SEARCH BLOG: WAR and TRADE
The single thing that precludes Ron Paul from gaining wider acceptance among Republicans is his consistent position on the non-use of the military.
By and large, Dr. Paul's position boils down to one that states the military should be used to defend the U.S. ... on U.S. soil. And gee whiz... sending our military to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Middle East only makes them angrier.
Should the U.S. fight large land wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan... including occupation and nation building? I think that is misguided. Should the U.S. refrain from military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban? I think that is also misguided. Military action should be aimed at keeping an enemy in chaos and on the defensive until it loses its will to fight.
He would withdraw U.S. forces from the rest of the world and be reactive if there was yet another attack on U.S. soil by militaristic Islamic terrorists. Possibly, he hopes that such action would convince them that the U.S. was sincere in wanting to live in peace with them and that would dissuade them from their goals of an Islamic-Sharia global empire where nonbelievers... infidels... were treated with contempt, barbarity, and disenfranchisement... like they are in such springtime places as Egypt.
As one of his supporters wrote in a comment:
By the way, my 13-year-old, who reads these comments suggests that you read or watch the Lord of the Rings. Aragorn is a great leader precisely because he is the type of man who does not seek power. Sauron was not an evil person at the beginning. He started off as wishing to impose order on the world. But the power of the ring consumed him and he did become evil. The power in the lesser rings consumed the human kings who possessed them and all of the 'good guys' rejected the One Ring because they understood just how dangerous the power that it represented really was.
Of course, Tolkien leaned towards anarchy and hated the State just as Nozik did. Perhaps that is why they are held in such regard while the slimy public intellectuals that you appeal to in order to support your narratives are quickly forgotten and held in such low esteem by so many people.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of fantasy. Is the anarchy of fantasy writers a good thing? How about the chaos of fanaticism? We live in a world where
a single nuclear bomb in the hands of religious-political fanatics can leave the U.S. in shambles.
A "prevent defense" seldom works in football, fantasy, or real life. That is why Dr. Paul's
whole message does not resonate with those who do not live in a fantasy world. Conservative Republicans
love Dr. Paul's economic and limited government positions, but they also understand the enormous risks of his military position.
There is no
logical connection between military strength and big government domestic spending programs. There is no
logical barrier created by military strength to free trade and liberty. Those who attempt to make such connections are simply misguided... illogical. We can afford to be strong; we can't afford to be weak.
..
[PDF - 1.3 MB]
From 
