Yesterday Congressman Paul came to the Voter Values Summit in Washington, DC. As usual his people showed up in force and cheered even his flubbed sentences. It must be nice to have followers that loyal. Few in politics today can boast such loyalty.
So, I went to his speech to hear what makes him unique from his own lips. He advocated what he called the Just War Theory (Would it be too much to say his version of Just War Theory includes neither justice or war?), but practically speaking it sounds like there is no war is just unless it is in selfish interest.
So, I went to his speech to hear what makes him unique from his own lips. He advocated what he called the Just War Theory (Would it be too much to say his version of Just War Theory includes neither justice or war?), but practically speaking it sounds like there is no war is just unless it is in selfish interest.
That worries me. I recently read President George W. Bush's book Decision Points. It is insightful. The first chapter and the chapters on international policy are the best. 
When I read his description of 9/11 it was so vivid it brought back emotions and memories. I remember all the good reasons we went to war in the Middle East.
When I read his description of 9/11 it was so vivid it brought back emotions and memories. I remember all the good reasons we went to war in the Middle East.
A great book I recommend is The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot. It is a history of American foreign policy and the “small wars” (think the halls of Montezuma and shores of Tripoli). It goes into the details of how the United States has actively used military power to help spread freedom for hundreds of years. Starting with Thomas Jefferson sending warships into Middle Eastern ports to stop terrorism on the high seas the book progresses up to Vietnam giving examples of America's historical belief and practice of promoting freedom around the world. This started with the Founding Fathers and has been ingrained in our national character ever since even when we were supposedly “isolationist.”
I am hesitant to recommend movies because everyone has different standards for what is okay on screen. The movie Hotel Rwanda, however, had a huge impact on my views of foreign policy. It is a true story and is told in a very powerful way. As Focus on the Family said in their review, "By no means is Hotel Rwanda a film children should see (and by no means should it be deemed entertainment for moviegoers of any age). But for the millions of adults and teens who decide to take it in, it's my prayer that they will hold on to those feelings of rage and sorrow much longer than Jack thinks they will."
I am hesitant to recommend movies because everyone has different standards for what is okay on screen. The movie Hotel Rwanda, however, had a huge impact on my views of foreign policy. It is a true story and is told in a very powerful way. As Focus on the Family said in their review, "By no means is Hotel Rwanda a film children should see (and by no means should it be deemed entertainment for moviegoers of any age). But for the millions of adults and teens who decide to take it in, it's my prayer that they will hold on to those feelings of rage and sorrow much longer than Jack thinks they will."
If good guys aren't there to stop the bad guys, the bad guys will win. As Tony Blair put it, it is an issue of morality.
In short, I believe in the Reagan principle of "peace through strength" tied closely with the Spiderman principle of "with great power comes great responsibly." William Wilberforce explains it well: "You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know." This includes having an international policy that is willing to step in when we can and promote freedom.
An insightful Generation Joshua student asked me how this squares with being responsible with our financial resources. Obviously, we shouldn't do something if we really can't afford it. That is just foolishness. In fact, everything in foreign policy should always be filtered through the process of analyzing the positives and negatives. There is no autopilot.
One thing to remember, however, is WWII. The country was broke. We were still in the Depression and in debt. But when you must do something you find a way to do it. We were attacked and and the world was in turmoil, thus we needed to defend ourselves, defeat our enemies, and support our allies. So, we found a way. (In this case War Bonds. HT: Captain America.)
Money is a concern, but just like all other aspects in analysis you take all the positives and negatives into account and make the best decision you can. Sometimes that is easy, sometimes it is not. But that is the burden of leadership.
Isolationists could benefit from looking at history and remembering that selfishness is not a worthy standard for national policy. Doing what is right when it is in your best interest is not noteworthy, it is when someone does what it right when it costs them something that catches my attention.
This is why I disagree with Congressman Paul's foreign policy positions and was disappointed when I heard his speech.
Have you read The Savage Wars of Peace or seen Hotel Rwanda? Did they impact you? What has influenced your view of American foreign policy?
________
Related post: Why Not Ron Paul?
________
Related post: Why Not Ron Paul?
"Would it be too much to say his version of Just War Theory includes neither justice or war?"
ReplyDeleteI'll bite : )
Umm, I think yes. Maybe I've misunderstood something about the general principle, but I think the idea is not to avoid war entirely...but to avoid most wars so as to ensure that the wars fought are definitely just.
Example: In WWII we were attacked by Japan (and thus the Axis Powers). We responded with a just war of defense.
Unless one is antiwar, WWII is an obviously just war.
-------
"practically speaking it sounds like there is no war is just unless it is in selfish interest."
At present I'll make no statement concerning the "rightness" of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...but weren't they entirely billed as wars of selfish interest? Our primary case concerned WMDs.
That is a good point, Jamie. The people against going into Iraq were all saying that we were greedy and self interested.
ReplyDeleteBut the supporters of the war where talking about these reasons:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/12/02/hrdossierenglish.pdf
That's what I remember.
The trouble is that we didn't declare war on Iraq, we declared war on an abstract concept: terror. You can beat a country, but you can't beat an idea and that is why Iraq was a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering... you said u are disappointed with his foreign policy but u never stated what his policy is? Maybe u could outline his policy and then explain why u disagree with it.
ReplyDeleteI will try to talk about what his policy is in a future post. But, I was reacting to this speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qKQ1xXobJc&feature=share
ReplyDeleteHaving read The Savage Wars of Peace, my take on the small-scale wars is thoroughly different. I seem to recall the author pointing out that while, yes, the wars did promote freedom, they were never ideological wars intended to do so. They were simply wars fought to defend or promote American interests. One cannot say the pacification of the Philippines, for example, was intended as the spread of freedom. Rather, it was the spread of America. For the most part, such military action rarely included full-scale occupation. We bloodied countries noses, got what we wanted (like securing a molasses at a reasonable rate) then left.
ReplyDeleteI think that when we started to claim moral justification for our wars, we took any justification away. I say we should involve ourselves militarily in other places, but for our country, not for our ideas.
When we made it plain that we fought for economic reasons, we didn't claim our lifestyle was superior, so no one took it personally.
One of Ron Paul's best arguments is that war makes things worse, not better. The recent two wars give a stark illustration:
ReplyDeleteHussein's human rights dossier linked above is atrocious, but has the war fixed it? When the US and coalition invaded Iraq, they started a 6+ year civil war that left over 100,000 dead, with millions displaced and impoverished.
The primary justification of the war in Iraq was the threat of WMDs. The long-idle WMD threat was in reasonable pre-war analysis not bad enough to spend trillions on, and as it turns out, barely enough to spend more than a few billions on.
The premise of both the Afghan and Iraq wars was that they would be quick, precise, and effective. In spite of all of the resources the Western coalition could provide, these wars proven out to be neither. Both countries are in turmoil, with Iraq finally improving, Afghanistan still embroiled in civil war so old 92% of young men under 30 don't remember the event (9/11) that triggered it, and so destructive many of Afghanistan's families are supported by elementary-age kids begging in the street.. not that it was any good before, but after all people dead and resources consumed, what has improved?
Many of the proponents believed these wars would be just war. But St. Augustine's theory requires a just war to be minimalist and effective. If any war could be minimalist and effective, these wars should have been, and yet the coalition failed to make them so.
Derby, thank you for your thoughts. I'll have to think about it. Clearly we would all agree that hindsight is 20-20, and the evidence at the time was wrong, but it was what we had.
ReplyDeleteBut all told, I think even knowing what we know today, I still would have supported the Bush/Blair coalition. But like I said, I'll think about what you said.