Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: "Peace Through Strength" Converting Non-Interventionism Into a Winning Platform

  1. #1

    "Peace Through Strength" Converting Non-Interventionism Into a Winning Platform

    This is both an indirect commentary on Rand's foreign policy platform, and a discussing about what would be an ideal foreign policy platform for future libertarian candidates.

    The premises of the discussion are:
    (a) it would be good to both drastically reduce military spending and drastically restrict the actual deployment of the military overseas,
    but (b) we want to actually win elections so we have to find the right balance between the ideal and the practical

    Ron's foreign policy got no traction on the right because he didn't moderate it. He called for both reducing the size of the military and restricting its deployment overseas, both of which are viewed negatively on the right. An ideal libertarian platform would (and Rand's platform more or less does) calls for restricting the deployment of the military but also increasing its strength. The right dislikes the former but loves the latter. The latter "pays for" the former. You see? This is the basic thrust of a sensible libertarian foreign policy.

    What about the details? Well, that's what I'd mostly like to discuss with you.

    What exactly should be the foreign policy doctrine, the criteria for when to deploy US military forces overseas?

    And, how can we strengthen US national defense in a way to satisfy the right, without going too crazy and blowing up the budget. It goes without saying that any increases in defense expenditures need to be offset by cuts elsewhere; and since the appetite for cuts elsewhere is limited, so the opportunity for increasing defense spending will be limited. So this dove-tails with a discussion of what domestic programs are cuttable in practice.

    Two ideas jump to mind immediately, regarding possible increases in defense spending.

    1. Drastically increase the budget for border security (idea being to keep terrorists from entering the country illegally). This would have great PR value and wouldn't actually cost that much. We could double the Customs and Border Security budget for about $13 billion per year. Note that this has no bearing on immigration policy. We could have stronger border security and lower quotas or stronger borders and higher quotas.

    2. Increasing certain parts of the DHS budget dealing with protection of critical infrastructural. Again, the entire DHS budget is only about $60 billion. We could probably find a few programs in there to double or triple, for great PR value, at relatively modest cost. Note that this has no bearing on the civil rights issues with DHS and similar federal policing/spying operations. We could increase spending for legitimate security purposes while simulteously proposing to repeal the Patriot Act, end NSA warrantless spying, etc.

    ....directly increasing DoD spending is an obvious option, but the percentage increase would have to be small, since the DoD is already hundreds of billions per year, so I think we get more PR value for our buck by enlarging smaller programs/agencies.

    Regarding foreign policy doctrine, criteria for deploying the military, and foreign diplomacy:

    The major US alliances (NATO, S. Korea, Japan) are not really dangerous at this point. None of those states are at all likely to drag us into a war anytime soon. NATO is only a problem if it moves further East and provokes Russia, but the Europeans aren't the one driving that, it's the US government. Ex hypothesi, if we have a libertarian President, that will stop - and so NATO is not an issue. Taiwan is a problem, but the US has no formal alliance with Taiwan. A libertarian should not run on ending any of those major alliances - it alienates the right and doesn't really solve any pressing problem (since those alliances aren't really a risk right now).

    The real risk is that some new chaos in the Middle East or possibly Africa will generate calls for a new military intervention. Now, with a libertarian President, the risks of this are automatically limited, since he won't be stirring up trouble intentionally as the current President did in Syria. But still, there will probably be some chaos somewhere, and the right-media will call for intervention. How does a libertarian president respond? What are the criteria for intervention? Rand's embassies etc argument is weak. I understand how he got himself stuck in that position, but we can do better. On another note, "no nation building" could work very well on the right. Whatever the criteria for intervention, the plan for the intervention should always be "get in, destroy the target, get out." In practice, that eliminates the worst kind of interventions.

    I'm rambling....I'd like to hear your thoughts - practical details for a "Peace Through Strength" platform?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-02-2015 at 01:24 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Non-Interventionism AKA "minding your own business". (MYOB!)

  4. #3
    It doesn't need more funding, it needs restructuring. We've already depleted most everything else for it. SSI, infrastructure funds, the savings of the elderly, etc...robbed.

    What does Putin want?
    Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 05-03-2015 at 09:26 PM.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    It doesn't need more funding, it needs restructuring.
    I agree with that, and I think certain budget neutral reforms in the force structure could be made without alienating the voters (and certain other needful ones could not), but we do need to increase funding somewhere to show we're tough. The actual amount can be small (people have no concept of quantities this large anyway); we just need for Rand (or whoever) to be able to say things like "I will triple the budget of blah blah whatever defense program" ... and the crowd goes wild.

    Bottom line: A token increase in defense spending is a small price to pay for electing a President who won't start more wars.

    We've already depleted most everything else for it. SSI, infrastructure funds, the savings of the elderly, etc...robbed.
    Well that's just not true. Defense is a small part of the budget compared to welfare, and the latter has been growing much faster than the former.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-03-2015 at 09:35 PM.

  6. #5
    Rand's foreign policy will basically be like the 80s....so nothing special

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Rand's foreign policy will basically be like the 80s....so nothing special
    The 80s or the 00s, Rand or anyone else Republican or Democrat.

    I'll take the 80s gladly. Excessive defense spending but no major wars.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Whatever the criteria for intervention, the plan for the intervention should always be "get in, destroy the target, get out." In practice, that eliminates the worst kind of interventions.

    That has not been a practice in decades, if ever. It's funny that you mention the 1980s, because this same rhetoric was espoused by Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. They also promoted the get in-get out philosophy, while sinking us into Latin American and Middle Eastern quagmires, such The Gulf War and terrorism wars. Military commanders shake their heads at such impractical naivete, but the rhetoric persists.







    Drastically increase the budget for border security (idea being to keep terrorists from entering the country illegally). This would have great PR value and wouldn't actually cost that much.



    I'm just pulling one quote of many, but I don't even think this a serious thread. Using words side-by-side like "drastically" and "wouldn't cost that much" is even worse than saying the president should adhere to the "right media." None of this "PR value" has much to do with liberty, and it's impractical to top it off.

    I read a GAO report on DHS several years ago. The numbers from DHS itself suggested that it was not really serious about securing the border. The money was obviously there, but they misappropriated it for roadblocks that were nowhere near the border. The report is only from several years ago, and my sense is not that much has changed in 2015.

    If you don't want to read the entire report, then just read the highlighted parts.








    My summary regarding the roadblock and budget content of that report here:



    A recent government report concluded that internal border patrol checkpoints are ineffective. Checkpoints at the actual border always work better. Here is my summary of that report.

    “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border]."

    --Richard Stana, General Accountability Office


    A recent government report entitled Border Patrol http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf) seems
    to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not as intent on securing our borders because of other priorities. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that the goal of DHS is to apprehend just 30% of illegal aliens at the border. The report states, “…the DHS Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008-2010 sets a goal for detecting and apprehending about 30 percent of major illegal activity at ports of entry in 2009, indicating that 70 percent of criminals and contraband may pass through the ports and continue on interstates and major roads to the interior of the United States.” GAO spokesman Richard Stana states that this is necessary so as not to interfere with commerce and traffic. He states in a GAO presentation, “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”

    This 30% DHS goal is announced in the context of an increasing number of Border Patrol agents: “As of June 2009, the Border Patrol had 19,354 agents nationwide, an increase of 57 percent since September 2006. Of these agents, about 88 percent (17,011) were located in the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. About 4 percent of the Border Patrol’s agents in these sectors were assigned to [internal non-border] traffic checkpoints, according to the Border Patrol.”

    The GAO report discusses the plans of DHS to create a permanent, internal non-border checkpoint in the Tucson Arizona sector, but the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that internal non-border checkpoints are ineffective compared to actual border checkpoints. There were 704,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal non-border checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.

    The figures for the Tucson Arizona sector are more dismal than national figures. Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal non-border checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdictions per agent at internal non-border checkpoints was only 8.

    The problem is further compounded because Border Patrol statistics are glaringly inaccurate: “Our analysis showed that the actual checkpoint performance results were incorrectly reported for two of the three measures in fiscal year 2007 and for one measure in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the Border Patrol incorrectly reported that it met its checkpoint performance targets for these two measures.”

    The DHS proposal for a permanent, internal non-border checkpoint would seem to defy common sense. Illegal aliens and smugglers simply circumvent permanent checkpoints by taking another route. No criminal is going to “check-in” at a post that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Citizens have expressed concern regarding this illegal alien circumvention because “…checkpoint operations cause illegal aliens and smugglers to attempt to circumvent the checkpoint—resulting in adverse impacts to nearby residents and communities, such as private property damage, theft, and littering. These concerns were cited most often by ranchers and residents in areas around checkpoints.”

    Border Patrol agents at the actual border also have much more authority than Border Patrol agents at internal nonborder checkpoints: “Border Patrol agents at [actual border] checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border.”

    The permanent, internal non-border checkpoint proposed for the Tucson Arizona sector has an estimated price tag of 25-40 million dollars. This is hardly money well spent, considering Border Patrol’s own statistics suggesting internal
    checkpoints do not work.

    This all leads back to the statement made by government spokesman Richard Stana, which is “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].” It seems that number could be greatly increased if Border Patrol agents were not wasted at internal checkpoints that don’t work.

    The Border Patrol needs to get back to the no nonsense patrolling of our borders. The question is why this is not being done.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf
    Report number 09-824, August 2009
    _______________________
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 05-03-2015 at 11:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  9. #8
    ^^On ignore list, cannot see, am assuming is hostile/stupid



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    ...



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ^^On ignore list, cannot see, am assuming is hostile/stupid



    Well, okay.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    Rand's foreign policy will basically be like the 80s....so nothing special
    What has Rand ever said or done that has led you to believe that he will continue covert military operations like those carried out by the Reagan administration? I believe one major tenet of Rand's own foreign policy that he consistently advocates is that military operations must be approved by congress, and (albeit less frequently) require a declaration of war.

  13. #11
    You do understand the difference between welfare and warfare, right?

    Welfare (in the case of SSI that I mentioned above) repays those that paid into it (interest free loan to gov). And, if it were not for the unbacked inflated currency and taxation, would easily suffice along with savings and other income revenues. (SS should be phased out, so let's not act like that's a part of this conversation).

    Warfare takes wealth and spreads it to others that did not pay into it, as well as destroys much that had been built by others besides. It also incurs costs to take care of those put into harms way and those whose consciences have been dreadfully seared.

    Without monetary reform, this circus of madness will continue, and has to continue to keep the illusion from collapsing. Was it not you, that posted the article from Drudge, "What Does Putin Want?" Did it not discuss this very thing and how it affects the U.S. foreign policy and banking diseases?
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    You do understand the difference between welfare and warfare, right?
    Warfare is mostly just a form of welfare, for a different group of people, but yes I appreciate the differences.

    Welfare (in the case of SSI that I mentioned above) repays those that paid into it (interest free loan to gov).
    No no no, people do not receive only what they paid in. It is redistribution of wealth from one person to another, aka welfare.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Warfare is mostly just a form of welfare, for a different group of people, but yes I appreciate the differences.



    No no no, people do not receive only what they paid in. It is redistribution of wealth from one person to another, aka welfare.
    Most of the people will never receive what they paid in, and worse so when considering the devaluation of it over the years, like what happens to savings.

    It is redistribution from the poor and middle class to the corrupt wealthy.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Most of the people will never receive what they paid in...
    Some will, some won't. It depends on when you were born (the tax/benefit laws have changed over the years), when you choose to retire, and how long you live.

    Either way, this is not a good program and should be phased out. We agree on that, don't we?

    So what are we arguing about?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    You do understand the difference between welfare and warfare, right?

    Welfare (in the case of SSI that I mentioned above) repays those that paid into it (interest free loan to gov). And, if it were not for the unbacked inflated currency and taxation, would easily suffice along with savings and other income revenues. (SS should be phased out, so let's not act like that's a part of this conversation).

    Warfare takes wealth and spreads it to others that did not pay into it, as well as destroys much that had been built by others besides. It also incurs costs to take care of those put into harms way and those whose consciences have been dreadfully seared.

    Without monetary reform, this circus of madness will continue, and has to continue to keep the illusion from collapsing. Was it not you, that posted the article from Drudge, "What Does Putin Want?" Did it not discuss this very thing and how it affects the U.S. foreign policy and banking diseases?
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Some will, some won't. It depends on when you were born (the tax/benefit laws have changed over the years), when you choose to retire, and how long you live.

    Either way, this is not a good program and should be phased out. We agree on that, don't we?

    So what are we arguing about?
    The things that you want to argue about, that I was trying to avoid.

    The OP is what I was discussing, for the most part, at the start. And, as shown above, I did not want this to turn into an argument about whether it should exist, because that has been hashed out and most agree it should not, but does.

    Now, as to whether I think there should be more funding for defense (or otherwise militarily)...NO. And I tried to explain why.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Now, as to whether I think there should be more funding for defense (or otherwise militarily)...NO. And I tried to explain why.
    Obvioously, if the choice is between more or less defense spending, all else being equal, all of us here would choose less.

    The point of this thread is that there are trade-offs.

    I think it's possible to get Rand or a Rand-like candidate elected on a strongly non-interventionist foreign policy platform IF he panders a bit on defense spending.

    If you could trade a token increase in defense spending (say $30 billion or so) for no more wars for 4-8 years, would you make that trade?

    I would, I can't imagine why any non-interventionist libertarian wouldn't. Any new war (the next one will probably be Iran) is going to cost orders of magnitude more than that $30 billion, not to mention all the lives lost, the added oppourtiities for the state to justify further violations of the Bill of Rights, etc.

    It's a no-brainer IMO.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    "I will pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" ?

    Stop the wars, then let's talk. Because giving up the goods for promises from liars doesn't seem sane.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ^^On ignore list, cannot see, am assuming is hostile/stupid
    You were right about both. He's the forum troll.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    "I will pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" ?

    Stop the wars, then let's talk. Because giving up the goods for promises from liars doesn't seem sane.
    Er, we're talking about a campaign platform.

    Neither the token defense spending increase nor the change in foreign policy would happen until the candidate is elected.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    You were right about both. He's the forum troll.

    Please explain. I made a detailed post addressing the OP.

    It's one thing if you decline to debate me in the religion forum. It's quite another to follow me around the forum and act goofy.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 05-04-2015 at 05:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members



Similar Threads

  1. Peter Navarro: "The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Strength"
    By randomname in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 08:28 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-15-2013, 10:11 AM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-15-2011, 12:50 PM
  4. "Peace Talks": Obama Exploits US Strength, Abbas's Weakness
    By charrob in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 10:23 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-29-2008, 08:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •