probably has a plan in mind about how to withdraw everyone in a safe and orderly fashion. I don't think he would ever want to leave random bases operational for "strategic reasons". That being said, he does support the use of things like nuclear submarines so it's not like he doesn't want a military presence at all. I think it would be a very good thing if he would come out with a foreign policy plan to explain exactly what he would do to defend the country, to help reassure the people who think that we need all of these bases to be safe or to have a strategic advantage.

[gerryb]

I don't believe that's what we are hearing from the campaign at all. They could do much better in releasing a FP plan that outlines how the Restore America spending plan would affect it...

[sailingaway]

hmm ,yes.does it mean warships will still patrol the international shipping routes? didnt they do that in 2006? if so,why not mention it.currently all we are hearing is close ALL bases.come home ASAP.it does have an impractical tone to the rhetoric

He speaks of nuclear submarines instead of bases for distant needs, so I am absolutely certain he doesn't plan to abandon international waters.

[EBounding]

From what I understand, our Navy will remain in tact patrolling international waters and trade routes per the Constitution. We would still have weapon systems that can reach anywhere on earth within an hour. We would still have Earth's most sophisticated airforce and allies we could work with if there was a real actual threat to our national security.

I think people really think that Paul wants to pull all our forces in and build a wall around the country to hoard gold. You can still project force without unconstitutionally occupying other countries.

But yeah, it would be nice if Paul would get specific in what he would do instead of what he won't do.

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

I just read somewhere that it is in Pauls plan, that part of having a strong national defense is to have Navy ships patrolling international waters. They will be out there under a Paul presidency.

I agree he really needs to get some more details of what the transition will look like uploaded to his web-site where people can review it and see how much it makes sense.

[idiom]

Myself I would keep Guam and Diego Garcia.

The Navy could keep the Oceans plenty happy with half the number of fleets. But yes a transition plan of some description would be good.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I don't remember which interview it was, but I think I recall hearing him say recently that our carrier groups could still patrol the Persian gulf... just back off a few more miles into international waters.

[JJ2]

I agree. This is very important.

[EBounding]

He says these things in random interviews, but he never ever mentions them in debates. He probably thinks it's common sense but a lot of people don't think that way.

PLEEEEEEAAAASE mention these things in the next debate.

[sailingaway]

He says these things in random interviews, but he never ever mentions them in debates. He probably thinks it's common sense but a lot of people don't think that way.

PLEEEEEEAAAASE mention these things in the next debate.

I agree

I just copied this thread into the campaign suggestion box

[seekingliberty]

I agree

I just copied this thread into the campaign suggestion box

Thank you! I think so many more people would jump on board if they could see his plan. His FP makes so much more sense than what we have been doing!

[Xelaetaks]

I've been saying for a while a clear plan on foreign policy would gain tons of votes. A plan that says we will have the strongest defense. I think a lot of people have the misconconception that Ron Paul would be naive on defense but I think we believe strongly that a strong defense is needed and we can do it better if we are more careful about our resources and budget.

Also know it has been said that Ron Paul wouldn't cut a penny from defense which is of course a good thing too.

[J_White]

MSM is just misrepresenting his views as usual. they are saying now that he will bring all troops home and close all bases.
that is not how it will be done.

[Dsylexic]

MSM is just misrepresenting his views as usual. they are saying now that he will bring all troops home and close all bases.
that is not how it will be done.

what? that is what Ron keeps saying to : 'bring all troops home as soon as the ships can get there.close down the bases.secure our border'. since doesnt intend to do it,he should EXPLAIN exactly what he wants to do

[Xenophage]

A practical implementation of the FP would have to be developed, and I've no doubt that it's something he's thought about. Immediate withdrawal is unlikely.

[EBounding]

So does anyone have any more specifics on what Ron would do? We all know what he won't do (ie foreign occupation, undeclared wars) but he rarely says what he will do instead. He only says what he will do when pressed in one-off interviews.

When I tell people he's for a strong navy, missile defense, and other defensive weapons they say "Well I've never heard him say that". And they're right. He hasn't said it in debates and popular news interviews. It would be nice if he laid it all out there just like he has with the budget.

[Kevin Smyth]

what? that is what Ron keeps saying to : 'bring all troops home as soon as the ships can get there.close down the bases.secure our border'. since doesnt intend to do it,he should EXPLAIN exactly what he wants to do

I'd keep the base in Iraq and even expand it and send in more American troops, that's the only way to convince Republicans that we can prevent Iran from taking over that country. It would also reduce some of the fears Americans have of Iran if they knew that we were keeping a major eye on their activities. You are right that it would be better if Paul adopted a more moderate stance. He must acknowlege that we have resources worldwide that have to be defended.

But I would withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan doesn't have the oil that Iraq has so it is far less vital to the world economy.

Remove every base from Europe, the Cold War is over.

[The Gold Standard]

I'd keep the base in Iraq and even expand it and send in more American troops, that's the only way to convince Republicans that we can prevent Iran from taking over that country. It would also reduce some of the fears Americans have of Iran if they knew that we were keeping a major eye on their activities. You are right that it would be better if Paul adopted a more moderate stance. He must acknowlege that we have resources worldwide that have to be defended.

But I would withdraw from Afghanistan immediately. Afghanistan doesn't have the oil that Iraq has so it is far less vital to the world economy.

It isn't our business if Iran takes over Iraq. It would be our own fault anyway. Still, the Iranians haven't preemptively attacked a neighbor in at least 1,000 years, so I doubt they will be invading Iraq. They don't need to. We put an Iranian friendly government in charge of Iraq.

[Kevin Smyth]

It isn't our business if Iran takes over Iraq. It would be our own fault anyway. Still, the Iranians haven't preemptively attacked a neighbor in at least 1,000 years, so I doubt they will be invading Iraq. They don't need to. We put an Iranian friendly government in charge of Iraq.

It is our business, we can't allow Iran's government to control that much of the world's oil supply. Since 1979 the Iranians have been trying to expand their Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East and by us maintaining a military presence in Iraq we could hold back their aims.