Ron Paul and National Defense
Michael T. Griffith, 2007
Its time to put to rest the myth that Ron Paul is weak on national defense and that he would endanger America if elected. I will list some facts about Ron Paul and national defense, and then I will provide links to numerous articles so that people can read what Dr. Paul has said on this subject in his own words.
First, some facts about Ron Paul on national defense. These facts are just some of the things that could be said about Ron Paul and national defense. Those who want a more in-depth view of where Ron Paul stands on national defense issues are encouraged to read the links in the second part of this article. The Ron Paul quotes in the following points are taken from some of the linked articles.
* All conservatives agree that border security is a critical component of national defense. Nobody is tougher than Ron Paul when it comes to border security. His position is identical to that of border-security hawks like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. In fact, Dr. Paul has called for ending immigration from countries that sponsor or aid terrorists (see below).
* A crucial part of national security is protecting our national sovereignty. Unlike the other candidates, Ron Paul has repeatedly talked about the threats to our sovereignty posed by the UN, by regional trade agreements, and by attempts to make international law superior to American law. No candidate would be more aggressive in protecting our national sovereignty than Ron Paul.
* Ron Paul has proposed the following measures as part of an effective counter-terrorism strategy:
(1) Do not allow people from countries that are sponsoring or aiding terrorists to enter the U.S., not even on Student Visas. Says Dr. Paul, Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.
(2) Abolish all regulations that prevent or hinder our intelligence agencies from working together and sharing information.
(3) Treat terrorist attempts and conspiracies as harshly as completed acts, and allow the death penalty in more terrorist cases. Says Dr. Paul, The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
(4) End all legal preferences for terrorist suspects.
(5) Arm all airline pilots.
(6) Use letters of marque to encourage third parties to capture or kill terrorists. Says Dr. Paul, Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. (See below for more on this approach.)
* Ron Paul voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.
* Ron Paul has introduced legislation, the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to give the President more tools to pursue Bin Laden and other terrorists. Dr. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan and elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S. Said Dr. Paul, "Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man. Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."
* Ron Paul condemned the fact that when terrorists attacked the U.S.S. Cole, the sailors on guard had weapons that werent loaded and werent allowed to fire at the enemy anyway. Said Dr. Paul, Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd if not insane.
* Ron Paul has been a champion of funding for veterans programs. No one has a better record when it comes to ensuring that our veterans programs are properly funded. The Disabled Veterans of America have given Congressman Paul outstanding ratings for his support of veterans programs. He has called for us to honor veterans with a better budget. He adds, We should understand that veterans programs, unlike so many federal programs, are constitutional. The Constitution specifically provides for Congress to fund armed forces and provide national defense. Congress and the nation accordingly have a constitutional obligation to keep the promises made to those who provide that defense. This is why I support increased funding for veterans, while opposing the bloated spending bills that fund corporate and social welfare, pork favoritism, and special interests at the expense of those veterans.
* Ron Paul supported concurrent receipt for disabled veterans receiving military pensions. For decades, a retired veterans VA disability payment was counted against his military pension. Ron Paul was among those who strongly supported repealing this unfair provision.
* Ron Paul has repeatedly called for the Bush administration to refocus the militarys effort on getting Bin Laden and his supporters. For example, Dr. Paul has said, We seem to have forgotten that our primary objective in the war on terror is to capture or kill bin Laden and his henchmen. One year ago, the desire for retribution against bin Laden was tangible. President Bush referred to finding him dead or alive. And while the hunger for vengeance was understandable, the practical need to destroy al Qaeda before it mounted another terror attack was urgent. Yet we have allowed the passage of time and the false specter of an Iraq threat to distract us from our original purpose.
* Ron Paul has proposed exempting all military personnel from income taxes during time of war. He believes that our soldiers should not be paying income taxes while they and their families are sacrificing so heavily from multiple deployments and/or from having to do extra work to make up for those who have been deployed overseas.
* Ron Paul wants to end our involvement in Iraq. Bringing our troops home from Iraq would greatly enhance our militarys readiness and morale. Our troops have done all we could reasonably ask them to do: They toppled Saddam and enabled the Iraqi people to form a constitution and to elect a government of their choosing. Leaving our troops in the middle of the ongoing civil war in Iraq is unwise and unnecessary. Everyone admits that most of the violence in Iraq is from sectarian fighting, not from Al Qaeda. The *expletive deleted*it government of Iraq is as oppressive and corrupt as the regime in Syria. The Shiites in power have ignored the Iraqi Constitution, which calls for a diffusion of power and a federalist approach. Iraqi government officials who have tried to expose government corruption have been killed, or have had to seek U.S. protection, or have fled the country. Last year the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel and to praise the terrorist group Hezbollah.
* Ron Paul also wants to end our involvement in Afghanistan. As theyve done in Iraq, our troops have done all we could fairly ask of them: They toppled the Taliban and enabled the Afghani people to form a constitution and to elect a government of their choosing. But, as the Iraq Study Group noted in its report, the situation in Afghanistan is very bad. The Afghani government is harsh and corrupt, and too many of the Afghani people are more loyal to their tribe than to anyone else and are also hostile to our troops. The British and then the Soviets found it impossible to maintain control in Afghanistan. The Soviets were unable to do so, even though they had many more troops than we have in Afghanistan and even though they were willing to use far more brutal methods than we will use. We need to realize that we cant always impose our will on an entire country. Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing like Germany and Japan were after World War II.
* Ronald Reagan praised Ron Paul for being strong on national defense. Said Reagan, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
And now links to some articles and speeches on Ron Paul and national defense, most of them by Ron Paul himself:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/112/effective-and-practical-counter-terrorism-measures/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/115/suicide-terrorism/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/235/honoring-our-military-veterans/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/236/mistreating-soldiers-and-veterans/ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr111500.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090502.htm http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/63/fixing-whats-wrong-with-iraq/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/111/will-we-bring-bin-laden-to-justice/ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/71/before-we-bomb-baghdad/ http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204914 http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/?pid=195576 http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/234/legislation-for-our-military-families-and-veterans/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/233/honor-veterans-with-a-better-budget/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/128/paul-votes-for-stronger-border-security/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/70/arguments-against-a-war-in-iraq/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/68/ignoring-reality-in-iraq/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/66/hypocrisy-in-the-middle-east/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/62/the-price-of-delaying-the-inevitable-in-iraq/ http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/36/your-taxes-subsidize-china/ http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr042204.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr072103.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr042903.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr100802.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr032800.htm http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/shank1.html http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr112901.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul93.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.htmlA Response to Criticisms of Ron Pauls Stand on the War in Iraq
Michael T. Griffith, 2007
"If it weren't for Ron Pauls stand on the Iraq War, I'd support him,"
I hear this statement frequently from my fellow conservatives.
As a retired Army vet, please allow me to tell you why I dont think Ron Pauls stand on the war in Iraq should be a problem. There's really no reason for us to remain in Iraq. We toppled Saddam Hussein. We enabled the Iraqis to ratify a constitution and to elect a government. Weve done our part. The rest is up to them. Now we're simply in the middle of a civil war. With us out of the way, the Shiites and the Sunnis will come to an arrangement, one way or the other.
Weve given the Shiites more than enough time to get their act together. Everyone agrees that Iraq is not going to have a functioning democratic government if theres no political reconciliation. *expletive deleted*it leaders, in and out of the government, have made it clear they have no intention of doing what needs to be done to reconcile and share power with the Sunnis.
The *expletive deleted*it-dominated government of Iraq has proven itself to be horribly corrupt and brutal (see below). The Sunni and Kurdish members of the government arent much better. As just one example of this sad truth, we need only point to the fact that last year the Iraqi parliament voted unanimously to condemn Israel and to praise the terrorist group Hezbollah. Iraqi officials who have tried to expose government corruption have either been killed, fled the country, or had to seek U.S. protection (see below).
After billions of dollars and thousands of man hours of training, the Iraqi army as a whole is still unreliable. Whole units still fail to show up for duty. In some cases Iraqi soldiers have abandoned our troops during battles. The Iraqi national police force, by all accounts, is a disgrace. In some instances, Iraqi police have attacked our troops. In countless cases, Iraqi citizens have stood back and said nothing as insurgents have planted roadside charges and other bombs to kill our troops. Yes, many Iraqis are on our side, but quite a few are not.
The Iraq War is costing us at least $10 billion a month. Were having to borrow tens of billions of dollars from foreign nations to pay for the war. Already 2007 is now the deadliest year for our troops since the war began. Weve had more troops killed and wounded this year than in any previous year. Its time we brought our troops home and let the Iraqis determine their own future.
"If we leave Iraq, wont the country become a safe haven for Al Qaeda?
This is improbable. The *expletive deleted*it government of Iraq is not likely to tolerate the presence of a Sunni paramilitary group, which is what Al Qaeda is (in addition to being a terrorist organization). Plus, everyone now admits that most of the violence in Iraq is being caused by sectarian fighting, not by Al Qaeda attacks. Even General David Petraeus acknowledged this fact in his testimony before Congress in September.
"What will happen to the Iraqi government if we leave?"
Any Iraqi government that emerges is not going to be too much worse than the one that is in power right now. No matter how many elections are held, the government is going to be run by Shiites because the Shiites outnumber the Sunnis by at least three to two. Even with the Kurds in the north taking part in the election, the Shiites will still control the government.
The current Iraqi government is just as corrupt and just as brutal toward opponents as some of the other rotten governments in the Middle East (see below). When you invade a Muslim country that has a long tradition of violence and corruption, you're not going to get a government that's run by enlightened democrats. Maybe we should have thought about that beforehand.
"But what if Al Qaeda follows us here if we leave."
If Al Qaeda tries to follow us here, we can fight them a lot more easily here than we can over there in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over there they can easily blend in with the population. As long as were in the Middle East, they will be able to periodically kill and injure our troops, as theyre doing now. Over here they'd find it a lot harder to attack our troops or to stage other kinds of attacks.
In addition, with our troops gone, the terrorists will have a harder time attracting new recruits. With our troops in the region, Al Qaeda and other groups are able to rail against infidel invaders, etc., etc. Experts on terrorism tell us that groups like Al Qaeda would find it more difficult to gain new recruits if we had no troops in the region. When we and the French and the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon, the suicide attacks in Lebanon ceased.
"If we leave, will we still be able to get oil from Iraq?"
Saddam Hussein was willing to sell us oil. The current government of Iraq is likewise willing to sell us oil. The odds are that any future Iraqi government would be willing to do the same.
How quickly would Ron Paul withdraw our troops from Iraq?
Ron Paul has made it clear that he would only withdraw our troops from Iraq as quickly as was safely possible. He has said he would consult with our military commanders to determine how soon our troops could be safely withdrawn. He would change our strategy immediately, in order to get our troops out from the middle of the crossfire of sectarian fighting. But he would ensure that the troop withdrawal from the country would be done in a safe manner.
Some Sobering Facts About the Iraqi Government
Here are some articles that should sober us up to the fact that we shouldn't spend another dime, or lose another life, or see another soldier wounded in Iraq. Iraq is not worth $10 billion a month, and its certainly not worth seeing more American soldiers killed or wounded.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14117853EXTRACT: "State Department investigators in Iraq have concluded that the government of Nouri al-Maliki is not capable of even rudimentary enforcement of anti-corruption laws. The investigators also say that corrupt civil servants with connections to the government are seen as untouchable, and that employees of Iraq's watchdog Commission on Public Integrity have been murdered in the line of duty." (September 2007)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100401305.htmlEXTRACT: "The Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has thwarted investigations into corruption at the top levels of his administration, including probes of his relatives, while nearly four dozen anti-corruption employees or their family members have been brutally murdered, the former top Iraqi corruption investigator told a House panel yesterday." (October 2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6131290.stmEXTRACT: "Iraq corruption costs billion: Among its more notable findings was a report on the loss of 14,000 weapons destined for Iraqi government use. Many of these are believed to have found their way into the hands of insurgent groups after the Pentagon lost track of them." (November 2006)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/16/AR2006071600774.htmlEXTRACT: "U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker told Congress last week that "massive corruption" and "a lot of theft going on" in Iraq's government-controlled oil industry is hampering the country's ability to govern itself." (July 2006)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297180,00.htmlCol. Dave Hunt says our Iraq strategy is flawed. Although he doesnt recommend a total withdrawal, he does recognize that our strategy is fundamentally flawed and that we need to get our troops out from the middle of the ongoing Iraqi civil war.
I question you all, who else in the race is doing this much to fight terrorism and preserve our national sovereignty?
