The cost efficiency argument against the war

[Zeteo]

I've had long discussions with several mainstream republicans, trying to convert them to vote for Dr. Paul; with very limited success. The one big stumbling block, in each case, was The War. They usually like his other positions, but pulling out of Iraq is a big no-no. So I've been thinking, and I came up with this new approach to it, which I think would be a much easier sell to mainstream Republicans. I'm thinking of trying it out next, so please tell me what you think about it.

The main misconception they have is that they identify Dr. Paul with pacifists, of the "better Red than dead" variety. When they hear that he wants to pull out of Iraq, they'll usually reply with something on the lines of "yeah, and then Osama will put your wife in a burqa".

So the next approach I'm going to try is this: agree with them that fighting against terrorism is a worthwhile goal, but argue that the Army presence in Iraq is an inefficient and costly way of achieving this goal.

When speaking to them about the Founding Fathers, I've often been countered with the argument that Jefferson engaged in the first War on Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Well, guess what, I've done some research and this now fits like a glove on my new line of attack. Jefferson managed to fight the Barbary War and make the Louisiana purchase while cutting both the federal budget (including the military expenses) and the national debt to less than half (Joseph Wheelan: Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror (http://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-War-Americas-Terror-1801-1805/dp/0786712325) 1801-1805, 2004, p.109).

Now compare this with the current policy, which drives us deep into debt and inflation, and inefficiently fights against one threat (terrorism) while opening us wide to another one (the Chinese, who have the US dollar around their little finger). It's not that Ron Paul doesn't want to defend us against threats, but that he wants to do it efficiently (in Jefferson's tradition), and to defend us against all threats, not just terrorism.

Dr. Paul is against terrorism (he voted for the initial intervention in Afghanistan, to go after Osama; he wants to fight against it with letters of marque and reprisals), and the cost of the war is one of his main arguments against it. This is not lying or hiding Dr. Paul's positions, but it is a re-wording; because, when you say "Dr. Paul is anti-war" to a mainstream Republican, he will understand the wrong thing, and think RP is Jimmy Carter all over again. I've heard Ron Paul called "softer on terror than Hillary" many times, and it's simply not true.

[Bryan]

Welcome to the forum! Excellent first post! I was about to move the posting in SfS to here before you reposted. :) Thanks for taking note.

[Goldwater Conservative]

When they hear that he wants to pull out of Iraq, they'll usually reply with something on the lines of "yeah, and then Osama will put your wife in a burqa".

So why do they care about Iraq? Being in Iraq has diverted attention and manpower away from Afghanistan, where bin Laden is probably still hiding, where warlords are reverting the country back to Taliban rule, and now neighboring Pakistan -- which, unlike Iraq, has one of the world's largest populations AND armies, already possesses nuclear weapons, and is actually crawling with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers -- is approaching civil war.

And by invading/occupying Iraq, we've destabilized the region, inspired more people to set aside their differences and reservations about violence to take up arms against us (and our allies), and weakened our national defense and border security, since we're stretched so thin militarily and financially ($200 billion deficits a year, and nobody wants to finally start paying for this war instead of leaving our kids to deal with it).

From a fiscal standpoint, this will all probably end up costing us over $2 trillion, 40 times what was originally predicted, and the regional instability is helping to drive up gas prices.

From a family standpoint, the people dying and being permanently maimed constitute a small segment of the population (about 1%) that is rapidly diminishing and not seeing anything significant in the way of new recruits.

In conclusion, the Iraq war is bad foreign policy since it worsens the situation and makes us more susceptible to harm, is bad economics since it costs us mountains of money that aren't even being invested and gas prices are going up, is anti-family values since we're making our kids pay for it, and is even anti-military since so few are bearing the burden and for a futile mission.

[Corydoras]

It's not that Ron Paul doesn't want to defend us against threats, but that he wants to do it efficiently (in Jefferson's tradition), and to defend us against all threats, not just terrorism.

I think your discovery about Jefferson's fiscal efficiency is really important. Thanks for such a great post... I want more people to start using this. WE know that Ron Paul favors war pursued in justice, and that he isn't anti-war per se-- but for some reason, a lot of people don't realize that.

I sometimes think that the key to grasping the Ron Paul mindset is understanding the central importance of monetary policy. And I find I don't have to even talk about the gold standard.

A lot of people can be won over with talking about the national debt, and the expense of the war, and the Chinese holding American bonds, and the dollar being so weak in exchange rates.