Ron Paul Foreign Policy Question

[TheEvilDetector]

True foreign policy of the US:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18036.htm
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Putin/putin.html
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Russian_Giant/russian_giant.html

My question is, given the info contained in the above links and in general all the build up and overt and covert strategic moves up to this point by the US to enforce its global primacy, could the pulling back by the Paul administration be seen as a sign of weakness by the new up and coming geopolitical rivals?
True answer to many questions is often not black or white and so your comments are welcome :)

PS. I think that it is very clear that the true foreign policy (not the war on terror rubbish) of US has been carefully planned and executed by many parties with significant investment in a favourable outcome, consequently it would be ludicrous to consider the possibility of a voluntary surrender by these parties of the goals and the progress made thus far under this policy.

With so much money and time invested thus far, it seems that Ron Paul could not safely (without bloodshed on a local and international level) alter the course of this policy into what would amount to be an essentially 180 degree turn. The parties involved have shown themselves to be wholly unconcerned with the well being of the regular folk in their pursuit of global primacy, nor would such be a feasible concern, for the goals necessitate grotesque sacrifices in treasure and blood at every turn.

Realistically, given the historical precedents seen in the course of history of human kind, no empire would willingly dismantle it self and as is always the case, great violence is experienced during empire decline.

[kylejack]

I don't think that's how it would be seen by credible adversaries. They'd see that we had hundreds of thousands of troops sitting on our home soil, ready and waiting to deploy if an enemy tries to harm us. In fact, I think our presence in Iraq made us look weak. Its no coincidence that Iran and North Korea started getting boisterous and throwing out nuclear inspectors after we invaded Iraq. They know we can't deal with all this at once, and that we're stretched too thin.

[Bradley in DC]

Some people are going to see what they want to see no matter what.

A lot will depend on the context/statements/the how for each part.

[TheEvilDetector]

I don't think that's how it would be seen by credible adversaries. They'd see that we had hundreds of thousands of troops sitting on our home soil, ready and waiting to deploy if an enemy tries to harm us. In fact, I think our presence in Iraq made us look weak. Its no coincidence that Iran and North Korea started getting boisterous and throwing out nuclear inspectors after we invaded Iraq. They know we can't deal with all this at once, and that we're stretched too thin.

Yeah, with the economy hollowed out and debt ridden, I cannot imagine how the military presence in so many countries with so many bases can be sustained. Those that pursue primacy are economically ignorant or downright insane.

However, given the sustained encroachment of military power around Russia and the latest missile shield scandal in the Eastern European States, would a general middle-eastern pull out coupled with global base abandonment initiatives send a signal to russia and to some degree china, that it can now pursue its own geopolitical ascendancy at full tilt?

I believe for a truly safe and peaceful world, it is imperative that we live within the confines of a multi-polar geopolitically balanced world where the power projection does not come from a single state but rather from multiple states which all cancel each other out when considered on a global scale.

Ultimately, I believe a certain degree of US pull out is much needed, but not a total pull out from all bases, for if we are not careful, Russia can quickly fill in a spot that the US currently occupies, and that being the pre-eminent global power. China, which comes to mind of many as an up and coming power, cannot achieve this, simply because it relies on energy imports and its nuclear arsenal is dwarfed by those of Russia and US.

[kylejack]

Well, one possible piece of fallout would be China reclaiming Taiwan, and I think they'd probably get away with it. There also would probably be continued hijinks by Russia, and by that I mean assassination and subversion of other governments. It would be fairly limited in how it affected Americans, though. I think foreign leaders would always analyze things asking, "Would any Americans be harmed? We can't afford to provoke such an effective military, especially now that they're not tied down in Iraq."

[TheEvilDetector]

Well, one possible piece of fallout would be China reclaiming Taiwan, and I think they'd probably get away with it. There also would probably be continued hijinks by Russia, and by that I mean assassination and subversion of other governments. It would be fairly limited in how it affected Americans, though. I think foreign leaders would always analyze things asking, "Would any Americans be harmed? We can't afford to provoke such an effective military, especially now that they're not tied down in Iraq."

Yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. It is impossible to avoid such regional confrontations. These will always occur. America would be best served to stay out of these things. Nobody made America responsible to be the policeman of the world.

So long as the geopolitical distribution of power is fairly balanced there is no need for America to make any aggressive moves.

In fact, it is the policy right now which runs the highest risk of causing massive loss of life on this planet and to think it is all being done to spread the cause of democracy and to pursue the war on terror. Such noble ideas and yet so misguided and deadly.