Greg Buls
Infowars.com
January 2, 2012
Ron Paul has placed American foreign policy front and center in the
presidential election. Should we even be considering an alternative to
our current policies? Definitely not, we’re told, by all of the other
candidates for president, both Democrat and Republican. While they were
consistently wrong about the prospects for ‘success’ in both Iraq and
Afghanistan, most voters are still listening to them. Most voters don’t
yet know that Paul emphatically predicted failure, in detail, on both
fronts, while also warning about the inflating housing bubble and its
inevitable consequences. When voters learn someone is running who
actually predicted the establishment’s giant messes, more eyes and ears
will turn to Paul.
Presently, voters are being brow-beaten into thinking that Paul’s
foreign policy prescriptions are dangerous. Yet in spite of the constant
barrage of negative sentiment from media and GOP minions, Dr. Paul is
seeking every opportunity to discuss foreign policy with voters. He
knows that voters need more than a sound bite to challenge thinking
that’s been entrenched for decades. His work is aided by a series of
congressional actions, a pattern which provides inescapable proof of
catastrophic foreign policy failure.
Consider the proper constitutional purposes of foreign policy:
Avoiding military conflict when possible, and keeping the population
safe from foreign aggression. Our current foreign policy explicitly
abandons the first objective; it requires us to actively seek and engage
in war, ostensibly to insure the second objective, keeping us safe.
That is exactly how the policy was sold to the American people: We must
fight them over there so that they won’t terrorize us over here. It’s
probably not an all or nothing question – fighting them over there does
not insure that they cannot come here to attack us. Our borders are
essentially open; many nations likely have the ability to bring
highly-coordinated terror attacks to our shores, if and when they
choose, whether we occupy their lands or not.
But we’re not being attacked. Foiled plots are amateurish and often
of dubious origin. Maybe all of the real radicals are staying put, in
order to fight us over there. That would suggest that the policy is
working as intended. But it would also mean that the policy may be
endless – if we leave, they will come here, we are constantly told. If
it is not safe to leave now, then when, and how can we know? Perhaps we
can successfully defend our footholds there for many years and remain
‘safe’ at home. But at some point the people we are fighting will
eventually become convinced that fighting us over there won’t dislodge
us, and they will turn to the alternative, attacking us here.(CONTINUE READING)