The cost efficiency argument against the warSubmitted by Zeteo on Sun, 11/11/2007 - 20:48
I've had long discussions with several mainstream republicans, trying to convert them to vote for Dr. Paul; with very limited success. The one big stumbling block, in each case, was The War. They usually like his other positions, but pulling out of Iraq is a big no-no. So I've been thinking, and I came up with this new approach to it. It's not my personal position, but I think it would be a much easier sell to mainstream republicans. I'm thinking of trying it out next, so please tell me what you think about it.
The main misconception they have is that they identify Dr. Paul with pacifists, of the "better Red than dead" variety. When they hear that he wants to pull out of Iraq, they'll usually reply with something on the lines of "yeah, and then Osama will put your wife in a burqa".
So the next approach I'm going to try is this: agree with them that fighting against terrorism is a worthwhile goal, but argue that the Army presence in Iraq is an inefficient and costly way of achieving this goal.
When speaking to them about the Founding Fathers, I've often been countered with the argument that Jefferson engaged in the first War on Terror. Well, guess what, I've done some research and this now fits like a glove on my new line of attack. Jefferson managed to fight the Barbary War and make the Louisiana purchase while cutting both the federal budget (including the military expenses) and the national debt to less than half (Joseph Wheelan: Jefferson's War: America's First War on Terror 1801-1805, 2004, p.109).
Now compare this with the current policy, which drives us deep into debt and inflation, and inefficiently fights against one threat (terrorism) while opening us wide to another one (the Chinese, who have the US dollar around their little finger). It's not that Ron Paul doesn't want to defend us against threats, but that he wants to do it efficiently (in Jefferson's tradition), and to defend us against all threats, not just terrorism.