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.

[oblong]

There's much to be said for a non-interventionist foreign policy. My fear is that Ron Paul and some of his supporters turn a useful prudential rule into a hard and fast moral absolute.

[Global Scout]

I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Having participated in numerous military and perhaps what could be labeled paramilitary ventures that resulted in very limited, if any, gains for our nation, I tend to lean towards Ron Paul's way of thinking.

Yesterday I finished the book, "Osama Bin Laden, America's Enemy in His Own Words", editied by Randall Hamud, J.D.. I doubt anyone will concur entirely with all of the editor's recommendations, it is a good book and clearly presents why Osama Bin Laden's arguments are so persuaive with many in the Muslim community.

One point the editor makes that is very relevant to this site is that we have opposed freedom in many parts of the Middle East by supporting corrupt and repressive regimes, which deprives their populations of sufficient "political space" to develop the domestic foundations necessary for democracy, i.e., free press, independent courts, mainstream political parties, etc. This has indirectly led to the rise of fundamentalist Islamist parties, most of which are formed underground. They have learned organizational skills and have numerous followers, since they are the only viable option, thus should a free election opportunity arise, the Islamist parties have the best chance of winning.

We made our own bed due to our meddling in their business. I recall Steve commenting in another post what exactly have we accomplished in the Philippines and Columbia after 50 years? That could be said for numerous interventions. An argument could be made we have wasted millions of dollars in these misadventures.

Probably contrary to Dr Paul, I think we need to maintain a capability to conduct convert activities, and to assist friendly nations (such as El Salvador) defend themselves against irregular threats in the "few" cases that it is "truly" in our national interest. I think the beauty of Dr. Paul's argument is that we need to be more selective of where and when we intervene. I don't think he arguing for a fortress America.

[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.

[marden]

Having participated in numerous military and perhaps what could be labeled paramilitary ventures that resulted in very limited, if any, gains for our nation, I tend to lean towards Ron Paul's way of thinking.

Yesterday I finished the book, "Osama Bin Laden, America's Enemy in His Own Words", editied by Randall Hamud, J.D.. I doubt anyone will concur entirely with all of the editor's recommendations, it is a good book and clearly presents why Osama Bin Laden's arguments are so persuaive with many in the Muslim community.

One point the editor makes that is very relevant to this site is that we have opposed freedom in many parts of the Middle East by supporting corrupt and repressive regimes, which deprives their populations of sufficient "political space" to develop the domestic foundations necessary for democracy, i.e., free press, independent courts, mainstream political parties, etc. This has indirectly led to the rise of fundamentalist Islamist parties, most of which are formed underground. They have learned organizational skills and have numerous followers, since they are the only viable option, thus should a free election opportunity arise, the Islamist parties have the best chance of winning.

We made our own bed due to our meddling in their business. I recall Steve commenting in another post what exactly have we accomplished in the Philippines and Columbia after 50 years? That could be said for numerous interventions. An argument could be made we have wasted millions of dollars in these misadventures.

Probably contrary to Dr Paul, I think we need to maintain a capability to conduct convert activities, and to assist friendly nations (such as El Salvador) defend themselves against irregular threats in the "few" cases that it is "truly" in our national interest. I think the beauty of Dr. Paul's argument is that we need to be more selective of where and when we intervene. I don't think he arguing for a fortress America.

I appreciate your service and expertise in this matter.

Just because past captains of our foreign policy were unwise or of dubious ethics or ill advised should not suggest that Dr. Paul's suggestion of leaving the matter of our foreign involvement to be an issue decided by popular vote.

All of the confidential knowledge needed to make intelligent decisions on matters of war must be kept confidential and without that crucial information the people might decide that a war is not needed.

Let's take the matter of the Invasion of Iraq.

There is no one who would say, now or then, that all of the confidential information which the President had to consider in making the decision to invade was divulged to the public. Nor should it have been because that could have given our adversaries or potential adversaries an undue advantage.

Yet, without this confidential knowledge the American people (half of them, anyway) voted against the president in 2006 and many are demanding his head.

If Dr. Paul became President Paul and the Congress or the people had to decide whether it was in our interest to go to war in Iraq I dare say we might easily be imagined to in a regional war from Spain to the Pacific or even a World War.

Instead of saying, 'we've done a poor job of foreign relations and must do it better,' Dr, Paul's attitude seems to be, 'we did a poor job of Foreign Relations so let's just stop trying to positively affect world affairs and let OTHERS decide our options. If we don't like them then we'll negotiate or just accept it.'

There IS a middle course that he seems not to embrace. But I haven't read those links provided above, yet. So I will do that now.

Thanks all.

[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...

[Cavguy]

I appreciate your service and expertise in this matter.

Just because past captains of our foreign policy were unwise or of dubious ethics or ill advised should not suggest that Dr. Paul's suggestion of leaving the matter of our foreign involvement to be an issue decided by popular vote.

All of the confidential knowledge needed to make intelligent decisions on matters of war must be kept confidential and without that crucial information the people might decide that a war is not needed.

We certainly wouldn't want something so uninformed as the American people actually determining the direction of the country and whether their sons or daughters go to war - that's just plain undemocratic!

There is no one who would say, now or then, that all of the confidential information which the President had to consider in making the decision to invade was divulged to the public. Nor should it have been because that could have given our adversaries or potential adversaries an undue advantage.

Yet, without this confidential knowledge the American people (half of them, anyway) voted against the president in 2006 and many are demanding his head.

Wow, since they obviously didn't know what he knew, we should all just trust the president and his staff to always make the right decisions and we little people should just follow along? I think that's why the constitution created a troublesome concept the concept of "separation of powers"?

If Dr. Paul became President Paul and the Congress or the people had to decide whether it was in our interest to go to war in Iraq I dare say we might easily be imagined to in a regional war from Spain to the Pacific or even a World War.

Ooookay .... so if we didn't invade Iraq we cede all of Europe to these AQIZ hordes? I was stationed in Germany at the time and I can certify it wasn't in any danger of being overrun by AQIZ anytime soon. I DID watch our country's reputation go to mud across Europe in the span of six years. Again, God forbid the Congress or the people had a say in our country's decisions on such small matters!

Instead of saying, 'we've done a poor job of foreign relations and must do it better,' Dr, Paul's attitude seems to be, 'we did a poor job of Foreign Relations so let's just stop trying to positively affect world affairs and let OTHERS decide our options. If we don't like them then we'll negotiate or just accept it.'

I'm not a Paul supporter, but I'm pretty sure that's not his position. I think he just perceives that our interventionism (for good and bad reasons) around the world is causing us more problems than it is solving.
I know a government needs its secrets, but forgive me if I misread the constitution where the President gets to do whatever he wants if he feels like it, and does not have to answer to his boss, the American people.

[Tacitus]

Mr. Paul is in good company with past American Presidents. Consider John Quincy Adams' Independence Day Address in 1821:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. . . . Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

As for this "just trust the President and let him do what he wants in waging wars for democracy or revolutionary change" that is Wilsonian at best, and Jacobin at worst.