Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Ron Paul: Mr. President, Let’s Come Home from Afghanistan

Posted on by

by Ron Paul

Last week President Obama made a surprise pre-dawn trip to Afghanistan to mark the one year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden and to sign a document further extending the US presence in that country. The president said, “we’re building an enduring partnership…As you stand up, you will not stand alone.” What that means in practice is that the US will continue its efforts to prop up the government in Afghanistan for another ten years beyond the promised withdrawal date of 2014.

To those of us who believe the US should leave Afghanistan immediately, the president retorted, “We must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize.” But how long will that take, when we have already fought the longest war in our nation’s history at incredible human and economic cost to the nation and no end is in sight?

There is little evidence of any sustained increase in stability in Afghanistan and, in fact, April saw the loss of 34 more American troops and an escalation of violence and upheaval. Within 90 minutes of the president’s departure, seven more people were killed in Kabul by a suicide bomber. It is clear that our presence in that country is not creating any real stability. With Osama bin Laden dead and the al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan virtually non-existent, we are reduced to nation-building in a nation where there is no real nation to build.

We should ask ourselves why Obama’s trip was a “surprise” visit rather than a normal state visit. The reason is that after ten years it is still far too dangerous to travel in or out of that country. Does that not speak much more loudly than the president’s optimistic words about the amazing progress we have made in Afghanistan?

What does our enduring commitment mean? Ask the South Koreans, where the United States has maintained an “enduring commitment” of US troops more than fifty years after hostilities ended. By some estimates the United States taxpayer is saddled with a 40 billion dollar annual price tag for our “enduring commitment” to maintaining a US military presence in Korea. Polls suggest that particularly younger Koreans are tired of the US military presence in their country and would prefer us to leave. The same is true for the residents of Okinawa, who have argued strongly and with some recent success for American troops to leave their island.

The Soviets believed the road to their goal for a universal form of government ran through Afghanistan. They were also wrong and paid an enormous price. However, after nine years and 15,000 Soviet lives lost, the communist regime in Moscow realized its mistake and withdrew from that country. The Soviet withdrawal was complete in early 1989. The Soviet Union by that time had further plunged into economic crisis, fueled in great part by its commitment to maintain a global empire of client states. Later that year, the Soviet world began crashing down, with first the collapse of Eastern European regimes and then the Soviet Union itself. That collapse produced an economic calamity for the successor states from which most have not yet fully recovered. It is not too late for the United States to learn what the Soviets discovered too late, back in 1989. Mr. President: the time to leave Afghanistan is today, not in 2024.

Share

Ron Paul’s Tough Questions for Hillary Clinton

Posted on by

Transcript

Madam Speaker: And being the wise legislature that he is, Dr. Paul elected to stay here, and so he gets to ask his question. Congressman Paul of Texas is recognized. I’ve learned not to say anything negative about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul: Welcome, Madam Secretary. I do want to get your comments about the stir that was caused by the apology over the Quran. And the administration has received a lot of criticism about this, and I think you’ve expressed some point that maybe this doesn’t help your job any by stirring up the resentment. But the whole issue about apology I think is an interesting one from a national level, and I recall what happened after Mac Demurer wrote his memoirs and he was apologetic about what happened and about how he orchestrated the Vietnam War. And a reporter asked him if he should apologize, and he said, “What good is an apology if the policies are wrong. You have to learn something from it and change the policy”. So a lot of emotions come out on this issue of an apology.

And I keep thinking that those who didn’t criticize him, I don’t think they criticized the last administration when President apologized for using the Quran as a target. So, sometimes apologizes aren’t always all equal. But with even that said, there were torture photograph before and they were very aggravating. Recently, there was urinating on bodies, on corpses, we didn’t particularly apologize for those, did we? I mean, there weren’t apologies there. But some of these things are emotional. But what about the whole idea of invading a country and occupying a country and disturbing their country, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees and suffering. Does it ever get to a point where apologizing about the Quran is rather minor to some of the other problems that we have created in these countries, could can comment on that?

Hillary Clinton: Well, Congressman, first I appreciate the very measured comments you’ve made about our presidents, not only this one, but prior presidents offering apologizes when we are deeply sorry for unfortunate incidents that occurred, that were not intentional, and which we know have emotional resonance with people. The larger question you ask, I think it’s also important to put into context that President Obama promised to wind down the Iraq War, he has done so. He’s in the process of transitioning out of Afghanistan in a manner that is done appropriately in keeping with the very large decisions that have to be made about helping the afghans defend themselves, working with our partners and allies in that effort. And, I think the underlying premises, certainly one that can be debated among Americans of good faith, I believe that we were justified in going to Afghanistan, which is …

Ron Paul: I want to apologize because I don’t want to get on that subject.

Hillary Clinton: And I accept your apology.

Ron Paul: Okay, there you go. But I do want to touch on something else to get a little different perspective on the nuclear enrichment in Iran. Because we hear different stories, even in Israel there are debates. Tamir Pardo actually said that if they get a weapon, it’s not an existential threat to Israel, so I’m sure there’s probably a more nuanced debate in Israel than there is here sometimes. But isn’t it true that Iran has the right to enrich up to 20% for peaceful purposes? The way we talk and hear discussions, most people believe that they have absolutely no right to enrich. And don’t they have that protection under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? But it never seems to have a balanced approach to that. And the best I can tell from what I read, there’s no evidence that they have a bomb, there’s no evidence that they’re on the verge of getting it, and even the administration, whether it’s the Clapper or general Dempsey, are saying, “It won’t make any sense to have a preemptive attack on there”. Could you give us a sense of a proper balance here, because a lot of people are convinced it’s Syria and then it’s Iran, and I’m personally concerned about that, because the last thing the American people need is another war. We don’t have the money, we don’t have the resources, and the military is not ready for another war.

Hillary Clinton: Congressman, I would direct your attention to the most recent Director-General’s report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, it’s not an American document, which outlines the concerns about the non-peaceful use of civilian nuclear power. There is increasing evidence that what the Iranians do is not consistent with their right to have the peaceful use of nuclear power. And I’ll be happy to get you a copy of that, because I think you asked a very important set of questions.

Madam Speaker: Thank you so much, Congressman. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

—

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Share

Ron Paul: Defend America, Not the World

Posted on by

by Ron Paul

The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.

I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled “Attack of the Pork Hawks”. He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.

The facts are that the President’s budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this “draconian” decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea – nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.

In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.

Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,

“stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it’s about time Washington focused on defending American and its people.”

I couldn’t agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask – is that the sort of security we envision for our nation’s future?

Share