On Af-Pak: Stop "Helping" [Ron Paul]

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, 14th District ^ | 2009-05-11

[rabscuttle385]

While much of the country’s attention is on other issues, a serious situation is developing in Pakistan that threatens to plunge us into another fruitless and bloody war. It is very frustrating to see that many who were so vehemently against the wars of the last administration have suddenly lost interest in foreign policy simply because we were promised change.

Those still paying attention know that nothing could be further from the truth. Very little has changed, except perhaps rhetoric, but what does that matter when the bombing missions are only getting deadlier? Rather than drawing down violent military interventions into the affairs of other countries, the new administration is escalating the foreign policy of the previous administration.

In Pakistan that entails the continuation and even escalation of military interventionism just across the border with Afghanistan. The targets are believed to be enclaves of Taliban militants, however, many innocent civilians have been caught in the deadly crossfire, severely damaging our image in the region. Many ordinary Afghanis and Pakistanis that never had cause to take up arms against us are being provided with motivation as family and friends are killed and maimed by our clumsy and indiscriminate bombs. Is it worth it for us to be involved in this way at such a high cost of blood, treasure and goodwill? Is there anything to be gained by this policy?

We are helping the Taliban and other enemies to actually gain numbers and strength, while driving them down from the mountains in the border regions deeper into Pakistan, where they have been making a menace of themselves. As our bombings follow them, beleaguered villagers have little choice but to leave their homes and join the swelling numbers of refugees or take up arms and join the fight against us.

Nonetheless, instead of recognizing the cascading unintended consequences of trying to deal with Pakistan’s problems, all signs in Washington point to further escalation. Both the House and Senate have newly introduced bills to triple foreign aid to Pakistan, from $500 million to $1.5 billion, with every indication that the leadership in Pakistan is taking advantage of the situation with the Taliban to milk more aid from the US taxpayer. We are broke. This is money we don’t have, and it is an insult to the American people to run up the national credit card for this type of military adventurism after many Americans thought they were voting for peace.

The bottom line is our involvement in Pakistan’s internal problems is not making us safer. In fact, we are adding to the numbers of our enemies and increasing the threats to our security here at home. We are inciting the very terrorism and extremism we are trying to stop. Every dollar we send, even if it is for humanitarian purposes, frees up resources to make war and potentially prop up unpopular leaders. The factions and politics of the Middle East are irrational and dangerous. We play with fire when we meddle in their affairs, and we isolate ourselves diplomatically by making more enemies than friends. We need to bring our troops home, end all foreign aid, and maintain a neutral stance on the world stage. It, in fact, is the only foreign policy we can afford right now, and it would gain us more friends and trading partners than our bombs ever could. Besides, that’s what the Constitution permits and our founders strongly advised.

[rabscuttle385]

.

[djsherin]

Ron Paul Ping

[lonestar67]

“We are helping the Taliban and other enemies to actually gain numbers and strength, while driving them down from the mountains in the border regions deeper into Pakistan, where they have been making a menace of themselves. As our bombings follow them, beleaguered villagers have little choice but to leave their homes and join the swelling numbers of refugees or take up arms and join the fight against us.”

There is something special about how Ron Paul thinks.

Beleaguered villagers have little choice— really?

[nathanbedford]

I am not much impressed by Ron Paul's arguments in this piece.

I do not believe that in the Pakistani culture, as in the Arab culture, one gets very far trying to gain points by avoiding offense. Ron Paul claims we are offending with our bombing. In this culture it is not the bombing but the losing which is damaging. This culture respects the winner as it respects force but it despises a loser and a weak adversary.

Paul does make a good point about the law of unintended consequences and no one can be certain what will come out of Pakistan, the situation is just too turbulent. His arguments would be far more persuasive if we were not dealing here with the most dangerous country on earth possessed of nuclear weapons and infested with maniacs bent on gaining them so they can use them against us. The stakes are just too high for benign neglect. The stakes are just too high to worry about rendering offense and just too high to worry about $1.5 billion.

[easttennesseejohn]

What I can’t understand in my misshapen conservative mind is that from the beginning of the Afghan war in 2002 until 1-19-09 everytime civilians were killed, Code Pink, Not In Our Name and the MSM were branding Bush a war criminal. Since the 1-20-09 anointment, civilians still are being killed yet these voices of humanity remainn silent. Why? It appears as though their comdenation was only a cynical ploy targeting Bush. Aren’t the people equally as dead? If so, isn’t Comrade O equally as guilty as you said Bush was? If not, why not? Obama was in favor of thew Afghan war so no copping out. What’s the difference wxcept for political party?

[gargoyle]

...Simple, if the US is going to help them “democratize”, (God help them), accept them into the Union of states. Otherwise, yer on yer own. IMFO...

[dcwusmc]

Just as many here were all for Bush because he was “their guy,” the Left is all for Obambi, because that (D) makes him THEIR guy. Same game, different players.

[navyguy]

” Many ordinary Afghanis and Pakistanis that never had cause to take up arms against us are being provided with motivation as family and friends are killed and maimed by our clumsy and indiscriminate bombs.”

This is why I will never vote for Ron Paul. Our attacks are neither clumsy nor indiscriminate and its an insult to the military for him to make this characterization. It’s also the same attitude and language used by the Socialist Left in this country. Yes... I know, RP is a strict Constitutionalist. I like that about him, but comments like the one above turn me off like a light switch.

[ex-snook]

"The bottom line is our involvement in Pakistan’s internal problems is not making us safer. In fact, we are adding to the numbers of our enemies and increasing the threats to our security here at home. We are inciting the very terrorism and extremism we are trying to stop"

That seems how it has panned out since Bush '41 had mustered support in the area against Saddam. Creating more enemies that we are eliminating sure is the way to defeat.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Yep, exactly. More insanity expecting different results.

[lonestar67]

Great point.

When we left Afghanistan alone they left us alone.

Then the evil bushcheney attacked the vulnerable villagers and so they had to attack the wtc and pentagon.

Evil bushcheney continued to attack the innocents and we have since been bombarded with domestic terror attacks.

What else could the innocents do ?

Now that bushcheney gone o kiss king saud and make peace.

Brought to you by
Obama / Paul. 2012

[sickoflibs]

Lone Bushbot strikes again LOL

#8 : Brought to you by Obama / Paul. 2012

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Pathetic strawman and ad-homenim arguments.

[Bokababe]

What part of the idea that "when you start bombing people who never harmed you, they get pissed off at you and want to hurt you back", is so hard for some people to understand?

It's like listening to a 6 year old when you tell him not to hit other kids for no reason, scream and kick his feet on the floor, "But Mommy, I want to bomb them! Why can't I? I can bomb anyone, 'cause I'm ME!" It's bizarre!

[lonestar67]

Paul and obama are exactly the same on us military policy.

They both think America is the root cause of evil. Paul might actually be naieve enough to believe we will be left alone in his new withdrawn world. It is an obscene state of ignorance that should have been left in the craters at ground zero. The world is ablaze with hatred of Jews and Americans. We will put out the fire or die trying. Those are most assuredly the options. It matters not whether any anonymous poster on this thread agrees.

[lonestar67]

That is why japan remains an entrenched and irrational enemy of the united states.

[sickoflibs]

Should we trust Lone-Bush-Bot's opinion?? Checkout this prediction by Lone-bush-bot Oct 30,2008

Six Reasons Why McCain will win the Election 2008

[calcowgirl]

PUMA voters, LOL! Yeah... that sure worked.

I see they’ve all become Republicans now, too. /s

[rabscuttle385]

Paul and obama are exactly the same on us military policy.

Horsepuckey.

Paul has advocated pursuing foreign policy within the boundaries set forth within the Constitution. Thus far, and in contrast, Obama has shown utter contempt for the Constitution.

They both think America is the root cause of evil. Paul might actually be naieve enough to believe we will be left alone in his new withdrawn world. It is an obscene state of ignorance that should have been left in the craters at ground zero. The world is ablaze with hatred of Jews and Americans. We will put out the fire or die trying.

The purpose of the United States armed forces is to protect and defend the United States, its lawful inhabitants, and its Government. It is not, however, to achieve world peace, to stop genocides, to protect the Jews, to prevent other powers from rising and falling, or any other number of social outcomes, no matter how morally noble or economically beneficial to particular U.S. factions they may be.

If you--and the rest of your type...that hide themselves behind the mantle of "conservatism" to avoid scrutiny--are so serious about defending these United States and her citizens, then why is our southern border left wide open? Why did Bush leave it open, and even more so, why did he parade around offering amnesty to "God's children"? Just the other day, you accused me of "making stuff up" with regard to crimes committed on U.S. soil against lawful U.S. residents by illegally-present foreign nationals, so frankly, I don't think you have any interest in really protecting these United States or her citizens, but rather in using her as a means to your own social ends.

To expand the scope of the United States is to wantonly discard the heritage of limited and shackled government bought and paid for with the blood, sweat, and tears of countless Americans...and for what? Temporary "safety"? Power? Economic dominance?

That you would be willing to trade away your share of such a heritage is contemptible, to say the least.

That you would be willing to pre-empt your fellow citizen and trade away his or her share of that God-given heritage, for your own ends, is beyond contemptible. It's damnable, and it stinks to high heaven.