-4 votes

Rand Paul Preaches “Peace Through Strength" & Militarism Abroad

The slow, sad reveal of Rand Paul as a Neocon has taken yet another step forward, via the written words of Rand himself in a recent article to ForeignPolicy.com. The article, titled “Peace Through Strength,” virtually sums up Rand Paul in 2013: Half the GOP stooge we never thought he would be (we were wrong), while at the same time peppering in some libertarian thought – however far too much of the former and far too little of the latter.

Rand’s article doesn’t mince words – he lays out very brazenly his views that the United States should apply its “military might” more often, more quickly and more broadly in order to maintain our role as the world’s peacekeepers and assure our safety at home. He begins by using the hackneyed old example of the Cold War to back up his vision, drawing on scare tactics and the threat of nuclear holocaust even though the circumstances then and now are drastically different and it’s absurdly ridiculous to compare a global superpower spanning half a continent to the likes of Iran or Syria. Said Rand:

Peace through strength. It’s a philosophy that guided the United States to victory in the Cold War and a policy that protected us from the calamity of nuclear war. But in the heated debate over Syria, our commitment to this approach has wavered — and it’s time we reasserted its prominence.

Yes, because Syria (which poses no threat to the US in any way) used chemical weapons during its civil war, the US has to reassert our military dominance to dissuade them from…what? How are these related again? They aren’t, in any way. Moving on…

Some say that America’s credibility was threatened when President Barack Obama drew a red line on the use of chemical weapons and then allowed the Syrians to cross it without repercussions. We couldn’t disagree more — that would be a profound misreading of Obama’s response to the Syrian civil war. Our nation’s democratic principles give priority to the voice of individual liberties and freedoms. We will defend them with all of our nation’s might. We will not allow any nation or group to terrorize the free world — now or ever.

Did you see that? Yes, that’s Rand Paul giving his assent and kind recommendation that the US continue to enhance its role as the “World’s Police,” or as the US Navy puts it “A Global Force For Good.”
Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

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

Rand is no warmonger

Rand is trying to avoid the labels of "isolationist" and "pacifist" that dogged his dad so he throws a few bones to the flag-wavers and neocon-influenced. Also, a substantial part of the media, and not just Fox, likes the idea of America as policeman and prosecutor of the world - Rand can't upset their illusions all at once, either. Kissing up to Israel, although probably needed, won't get him too far because there are too many politicians (like all the others running) willing to kiss harder and longer than he will. Neocons won't forgive Rand for being Ron's son and it remains to be seen whether they will tolerate him at all.

We should all thank Rand.

We should all thank Rand. After all, he is taking one for the team. I'll start.

Thank you Rand for all your hard work and dedication to helping us out of this hell hole.

Um... WTF

I encourage anyone who cares to actually read the article.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/15/peace_throu...

It talks about the use of DIPLOMACY over force. OMG RAND IS SUCH A NEOCON! Not.

Lions of Liberty is a piece of shit site.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

Sanctions aren't an act of diplomacy they're an act of war

Here's a quote from that article about Iran:

As Western nations sit down with Iran this week in Geneva, we should vigorously support efforts to negotiate a diplomatic solution that ensures Iran has no nuclear weapon capability and that it does not share its technology with other nations. We should also maintain -- and even strengthen -- the sanctions that have helped to bring Iran back to the negotiation table.

Imagine that China used military force to impose sanctions against the United States, and then gave us a list of the concessions they require from us before they would stop the sanctions. Is "diplomacy" the word you'd be using to describe their actions?

I lost all respect for Rand when he voted for Sanctions on Iran

He is just another neoCON lite.

WRONG Rand Blocked Iran Sanctions

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-...

Rand Said:
"Our young men and women, our soldiers, deserve thoughtful debate," Paul, the tea party freshman with libertarian leanings, said on the floor. "Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of war, over the advisability of war and over the objectives of war."

Harry Reid Responded:
"I really am terribly disappointed," Reid said on the floor. "There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. In fact, it's quite to the contrary. ... I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That's a strange version he just stated."

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

Some replies from the author...

My replies to some of your comments, since I don't have time to track this closely or reply to all:

Many of you are saying that I"m wrong and Rand is preaching non-interventionalism. That now includes sanctions (economic acts of war?)

It includes supporting US occupation of foreign lands to deter attacks by nations across the globe from us?

HOW is that non-intervention? That's policing the world. That's constant intervention. Just because he don't want to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" doesn't mean he isn't supporting militarism.

I never said Rand was advocating preemptive war. That's your presumption, which is wrong. I said he was advocating MILITARISM, which he is. He is advocating foreign occupation and gleefully points out that OUR troops in S. Korea are the reason that N. Korea won't attack. Thus MILITARISM. Policing the world. How does that fall in line with ANY libertarian thinking?

Ron Paul would never have championed our presence in foreign nations, nor our stationing thousands of Americans abroad to deter attacks. He's spoken out specifically against that over and over again.

Ron was also strongly against sanctions - yet I see Rand espousing here that MORE sanctions should be levied. Acts of economic war.
Ron Paul's foreign policy view was one of the main reasons I started to track him and support him, and Rand is nowhere close. If you think Ron could have said any of this, you haven't been listening very closely.

I know Rand is his own animal, but he doesn't deserve the support from this or any libertarian community when he puts out this type of content. I laud him when he stands up for libertarian principles - his filibuster of the use of drones for assassination for instance. But he has to be called on his shortcomings and this is a big one.

ALSO

I recommend you actually click through to read the full article before you comment, which addresses many of these comments as well. If you only respond to what is here, in truncated form, you are missing half the argument and subsequent information.

The deal with Rand

Copied from my comment in another thread, re: some of the criticisms of the criticisms:

Look, you may be very well right about his "strategy", and perhaps he is just leaning stealth neocon to get into office or whatever, "appease the base", and usher in a great libertarian government. Fantastic. I hope it happens .

But, in the meantime, when he makes statements that are unequivocally opposed to libertarian principles - supporting the possibility of preemptive strikes and sanctions on Iran , a global military presence, protecting "allies" and "strategic interests"...whether or not he *means* it, it's important for libertarians interested in advancing a consistent philosophy to point it out and say "Rand is good on many things, but this is not in line with libertarianism"

What is so wrong with that?

Don't turn into a cult of Rand.Its' the last the movement needs, and will do nothing to advance liberty.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I think

Many who love Ron Paul consider themselves anti-war, maybe because they are not aware of pro-peace, which is stratigic defense, and while people are not the ideal targets, taking out WMD that are a threat to peace, is moral.

After the last CA GOP convention, where LIBERTY was a damn near every tee shirt, sticker, book, flyer, campaign slim jom, sogns, buttons.. with a tea party caucus emerging (and Republican Liberty Caucus is sitting pretty).. the LIBERTY movement appears to developed in the CA GOP.. three tables with Ron Paul books, several tables about the constitution,

And so it seems to me, that the GOP has ripped off the Liberty movement, because the GOP is having a Liberty movement top to bottom. I didn't expect it. Was happy to see it. Was happy to see all the money.. if a person did not go to the conventions, they would not know about what happend to the CA GOP.

" .... taking out WMD that are a threat to peace, is moral."

Would that hold for any country with WMDs?

no

And I believe that is why we are being ushered into global government with the elimination of nations, forming unions/ based on natural resources and continent and why Iran seeking nuclear power after Cherenoble and Fukashima isn't helping Israel giving it's up.

Perhaps you are confused

About Ron Paul's views or those of many of his supporters. I am anti-war because war is a battle between States, not the people of those states. War is collective punishment, an absolute anathema to libertarian principles.

If you believe Ron Paul would support preemptive war for "taking out WMD", you have some more Ron Paul to listen to.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I guess I do then

Ron Paul has voted for war Afghanistan, so I do not see him as anti-war, but rather pro-peace. He has said that nations have a right to defend themselves.

I read the editorial for

I read the editorial for myself and this guy's commentary has no basis in fact. Rand advocates for more diplomacy and explicitly denounces preemptive war in the editorial, just as he has always done.

This McWilliams person can take a hike.

Maybe if you understood...

That I never said he was advocating preemptive war. That's your presumption, which is wrong. I said he was advocating MILITARISM, which he is. He is also advocating foreign occupation and gleefully points out that OUR troops in S. Korea are the reason that N. Korea won't attack. Thus MILITARISM. Policing the world. How does that fall in line with ANY libertarian thinking? I took a nice hike and came back with a far better understanding than you apparently. You should try it.

Complete nonsense! Rand has not gone neocon...

I swear, it is so obvious that people, like the liberty brethren that posted this thread, has already long made up their mind about Rand and simply look for evidence to validate their feelings and like humans in nature, try to convert others to agree....

Rand has NOT gone neocon. If you read his careful words, he is trying to do the RIGHT thing and broaden his appeal. The ONLY way he can win, as he is a smarter politician than his father and Dad admits it, is to appeal to audiences outside the loyal base.

First he uses the famous Republican phrase from demi God Reagan, "peace through strength" to apeal to a crowd who are lured and loyal to this Reagan phrase by correctly desiphering what it actually means. This phrase is my BIGGEST pet pieve when neo cons use it as a bumper sticker to emptly defend their cause. But how can peace through strength mean war everywhere, wwhen they forget the word PEACE in the phrase? Rand is correctly uses it. He is trying to show that we Constitutionalist GOP Libertarians are not pacifist hippie vegan p****s. That we do believe in a strong defense, but that its used only when declared or when attacked. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

The part that I admit irks me as well is his Israel butt kissing. I CANT STAND IT, but I do get it. Bill Graham, the nation's most powerful protestant leader spoke his mind about Jews in America to Nixon and both Nixon and Billy Graham had to (real quote) "get on their knees to the Rabbis and beg forgiveness". The bottom line is that Zionist leaning elite ARE THE RULING CLASS in every sector. But that shows further evidence that Rand is actually meaning what hes saying and not just saying empty words about peace when talking about war (like neo cons McCain, Graham, Rubio, etc) because even with the butt kissing, Rand is still hated by the Jewish elite in this country! THis is because the Jewish elite in this country sees through Paul and knows Rand isnt actually their puppet (Rand believe it or not, has a similar record to Ron in that Rand doesnt give into lobbyists), but Rand's words in articles like this give Rand reasonable doubt cover if the Jewish Elite try to truly whipe him out politically, because they cant point to specific times where they can say "see, Rand is a anti semite, he said no blood for Israel!"

Also people in our movement hate Rand because they think hes a sellout (ironically their only evidence is one single Iran sanction vote and quotes from interviews that are unambiguous, but never any solid evidence or substantive patterns in voting records) are also people who tend to (rightly IMO) believe that the Syrian war and the US siding with Al Qaeda proves that Neocons dont actually care about terrorism or Al Qaeda, but use it as a boogy man for the American people. Evidence that this is true about neocons and that Neocons true loyalty is for Israel, is that AIPAC continually lobbys for war mongering when it on the surface looks like it goes against Israels intuitive interests (ie giving tanks to Egypt under Morsi, or supporting to destabalize the most secular government in the middle east and let Al Qaeda take over), yet if Rand was a real sell out, he would vote with AIPAC all the time like McCain and Graham and the newbie Tom Cotton and Rubio does... But Rand doesnt because he is giving himself plausible deniability for the behind the curtains power elite and also showing how our philosophy does not necessarily conflict with true conservatism (not neo conservatism which is diametrically opposed). Rand is a political genius and in the end should be thanked for single handedly making the Paul political philosophy to the mainstream. Liberty brothers and sisters, wake up! Libertarianism has been around since the 60s and has been nothing but a marginalized fringe movement. Ron paved the way and Rand is reaching the goal of achieving our dreams the best thats possible in America's hypnotized population.

Ron Paul 2012

Thanks for saving me the trouble...

of reading the ForeignPolicy article. Since I'm already familiar with Rand's foreign policy, all I'd be interested in would be notification that it has changed. You(McWilly) have done the work for me in picking out the nasty bits, the bits condemning Rand as neocon. Whether you see him as turning into one or that it is more evident that he's always been one is of no consequence, as either way, it would be news[worthy] to me.

I read through your entire piece, quotes from Rand with commentary from McWilly. OMG! Maybe Rand's a wolf in sheep's clothing! Could be an utter war hawk!

and Hey! Maybe Ron Paul is an agent for Rothschild and trying to usher in a new era of gold standard so that the family that owns most of the gold can rule the world!

Well, I made peace with Ron's integrity years ago. That's why I'm still here at the Daily Paul. It's a pretty simple technique that I use to cut through the McWilliam rhetoric. I simply remove it. Then I'm simply left with the Rand quotes. That's how I read it a second time. I found nothing that would not have been uttered from the mouth of his father, Ron.

As a matter of fact, I think that if those same words were ascribed to Ron, you would be spinning your commentary in their defense.

Ron would never...

...have championed our presence in foreign nations, nor our stationing thousands of Americans abroad to deter attacks. He's spoken out specifically against that over and over again.

So how can you say that Rand's words could have been spoken by Ron? They overlap on diplomatic talks and that's about it.

Ron was also strongly against sanctions - yet I see Rand espousing here that MORE sanctions should be levied. Acts of economic war.

Ron Paul's foreign policy view was one of the main reasons I started to track him and support him, and Rand is nowhere close. If you think Ron could have said any of this, you haven't been listening very closely.

Rand would neither...

...have championed our presence in foreign nations, nor our stationing thousands of Americans abroad to deter attacks. He's spoken out specifically against that over and over again.

I don't see reference to such in Rand's quotes here either.

So how can you say that Rand's words could have been spoken by Ron? They overlap on diplomatic talks and that's about it.

Rand is providing diplomatic rhetoric here in its entirety. The ONLY thing Rand has said here that Ron might not word as such is at the very end, Rand's use of the contemporary terminology of "leave the option on the table", but in the specific context in which it is said, I find it no different in spirit with what Ron might say.

Ron was also strongly against sanctions - yet I see Rand espousing here that MORE sanctions should be levied. Acts of economic war.

I don't read reference to sanctions in the quotes you pulled, but of course you and I certainly both are already familiar with what Ron refers to as the "one percent" policy difference between father and son, use of sanctions on Iran and jurisdiction of trials for Guantanamo prisoners. Personally I'd cut that in half as I saw Rand conceding unwinnable foreign policy positions to focus on domestic issues as freshman Senator. I think they are similar in that they both would like no sanctions. I think they remain different in that Ron is more consistently philosophical, Rand more consistently practical in the moment. Rand has that potentially dangerous ability to politically rationalize compromised positions [more tempting and potentially beneficial (or tragic) for a Senator than a Congressman]. Frankly, the sanctions are more about the US and less about Iran. A sane mind in the Senate might believe that conceding to sanctions might be the most available means to prevent the US war hawks from moving forward with direct military aggression.

Ron Paul's foreign policy view was one of the main reasons I started to track him and support him, and Rand is nowhere close. If you think Ron could have said any of this, you haven't been listening very closely.

I've paid close attention to Ron since 1988. I too was an active member of the Libertarian Party back then and campaigned [and voted] for Ron. I have continued to agree with him more than any other politician I've ever known. I continue to agree with Ron today as he says that he and Rand are nearly identical on issues but a bit different in tactic and rhetoric.

there is no 'is.'

Please tell me, have you seen this is?

How big is it? How does it smell?

Give me your answer in a comment below.

It was probably the pandas.

Nothing like his Father who I

Nothing like his Father who I supported 100%. In fact a scoundrel.

But there are those who will tell themselves otherwise. It is these people who are a greater threat to what future freedom has left then anyone I think.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

Disagree.

You have misrepresented what Rand said and misinterpreted it as well. You more than likely have decided you don't like Rand so you see things that aren't there. Rand is obviously arguing for a non-interventionist stance here. It is beyond me how anyone could read those paragraphs and think he was saying we should be world police.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Non interventionalism?

Now includes sanctions? It includes supporting US occupation of foreign lands to deter attacks by nations across the globe from us? HOW is that non-intervention, my friend? That's policing the world. That's constant intervention. Just because he don't want to "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" doesn't mean he isn't supporting militarism.

Your reading comprehension

Your reading comprehension needs work. He's nudging the warmongers towards a philosophy AGAINST interventionism. It's called tact. It's the only way to convince people who already have made up their minds.

You guys have an overactive puritan bone

Seriously guys, go looking for trouble and you're sure to find it.

What you see here is a very tactful argument against interventionism written to an audience who might not be ready to hear it. It is the opposite of preaching to the choir.

What you are uncomfortable with is that Rand is a brilliant politician whereas the father was not. Fortunately for us the apple fell near the tree. But speaking to your audience is in the 101 course in changing the conversation and influencing people.

You guys need to read some Dale Carnegie. Can you imagine if Rand always sounded like Ron? He'd get exactly as far as his father did.

Rand is the needed next evolution in implementing liberty ideas. The world is not changed via Rothbard debates.

If you will do what you can, you can do what you will.

Sad

Sad to see that Rand Paul is nothing like his father. Ron Paul promoted peace, Rand Paul endorses the neo-con war agenda.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

Watch the neocons flock to

Watch the neocons flock to give down strikes. LOL how predicable. How pathetic.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

I think he's playing a

I think he's playing a dangerous game where he thinks he can say the things to appease everyone to get power but when he gets power he can 'do the right thing' with it. I'll admit that is me reading into and projecting my hope for the best case of what he is doing.

Ernest Hancock plays that clip all the time from Lord of the Rings about the ring of power. No spoilers, but it's a good analogy.

If Rand is doing what I think he's doing, it is incredible hubris and is a mistake. On the other hand, I hope if that's what he's doing that he pulls it off.

Most people are libertarians, they just don't know it yet.

I hope Rand Paul isn't going

I hope Rand Paul isn't going off the rails.