Great article on RP's Foreign Policy messaging. Fresh perspective.Submitted by chadism on Wed, 11/23/2011 - 12:35
Can anyone get this very insightful article to one of Ron's advisers:
For a general statement on our role in foreign affairs he could say:
"I believe that America should lead by example and pursue peace through strength. A great nation does not need to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors." (throwing int he right buzzword here could win a lot of points with GOP primary voters)
If asked specifically about "blowback" and 9/11 he could say:
"Our past foreign policy cannot be used to justify the actions of terrorists and murderers. One wrong does not excuse another and those who commit acts of terror should be held directly responsible." (doesn't rule out the possibility of holding the US responsible, but doesn't push it either)
If asked about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons he could say:
"Iran is already a threat to its neighbors and some of them have their own nuclear arsenals. Our primary concern should be the safety of our nation, our citizens and our property and so long as Iran does not directly threaten us we should respect Itheir sovereignty as much as we do that of other nuclear nations."
If asked about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he could say:
"We should only go to war to protect our nation, its people and its immediate interests. Long wars for vague purposes are too costly and harm national security by weakening our economy. We should focus on retasking the military to be a more modern and effective force for defending our borders and protecting our citizens as its first priority." (shows an interest in making the military better and more useful, not irrelevant)
If asked about how to deal with terrorists he should say:
"Terrorism should be treated as the most serious kind of crime. We should go after terrorists with every resource at our disposal, but our focus should always be on bringing the terrorists to justice with some due process of law. In fighting terror the military should act as an arm of law enforcement and with Congressional authorization, to apprehend terrorists wherever they are and bring them to trial and punishment."
All of these statements are in keeping with Paul's positions as I have been able to work them out from his more developed statements on these subjects. None of them is so long or complex that it could not be produced as a short answer in a debate.
(sound byte suggestions start on page three)
I'm a HUGE RP fan (going on 11 years now), but he's going to have an easier time winning if he can stay on message and deliver his foreign policy ideas in a way that doesn't give ignorant voters the impression that he "blames America" or that he can sort of understand why the terrorists are doing what they're doing (even if this is true to an extent). He needs to sound as tough as he really is and he needs to keep pulling the attention back to a strong, defense-based foreign policy.
On the TSA and Patriot Act, I would add this suggested sound byte:
"When we sacrifice freedom for security, we end up with neither. 9/11 happened partly because of TOO MUCH government and TOO LITTLE respect for the freedoms that make this country safe. One pilot with a pistol could have prevented those attacks. We had warnings, but our bloated, bureaucratic government missed the warnings. So now you're trying to tell me that the solution is MORE government?! Less freedom?! We don't need to sacrifices any freedom for security, and when we throw away our liberty so carelessly, believe me, we throw away what made this country worth defending in the first place."