Ron Paul's Fortress America: How would it work?

[marden]

Ron Paul's Fortress America: How would it work?

People talk about Ron Paul but I can never get anyone to elaborate on the pros and cons of his Fortress America concept.

Build big walls. We hide behind them. We have a few missiles. Anyone who messes with us we annihilate.

That can't work well or at all.

Can anyone elaborate on what it would really be like and include the pros and cons of Ron Paul's sophomoric sounding concept?

[selil]

Ron Paul all other things set aside is actually spouting the historical position of the United States. Friends with all, wary of any, strong on defense and offensive power (yeah right), no imperial tendencies. For the first 150 years with a few counter examples (e.g. Spanish American War) the United States kept most of it's imperialistic tendencies on the North American Continent. What he is suggesting is very Jeffersonian, and pretty close to the position (if more extreme) to what G.W. Bush ran as a campaign for the 2000 election.

[bourbon]

I am not sure Ron Paul uses the term “Fortress America”. That sounds more like a pejorative used to describe his policies. The term “Fortress America” implies an isolationist foreign policy, when Dr. Paul champions a less interventionist foreign policy. As Selil notes, Dr. Paul’s “sophomoric sounding concept” is actually the historical position of the United States as envisioned by our founding fathers. Tenets of Dr. Paul's policies would likely stress strategic independence and offshore balancing.

If would like to learn about what a Ron Paul national security strategy would likely entail, visit the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy website.

[bourbon]

Hi Marden, these are two particularly great threads on SWJ that explore concepts and issues that dovetail with some of Ron Paul’s thinking on terrorism and foreign affairs. This is not to imply any of the posters endorse Dr. Paul. Rather, it’s an attempt to skirt a partisan squabble (a no-go in these parts), while at the same time trying to answer some of your query.

Irregular Challenges and the Emerging Defense Debate

This thread discusses the concept of offshore balancing – a likely strategy to be used in a policy of less/non-interventionism. The thread then further examines economic factors with relation to strategic matters, a topic in which Dr. Paul focuses in far more detail than other candidates.

Suicide Attacks: weapon of the future?

Dr. Paul frequently cites Robert Pape’s work on suicide terrorism. Pape contends that suicide terrorism is a result of occupation. It is our policies of intervention and occupation, Dr. Paul argues, that begets more terrorism and thus makes us less safe. This thread is an excellent discussion of Pape’s work, suicide terrorism, and parts of that argument.

Finally, Dr. Paul was the author of the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 and Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007. Letters of Marque are an enumerated power of congress and a historical tool utilized to combat non-state foes. Suggesting its use in present day may seem a little coy, but an interesting one at that.

I hope some of this helps.

[GWL II]

Am a bit confused as to how this would affect the $25M reward that is now available for OBL? Seems that the financial incentive is there w/no letter of reprisal/marque being issued.

[bourbon]

Am a bit confused as to how this would affect the $25M reward that is now available for OBL? Seems that the financial incentive is there w/no letter of reprisal/marque being issued.

Hi GWLII.
Good point, financial incentives are already in place. My focus of interest here was on less the actual financial incentives, and more on the “marking” of members of AQ. Letters of Marque targeting individuals being a historical approach used against non-state actors in contrast to our current nation-building centric approach.

[marden]

Ron Paul all other things set aside is actually spouting the historical position of the United States. Friends with all, wary of any, strong on defense and offensive power (yeah right), no imperial tendencies. For the first 150 years with a few counter examples (e.g. Spanish American War) the United States kept most of it's imperialistic tendencies on the North American Continent. What he is suggesting is very Jeffersonian, and pretty close to the position (if more extreme) to what G.W. Bush ran as a campaign for the 2000 election.

But in this day and age, with the presence of hegemonic and aggressive existential threats like Islamism, his idea of withdrawing and allowing the rest of the world to deal with this menace is like suicide on the installment plan.

[Presley Cannady]

What he is suggesting is very Jeffersonian, and pretty close to the position (if more extreme) to what G.W. Bush ran as a campaign for the 2000 election.

From the 3 October 2000 debate:

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force.

The nation-building discussion was in the context of the uptick in OOTW/SASO during the 1990s and was a particular critique of humanitarian interventionism. It's not particularly useful to draw comparisons between (neo)conservative and libertarian strategic thinking on such a narrow area of agreement.

[Ken White]

to Politicians of any ideology on any subject. Even less attention than usual on "the use of force."

Watching what they do, OTOH, can be helpful...