The Media Must Take Dr. Paul's Lead and Ask Specific Foreign Policy Questions

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Despite Dr.
Ron Paul's courageous campaign against Washington's relentless overseas
interventionism, the presidential primaries have been largely free
of substantive foreign-policy debate, aside, that is, from quirky
assertions that sleeping with a president, serving as a prisoner
of war, and setting records for using the word change constitute
adequate commander-in-chief training. Having spent a year warning
Americans that the 9/11 attackers and our tens of millions of Islamist
enemies draw their main motivation from the impact of U.S. foreign
policy in the Muslim world, Dr. Paul has done as much as one man
could do to save Americans from the huge coming blood-and-treasure
costs of U.S. intervention. For his effort, Dr. Paul has been ridiculed,
damned, and vilified by the media and the country's political class,
but has earned the enduring respect and thanks of Americans who
do not understand why their children's lives and the outrageous
taxes they pay are continually wasted in other peoples' wars — especially
other peoples' religious wars — where no genuine U.S. national interests
are at risk.

As
readers of this site know, I am not a libertarian. I have, however,
written several pieces here and at Anti-War.com strongly supporting
Dr. Paul's non-interventionism. He is, after all, speaking for the
security and financial solvency of all Americans and their country.
And I have recently published a book called Marching
Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
, which suggests
those who think our Muslim-world problems will end when Mr. Bush
returns to Texas are badly mistaken, and that the next presidential
term will see nothing but more war and escalating human and economic
damage resulting from the interventionism both parties have advocated
as divine scripture for 40 years.

The reception
my book is getting from the press has given me a small taste of
Dr. Paul's experience. Some reviews have taken a serious look at
the book's arguments — agreeing with some, questioning others —
but the New York Times' Sunday review discussed nothing in
the book, simply denouncing it as crude, simplistic, implicitly
unpatriotic, Machiavellian (is that bad when defending America?),
and outside what De Tocqueville described as the closed-circle of
permissible debate. After reading it I thought: Now I know a bit
about how Dr. Paul felt when Rudy Giuliani struck his patented Mussolini
pose and denounced Dr. Paul's precisely true statement that U.S.
policy in the Muslim world motivated the 9/11 attackers and is motivating
the growing millions of our Islamist foes. Interventionism, it seems,
is holy gospel for our political class; to question the gospel is
treason and excludes the questioner from public debate.

Well, perhaps
interventionism is so deeply engrained in the U.S. governing elite
and its media acolytes that the issue cannot be taken on whole.
It is, after all, a broad and multifaceted topic; raising opposition
to it as a whole allows men like Il Duce Giuliani to avoid specifics
and assail non-interventionists as appeasers and blame-America-firsters.
Perhaps, the best non-interventionists can do in this presidential
cycle is to ask a limited number of specific questions which, if
answered honestly, would show Americans how poorly their interventionist
leaders are protecting them and how the defense of America is not
a high priority for Obama, McCain, and Clinton, despite their rhetoric.

There are many
questions to be asked of Senators Obama, McCain, and Clinton; Dr.
Paul has asked them continually, but the media for the most part
refuses to ask any. As long as the media — left, center, and right
— neglect their duty to ask pointedly specific foreign-policy questions,
Dr. Paul's is a lone voice of sanity. Obama, McCain, and Clinton
are all status-quo interventionists. They all helped light the fuse
for a future Balkans War by supporting Kosovo's independence, and
Obama's recent pro-Israel turn means he, like the other two, will
stay in Iraq. The candidates' call for health care, job creation,
tax cuts, and other domestic initiatives is empty talk; intervention's
past, present, and future costs precludes each. The candidates know
this, but will remain silent until the inauguration unless the media
step up to the plate — as Dr. Paul has — to ask the questions that
need answering.

Readers of
this site are sure to have other, better questions than mine, but
here are eight specific ones that reflect concerns I outlined at
length in Marching Toward Hell. I think each merits a full
and frank answer from our would-be presidents. Each is followed
by a proposed answer, a form of which we ought to hear if the candidate
understands the threats America faces from its enemies, and perhaps,
more important, from its own failed and counterproductive policies

1.) Q:
Why are we fighting much of the Muslim world and what is our enemy's
motivation?

A:
We must accept that the U.S. government is seen as the mortal
foe of Islam and Muslims because of its foreign policies. We need
not don sackcloth and ashes or immediately abandon policies motivating
bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and other Islamists. But no nation-state
should keep bankrupt policies for fear of having changes seen
as appeasement.

We must deal
with the world as it is, not as we would like it: we are hated
for what we do not who we are. Armed with this vital understanding,
we can define the talented, pious, and growing foe we confront;
start to alter counterproductive policies; and begin drafting
military plans that can protect America better than a policy of
"bringing terrorists to justice one at a time."

2.) Q:
Given the tax burden Americans shoulder for defense, why is the
U.S. military not winning?

A:
We must change the rules-of-engagement for U.S. soldiers that
make them targets not killers, and which are based on U.S. leaders'
fear of media and foreign criticism. In the few cases in which
America must fight, the military needs to make U.S. might felt
to whatever extent needed for victory. This includes death and
destruction broad enough to make the local populations giving
indispensable support to our enemies demand peace. It wastes U.S.
lives and is fatal to our security to go to war if we do not mean
to win. Without this change, moreover nation-building programs
are useless. History, as well as our Afghan and Iraqi nightmares
show durable nation-building is impossible if the enemy is not
first definitively defeated.

3.) Q:
Can Americans really be safer if our ports and borders are virtually
unguarded, and police must cope with 11-plus million undocumented
aliens?

A:
We must stop the political posturing and media debate and close
our borders to gauge the internal threat. Until this is done,
little of what we do against al-Qaeda makes America safer. Indeed,
the Islamists are America's most serious post-1865 internal threat
because of negligent immigration/border control polices based
on the unproven value of diversity and multiculturalism, rather
than America's essence, a respect and even reverence for the rule
of law. Controlling immigration and borders has nothing to do
with human rights or civil liberties; it deals with national survival
and giving police a fighting chance to defeat the enemy without
extra-constitutional procedures.

4.) Q:
Why is U.S. energy security in the hands of anti-American Arab
tyrants thirty-five years after the Saudi-led oil embargo?

A:
We must accelerate conversion to alternative energies, expand
nuclear power, and further exploit U.S. fossil fuels. When we
celebrate Independence Day, few note that our foreign-energy dependence
means America has lost independence over the most crucial foreign-policy
decision — whether to go to war. If disaster occurs in Saudi Arabia's
Eastern Province or the Niger Delta, Washington will have no choice;
it will go to war to restore production.

Nothing should
deter America from gaining energy self-sufficiency. Demands for
absolute protection for Arctic hares or shrimp-inhabited reefs,
at the cost of dead Marines and soldiers, should be ignored. Beyond
oil, America has no national interests in the Arab Peninsula region
— save freedom of navigation — and as our energy dependence ends,
this will be clear. Self-sufficiency will allow America to stop
protecting the Gulfs' tyrannies which now cloud our economic destiny,
export religious hatred for us, and make our advocacy of freedom
pure hypocrisy.

It also will
end the cruel fact that some of the escalating price U.S. parents
pay for gas is flowing to the Islamists killing their soldier-children.

5.) Q: Why does America back the major antagonists in the
Arab-Israeli war — Saudi Arabia and Israel — and what are U.S.
interests in that war beyond emotional ties to Israel and dependence
on Gulf oil?

A:
We must keep out of other peoples' wars, particularly their religious
wars. America is a major loser in the 2006 Israel-Hizballah
war; the Israel-Palestine war; and the economic strangling of
HAMAS; indeed, America is in part losing to the Islamists because
of its backing of Israel and its blind-eye for Saudi jihad-spreading.
America must withdraw from this savagery. We should define the
settlement that suits us; call in both sides, and say: “50 years
of your brutal and selfish behavior is enough. Here’s what we
want implemented. If you don’t, you are on your own and can kill
each other forever.” We also can tell Americans that Israel's
under-dog status ended when it went nuclear and built a WMD arsenal.

6.) Q: Why is Washington supporting the Russian and Chinese
campaigns to annihilate parts of their Muslim populations?

A:
We must stop building Muslim hatred by supporting Russia in the
North Caucasus and Beijing in western China. Moscow will do what
it must to win in the North Caucasus; our rhetorical support for
it deeply stains us in the Muslim world. Beijing is conducting
genocide against Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang by inundating them
with Han Chinese, exactly as it is doing in Tibet. There is no
reason for America to support silent genocide.

7.) Q:
Why has the U.S. government failed since 1991 to secure the Former
Soviet Union's (FSU) nuclear arsenal, leaving a chance for an
Islamist nuclear attack in America?

A:
We must fast complete the program to help Russia secure the FSU's
22,000 weapons, an effort reduced by the last two administrations.
Full security for those weapons is infinitely more vital than
Russian democracy. Seventeen years after the USSR's dissolution,
Senator Luger — co-sponsor of the U.S.-Russia control plan — says
success is far off. Thus, al-Qaeda has had a 17-year window to
procure a weapon it has sworn to use in the United States.

8.) Q:
Why do U.S. politicians claim to follow the Founders' foreign-policy
advice, when the Founders warned that overseas intervention to
build democracies would destroy our republic?

A:
We must stop trying to spread democracy abroad by military, financial,
humanitarian, or political intervention. No American should die
for the goal of "giving the people of Iraq a possibility
of embracing democracy." No small "r" republican
government has the right to spend lives in military crusades for
such a patently unobtainable abstraction as gaining liberty, justice,
and democracy for foreigners.

Foreign policy
must revert to what it was before the anomaly called the Cold
War licensed to U.S. politicians to be democracy-mongering interventionists.
Foreign policy defends, it does not define us. It need do but
one thing: protect America to allow the domestic expansion of
liberty, freedom, and opportunity. If no additional foreigner
ever votes in an election, America would be no worse off. There
is no better definition of pure waste, than spending the lives
of our Marines or soldiers so Mrs. Muhammad can vote in an Iraqi
or Afghan election.

Post-Cold
War, democracy-crusading U.S. administrations have impoverished
us in treasure, blood, political unity, and what has been called
the "rightful influence of our republican example."
We must return to the Founders' goal for America to be, "the
well-wisher of freedom and independence for all" but "the
champion and vindicator only of her own."

I believe that
these and other specific foreign-policy questions must be repeatedly
asked of the candidates until they give direct answers. My proposed
answers clearly are not definitive, but any candidate that answers
the queries above in an evasive or dismissive manner would show
Americans his or her intention to continue the full-bore intervention
that is now bleeding America of lives, money, and political cohesion.

March
24, 2008

Michael
Scheuer [send him mail] is
the author of Marching
Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
and Imperial
Hubris and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes
. He recently resigned
after 22 years at the CIA.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts