You hear all the time about how its unwise to have one part of a persons policy effect your overall outlook on the candidate. There is some legitimacy to the argument, because noone is going to be a perfect candidate. I contend that foreign policy (specifically for those running for president) is an issue that should override other positive details of a candidate. Why is that you may ask? Because in the constitution the Executive Branch has the most power in this area. Yes, congress is supposed to declare war, but there is a lot more leeway in what can be done outside of War in foreign policy and treaty making. If a president claims that is outside of my preference in other areas, it can be overcome with legislative maneuvers and veto overrides. Congress has little to no real power in overriding foreign policy decisions. For most issues, the congress and senate are more important in accomplishing change then even the presidency.

So..there seems to be two sides of the coin on Foreign policy. The prevailing opinion in Republican circles is that we should not cut a dime in foreign policy or aide. The two exceptions, one that surprises me and one that surprises noone there are two that would cut into foreign policy spending. Rick Perry would end most Foreign Aid. Ron Paul would end all wars, return all troops from everywhere home as he states “immediately”.

I guess you could say on this issue I am closer to Rick Perry then I am the prevailing republican opinion. Although, Rick Perry has not put forth a full plan. I think it unwise to put forth a full plan before you are in office and have reports of the highest order on information needed to give specifics.

Personally, I think we were right to go into both Iraq, and Afghanistan. Arguable maybe, but at this point that’s irrelevant. We are already there and we can’t get in a delorean and go back and change it now. Iraq is a much better situation then Afghanistan is. I’m not sure pulling out of Iraq entirely would be that big of a deal, but Afghanistan is a very different situation. We need to loosen the reigns on the troops and finish the job and get out of there as soon as possible. We need to rethink, but not completely end peacetime deployments in numerous countries. There should be some presence in each area of the world that we have allies that are proven allies to be able to maintain strategic defense and intelligence advantages in the regions. Any savings should not then be put towards domestic spending, but rather missile defense possibilities and into the borders security. I’ve heard alot of people advocate for the use of the U.S. Military to defend our border. The problem with that…is that in peacetime the military is not supposed to be used inside of the country. The reason that is is because military presence and operations have collateral damage inherent in them. An out of control executive could use the military in police matters and thus empower the executive almost to monarch state. National Guard is supposed to be a separate entity, and if it were it could be used for border security with a strict mandate on what they can do with more state and congressional input on its use. Once the border is as secure as it possibly is then..maybe we can talk a little bit more about drawing back, but I believe seriously that even in that situation I would not change my mind on it.

I do not believe in cutting our defense budget, but to say there is no waste in it is to not be realistic at all. Does every deployment makes sense? I doubt it. Does any foreign aid make sense in its purest form (money for humanitarian purposes) at this time? Not really considering we are just handing more power to the Chinese from us in order to do so. I believe the savings should be put into making us safer at home that we make. I’m also not a fan on civilian contractor military. I have trouble finding any constitutionality in it so it should be eliminated.

We can have these discussions, I might even change my mind. Where I get really scared is when someone combines “bringing everyone home right away no matter what the generals in the field say” and “I think that the immigration issue will go away if the economy gets better” from the same mouth is dangerous. There are things you can say about the merits of trying to disentangle us from the world, and that is what its about its not just military to Ron Paul, its everything. But to leave the border open and not come out with a clear precise plan to secure that border is at best unwise, and frankly should startle people.

Links that point to Ron Paul’s position outlined above
http://youtu.be/7NVYOCgcK94 Immigration
http://youtu.be/Ag_ERBqQII4 Foreign Policy

This to me demonstrates clearly that I cannot trust him to fully secure the border. As he fears having a secure border because he believes it would be used to keep us in, and believes if the economy is better no one will care about it. Combining that with removing all troops from everywhere we have them stationed now without care for what the on the ground situation is is dangerous to our national security. It is worse then the past two presidents where they had strategic defense, without border security. It is also good to point out, that the national guard should be used for border security but Ron Paul does not say military or national guard. Our military used inside the country is a dangerous thing. Maybe not with Ron Paul in charge, but he won’t be in charge forever.

Advertisements