Discussion of Rand Paul foreign policy split from Ron Paul grassroots thread

[supermario21]

Another thing, I love looking at twitter and looking at the Rand haters get freaked out. So many comments like "can't you tell he's just his dad?" and "people are too dumb to tell the difference!" I'm glad whatever Rand is doing is working.

[itshappening]

And you seriously think Rand wouldn't have voted for that? Ron actually regrets that vote, while Rand stil thinks it was a good idea. Rand, on the other hand, supports sanctions and supports military intervention for "America's vital interests." Ron just wants to bring everybody home.

I don't think he supports military intervention for "America's vital interests", where did he say that?

Rand wants to bring them home too. Rand is Ron's son and has read all his dads books and is fully on board with his foreign policy. He's just not going to get into deep discussions about it and frames it in a way that is palatable to the Limbaugh crowd. I don't support sanctions but he felt it was constitutional and right to make that vote. I believe he made the vote so he doesn't look too soft. He voted against a resolution condemning Iran or something (only senator to do so) which was brave so a mixed bag but he is definitely not Hawkish.

Also one thing you have to remember when comparing Rand to Ron is that Ron could not win anywhere outside his safe district while Rand has won statewide primaries and a general election by double digits so obviously the way he frames things works better.

[green73]

Oh dear.

Rand is not by any stretch of the imagination a "warhawk".

He just wants an endless cold war against "radical Islam", whatever the hell that is. That sort of thing gives the MIC a hard on.

[FSP-Rebel]

Rand isn't "Smarter" than Ron, he's just less consistent, more of a warhawk, and more of a hypocrite. He's way better than most other options, but he doesn't even deserve mentioning in the same sentence as Ron Paul.
I would caution the use of the term warhawk and hypocrite when describing Rand here because negativity only begets more of the same and tends to drive wedges where there needn't be none. Questioning of tactics, messaging and approach are fair game but the former adds to divisiveness. I realize you're relatively new to this board but maybe you've been a lurker here long enough to know that for around 6 months prior to the advent of the new year there was a range war never before seen here and it was all built up because of the negativity factor which entrenched both sides and created animosity. We're pretty much over that and I'd like it to remain that way going forward. The good is not the enemy of the perfect, keep that in mind. I'm not here to tell anyone that Rand=Ron because it doesn't really matter. We're here to push the liberty ball down the field and it's clear that the ball is rolling and many more fans, grassroots activists and media figures alike, are cheering it on. Focus on optimism rather than a defeatist, negative view on things.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think he supports military intervention for "America's vital interests", where did he say that?



His speech at heritage.


Rand wants to bring them home too. Rand is Ron's son and has read all his dads books and is fully on board with his foreign policy.

I've given you evidence that this isn't the case.H


e's just not going to get into deep discussions about it and frames it in a way that is palatable to the Limbaugh crowd.

Yeah, like "Waging a long war against radical Islam" as green says. Yeah, that's really the exact same thing that Ron supported. Totally. Not.


I don't support sanctions but he felt it was constitutional and right to make that vote. I believe he made the vote so he doesn't look too soft. He voted against a resolution condemning Iran or something (only senator to do so) which was brave so a mixed bag but he is definitely not Hawkish.


As I said, compared to Ron. I'm still a fan of Rand's. But Ron Paul was truly something unique and Rand does not measure up to that standard. Rand is much more moderate. If Rand wasn't Ron's son you wouldn't even disagree with me. Rand has stated that he's in favor of intervention, just watch his 20 minute video of his speech at heritage.

Also one thing you have to remember when comparing Rand to Ron is that Ron could not win anywhere outside his safe district while Rand has won statewide primaries and a general election by double digits so obviously the way he frames things works better.

Yep... Because Ron didn't compromise, while Rand compromises all the time.


He just wants an endless cold war against "radical Islam", whatever the hell that is. That sort of thing gives the MIC a hard on.
This. +1.

[itshappening]

He just wants an endless cold war against "radical Islam", whatever the hell that is. That sort of thing gives the MIC a hard on.

Here's what he said about radical Islam. He was very non-specific:

-
Like communism, radical Islam is an ideology with worldwide reach. Containing radical Islam requires a worldwide strategy like containment. It requires counterforce at a series of constantly shifting worldwide points. But counterforce does not necessarily mean large-scale land wars with hundreds of thousands of troops nor does it always mean a military action at all.
-

And in other parts of the speech too he mentions "radical islam" a few times but he doesn't explicitly say what he would do and in that paragraph he says it might not mean military action at all.

It sounds to me like it's just a buzz word he's using that sounds good to Heritage crowd but what does it practically mean? what's he going to do about it? He won't say because the answer is probably very little unless they attack us.

[itshappening]

I'm reading his speech at Heritage and no where does he endorse military intervention.

In fact it's the total opposite. Here's the key paragraph:

-
What the United States needs now is a policy that finds a middle path. A policy that is not rash or reckless. A foreign policy that is reluctant, restrained by Constitutional checks and balances but does not appease. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of radical Islam but also the inherent weaknesses of radical Islam. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries on what they might someday do. A foreign policy that requires, as Kennan put it, “a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of . . . expansive tendencies.” A policy that understands the “distinction between vital and peripheral interests.”

No one believes that Kennan was an isolationist but Kennan did advise that non-interference in the internal affairs of another country was, after all, a long standing principle of American diplomacy . . . [that should be excepted only when: A) “ there is a sufficiently powerful national interest” and B) when “we have the means to conduct such intervention successfully AND can afford the cost.”

In Kennan’s famous ‘X’ article he argues that containment meant the “application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy.” He later clarified, though, that did not necessarily mean that the application of counterforce had to mean a military response. He argued that containment was not a strategy to counter “entirely by military means.” “But containment was not diplomacy [alone] either.”
-

[Christian Liberty]

I would caution the use of the term warhawk and hypocrite when describing Rand here because negativity only begets more of the same and tends to drive wedges where there needn't be none. Questioning of tactics, messaging and approach are fair game but the former adds to divisiveness. I realize you're relatively new to this board but maybe you've been a lurker here long enough to know that for around 6 months prior to the advent of the new year there was a range war never before seen here and it was all built up because of the negativity factor which entrenched both sides and created animosity. We're pretty much over that and I'd like it to remain that way going forward. The good is not the enemy of the perfect, keep that in mind. I'm not here to tell anyone that Rand=Ron because it doesn't really matter. We're here to push the liberty ball down the field and it's clear that the ball is rolling and many more fans, grassroots activists and media figures alike, are cheering it on. Focus on optimism rather than a defeatist, negative view on things.
I haven't been around for 6 months so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not a Rand-hater either. I'm not sure what tactics are most conductive to "Winning" whatever that means, and I have the fear that anyone who's willing to compromise enough to actually win is also corruptable. That said, that doesn't mean I won't try. If Rand, unlikely though it is, is the GOP nominee in 2016, I am going to vote for him because that is much more likely to advance liberty in this country than to vote LP or to vote Democrat or any other party.

I agree with you that good isn't the enemy of perfect. I'll vote for good. Ron wasn't even perfect although I feel he was more libertarian than Rand is, and Rand in turn is more libertarian than the establishment candidates.

I guess I just find it a little annoying that people think Rand supports a pure noninterventionist foreign policy even when Rand himself says that he does not.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm reading his speech at Heritage and no where does he endorse military intervention.

In fact it's the total opposite. Here's the key paragraph:

-
What the United States needs now is a policy that finds a middle path. A policy that is not rash or reckless. A foreign policy that is reluctant, restrained by Constitutional checks and balances but does not appease. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of radical Islam but also the inherent weaknesses of radical Islam. A foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries on what they might someday do. A foreign policy that requires, as Kennan put it, “a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of . . . expansive tendencies.” A policy that understands the “distinction between vital and peripheral interests.”

No one believes that Kennan was an isolationist but Kennan did advise that non-interference in the internal affairs of another country was, after all, a long standing principle of American diplomacy . . . [that should be excepted only when: A) “ there is a sufficiently powerful national interest” and B) when “we have the means to conduct such intervention successfully AND can afford the cost.”

In Kennan’s famous ‘X’ article he argues that containment meant the “application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manoeuvres of Soviet policy.” He later clarified, though, that did not necessarily mean that the application of counterforce had to mean a military response. He argued that containment was not a strategy to counter “entirely by military means.” “But containment was not diplomacy [alone] either.”
-

Yeah, he clearly implies he's willing to go to war for "America's vital interests."

[itshappening]

Here's more of Rand's Foreign Policy:

-
Conclusion

I recognize that foreign policy is complicated. It is inherently less black and white to most people than domestic policy. I think there is room for a foreign policy that strikes a balance.

If for example, we imagine a foreign policy that is everything to everyone, that is everywhere all the time that would be one polar extreme.

Likewise if we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do exist in the world – well, that would be the other polar extreme.

There are times, such as existed in Afghanistan with the Bin Laden terrorist camps, that do require intervention.

Maybe, we could be somewhere, some of the time and do so while respecting our constitution and the legal powers of Congress and the Presidency.

Reagan’s foreign policy was much closer to what I am advocating than what we have today. The former Chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene noted that Reagan’s policy was much less interventionist than the presidents of both parties who came right before him and after him.

I’d argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy, as it includes two basic tenets of true conservatism: respect for the constitution, and fiscal discipline.

I am convinced that what we need is a foreign policy that works within these two constraints, a foreign policy that works within the confines of the Constitution the realities of our fiscal crisis.

Today in Congress there is no such nuance, no such moderation of dollars or executive power.

Last year I introduced a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution reiterating the President's words when he was a candidate that no president should go to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress unless an imminent threat to our national security exists.

Not one Democrat voted to support candidate Obama's words and only ten Republican senators voted to support the notion that Congressional authority is needed to begin war.

Some well-meaning senators came up to me and said, Congress has the power of the purse strings and can simply cut off funds. The problem is that there is occasionally a will to avoid war in the beginning but rarely, if ever, is there the resolve to cut off funding once troops are in the field. No historic example exists of Congress cutting off funds to a war in progress. Even during Vietnam, arguably our most unpopular war, funds were never voted down.

Madison wrote, "The Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch most prone to war and most interested in it, therefore the Constitution has with studied care vested that power in the Legislature.

Since the Korean War, Congress has ignored its responsibility to restrain the President. Congress has abdicated its role in declaring war.

What would a foreign policy look like that tried to strike a balance? first, it would have less soldiers stationed overseas and less bases. Instead of large, limitless land wars in multiple theaters, we would target our enemy; strike with lethal force.

We would not presume that we build nations nor would we presume that we have the resources to build nations. Many of the countries formed after WWI are collections of tribal regions that have never been governed by a central government and may, in fact, be ungovernable.
When we must intervene with force, we should attempt to intervene in cooperation with the host
government.

Intervention against the will of another nation such as Afghanistan or Libya would require Declaration of War by Congress. Such Constitutional obstacles purposefully make it more difficult to go to war. That was the Founders’ intention: To make war less likely. We did not declare war or authorize force to begin war with Libya. This is a dangerous precedent. In our
foreign policy, Congress has become not even a rubber stamp but an irrelevancy. With Libya, the President sought permission from the UN… from NATO… from the Arab League—everyone BUT the US Congress!

[Christian Liberty]

Likewise if we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do exist in the world – well, that would be the other polar extreme.

There are times, such as existed in Afghanistan with the Bin Laden terrorist camps, that do require intervention.

Maybe, we could be somewhere, some of the time and do so while respecting our constitution and the legal powers of Congress and the Presidency.

I suppose you could waffle about what he means here but he definitely seems to be rejecting the noninterventionist position here.

[itshappening]

Yeah, he clearly implies he's willing to go to war for "America's vital interests."

No, he does not. You're making that up.

[itshappening]

I suppose you could waffle about what he means here but he definitely seems to be rejecting the noninterventionist position here.

He's saying that it has to respect legal powers of congress... meaning, we'd only be somewhere if congress declared war. This is the correct position and Ron's too,.

[sailingaway]

Here's more of Rand's Foreign Policy:

-
Conclusion

I recognize that foreign policy is complicated. It is inherently less black and white to most people than domestic policy. I think there is room for a foreign policy that strikes a balance.

If for example, we imagine a foreign policy that is everything to everyone, that is everywhere all the time that would be one polar extreme.

Likewise if we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do exist in the world – well, that would be the other polar extreme.

There are times, such as existed in Afghanistan with the Bin Laden terrorist camps, that do require intervention.

Maybe, we could be somewhere, some of the time and do so while respecting our constitution and the legal powers of Congress and the Presidency.

Reagan’s foreign policy was much closer to what I am advocating than what we have today. The former Chairman of the American Conservative Union David Keene noted that Reagan’s policy was much less interventionist than the presidents of both parties who came right before him and after him.

I’d argue that a more restrained foreign policy is the true conservative foreign policy, as it includes two basic tenets of true conservatism: respect for the constitution, and fiscal discipline.

I am convinced that what we need is a foreign policy that works within these two constraints, a foreign policy that works within the confines of the Constitution the realities of our fiscal crisis.

Today in Congress there is no such nuance, no such moderation of dollars or executive power.

Last year I introduced a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution reiterating the President's words when he was a candidate that no president should go to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress unless an imminent threat to our national security exists.

Not one Democrat voted to support candidate Obama's words and only ten Republican senators voted to support the notion that Congressional authority is needed to begin war.

Some well-meaning senators came up to me and said, Congress has the power of the purse strings and can simply cut off funds. The problem is that there is occasionally a will to avoid war in the beginning but rarely, if ever, is there the resolve to cut off funding once troops are in the field. No historic example exists of Congress cutting off funds to a war in progress. Even during Vietnam, arguably our most unpopular war, funds were never voted down.

Madison wrote, "The Constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch most prone to war and most interested in it, therefore the Constitution has with studied care vested that power in the Legislature.

Since the Korean War, Congress has ignored its responsibility to restrain the President. Congress has abdicated its role in declaring war.

What would a foreign policy look like that tried to strike a balance? first, it would have less soldiers stationed overseas and less bases. Instead of large, limitless land wars in multiple theaters, we would target our enemy; strike with lethal force.

We would not presume that we build nations nor would we presume that we have the resources to build nations. Many of the countries formed after WWI are collections of tribal regions that have never been governed by a central government and may, in fact, be ungovernable.
When we must intervene with force, we should attempt to intervene in cooperation with the host
government.

Intervention against the will of another nation such as Afghanistan or Libya would require Declaration of War by Congress. Such Constitutional obstacles purposefully make it more difficult to go to war. That was the Founders’ intention: To make war less likely. We did not declare war or authorize force to begin war with Libya. This is a dangerous precedent. In our
foreign policy, Congress has become not even a rubber stamp but an irrelevancy. With Libya, the President sought permission from the UN… from NATO… from the Arab League—everyone BUT the US Congress!

Maybe we should break off the discussion of Rand's foreign policy to Rand's forum. This thread isn't on that topic.

[torchbearer]

He just wants an endless cold war against "radical Islam", whatever the hell that is. That sort of thing gives the MIC a hard on.

I don't even think he wants that.
and if it is to be a war, he says it is congress to declare before a president should execute.

Rand is pulling a reagan in reverse.
it should be obvious to most by now- though it was clear as day to some of us from the beginning.
the tactic was discussed at lp central committee meetings-

[Christian Liberty]

@ItsHappening- Yes, that's true that Ron does take the constitutional position, however, Ron is also very clear that ANY war outside of pure self-defense isn't acceptable. Rand isn't being very clear.

[itshappening]

On radical islam he says confronting it might not even mean military action.

It's a strange thing to say. He covered a lot of bases and gave himself plenty of outs with that. It just sounds good.

[itshappening]

@ItsHappening- Yes, that's true that Ron does take the constitutional position, however, Ron is also very clear that ANY war outside of pure self-defense isn't acceptable. Rand isn't being very clear.

He's perfectly clear to me. He says congress has to declare the war. He even said he thinks the Afghanistan action should have been a declared war and not an "authorization" to use force.

No where does he say anything about "America's vital interests" you made those words up because they're not in his speech.

[FSP-Rebel]

I guess I just find it a little annoying that people think Rand supports a pure noninterventionist foreign policy even when Rand himself says that he does not.
It's a nuanced message w/ built-in floodgates to keep the media from having ammo to demagogue him with. Ultimately, it is a realist and non-interventionist message that aims at spurring a discussion on the right to reverse the current policy that the GOP is known for. The messaging isn't meant for your purist ears nor mine, it's something that resonates with conservatives w/o going too deep to lose those he's trying to dust off from the years of brainwashed media tutelage. And for the record, there was a major range war here and abroad other sites where different pro-liberty factions were at each others' throats and this has since died off. It started not because of innocent inquiry on tactics but because of negative insults that were being leveled at Rand that were proven wasn't the case yet some were so invested that they couldn't back down. Water has went under the bridge and that is what I meant by cautionary use of terminology when discussing potentially divisive rhetoric.

[Christian Liberty]

Fair enough and sorry about that. I suppose its possible that Rand is just trying to do what you say and I hope that that is indeed the case if and when he gets into office. However, that's not the message he's giving me. He's giving me the message that he wants a "Middle Ground." Now, its not all bad of course, incremental improvement is still improvement. But seriously, in a hypothetical world where Rand Paul ran against Ron Paul how many of you seriously wouldn't care? I'd think you'd want Ron in the White House. Because Ron is more principled, more consistently anti-hawk (Note: I'm not saying Rand is actually a hawk, I'm only saying Ron is more consistently in favor of peace) and Ron was always clear. I'm aware that this doesn't always "Work" but then, I don't really think that there's any way to win anyways. Better to lose while giving the full, non-watered down message.

I support Rand. But I would support someone like Ron more.

[AuH20]

It's a nuanced message w/ built-in floodgates to keep the media from having ammo to demagogue him with. Ultimately, it is a realist and non-interventionist message that aims at spurring a discussion on the right to reverse the current policy that the GOP is known for. The messaging isn't meant for your purist ears nor mine, it's something that resonates with conservatives w/o going too deep to lose those he's trying to dust off from the years of brainwashed media tutelage. And for the record, there was a major range war here and abroad other sites where different pro-liberty factions were at each others' throats and this has since died off. It started not because of innocent inquiry on tactics but because of negative insults that were being leveled at Rand that were proven wasn't the case yet some were so invested that they couldn't back down. Water has went under the bridge and that is what I meant by cautionary use of terminology when discussing potentially divisive rhetoric.

Most importantly, it's practical. Terrorism will not dissipate or disappear overnight. Only a fool would hold such an absolutist position on either side of the spectrum. With that said, the defensive approach is the logical method to move ahead as opposed to the current methods.

[Sola_Fide]

Most importantly, it's practical. Terrorism will not dissipate or disappear overnight. Only a fool would hold such an absolutist position on either side of the spectrum. With that said, the defensive approach is the logical method to move ahead as opposed to the current methods.

Terrorism will definitely not disappear with a policy of military or political intervention.

[sailingaway]

itshappening, you are regularly picking fights in this forum AND in Ron's, where this thread started, and causing divisions. you also start 'concern' type threads in this forum which seem less than constructive. Cut it out.