2 votes

Foreign Policy Debate Suggestions

As I am sure you are aware the foreign policy debate coming up on November 12th is a critical moment for the campaign. It will either help sway the Republican Base toward Ron Paul, or push them away, perhaps for good. The foreign policy issue is a key issue for Non-Paul supporters.

So I wanted to offer some advice;

1. Before Paul answers any question on the cause of either 9/11 or the death of Alawaki, HE MUST PREFACE THE ANSWER WITH THE FOLLOWING: I am not in any way justifying the behavior of these terrorists

It has been made clear to me through numerous conversations with Republican voters about Paul that there is a GREAT MISCONCEPTION in regards to Paul’s stance on 9/11 and Alawaki. Republican Voters genuinely think Paul is making excuses or justifying the attacks etc. SO it is imperative that Paul make it clear during the debate that he in no way justifies terrorism, and that he voted for the authority to get those responsible for 9/11.

2. I suggest Paul adopt a foreign policy of OFF-SHORE BALANCING toward the Middle East.

Paul's stance of immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is popular amongst voters. Where they lose Paul is when he states that he wants no military presence in the Region. This causes the Republican Primary voter to be fearful for their safety.

Think of it this way. The Government has conditioned the people to believe that US involvement overseas makes them safer at home. Just like they have become conditioned and dependent on Social Security and other entitlements. With Regards to Social Security, Paul is offering a more palatable approach in a TRANSITION.....Yet on Foreign Policy he is not offering the People the Same Type of Transition.

Robert Pape in the book "Cutting the Fuse", makes the case for OFFSHORE BALANCING as a preferable policy toward the Middle East that would reduce Suicide Terrorism, and leave us capable of a quick response in the case of a terrorist attack. Offshore Balancing was the policy of Reagan toward the Middle East, and it accomplishes the goals of reducing Offensive Military expenditure, keeps our troops safe, and also gives the voter peace of mind.

3. Finally, Instead of saying MILITARISM, when discussing Iraq and Afghanistan, Paul should put the Military spending in Terms of OFFENSE AND DEFENSE.

I believe that the term Militarism isn’t well received by the GOP voter. And the more understandable terms of OFFENSE and DEFENSE would be preferable.

Paul must state that his budget calls for cuts in OFFENSE and not DEFENSE.

Paul must state that the greatest threat to our National Security is the Debt. And the reason for these OFFENSIVE CUTS is that without scaling back our OFFENSE, one day the dollar will collapse, leaving the US with NO OFFENSE AND NO DEFENSE.

In Essence the Argument is that Paul would cut OFFENSE today to preserve our DEFENSE IN THE FUTURE.

I don’t know, hope this helps.

Rob A.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Business Subsidy

Just once I would like someone to mention the US overseas military activities as being a huge subsidy to business. Sure it started out as a tool for making unstable foreign markets safe for US businesses to sell US products in those markets and to protect the flow of raw materials. But now the US military is being used, perhaps unwittingly, by businesses from around the world to guarantee stability in countries that are either unable or unwilling to provide the resources needed to keep their own markets safe.

An unfortunate consequence of the tranformation in mission is the foreign markets are now stable enough for US (now multinational) businesses to move their operations to the now stable countries. So now the US taxpayer pays the bill to protect businesses that have closed operations in the US.

The excuse is it is too expensive to operate in the US. Labor costs are not competitive. If the US resigned its self appointed role as "policeman of the world" and brought the military home a couple of things could happen. The other countries would have to pay to protect their own markets thus making the cost of doing business in their countries higher. Or the political environment in the unwilling/unable countries would become unstable. In which case business operations would relocate to more stable countries. Perhaps the business might consider returning operations to the nice safe US.

This argument might not fly with the standard Republican voter but I would like to see someone utter the words in public. I highly recommend "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler.