Foreign Policy of Freedom

Is Ron Paul right about the CIA and blowback?

Ron Paul: For a Strong National Defense That Puts America First

A defense policy designed to keep Americans safe should start with the idea that we must secure our borders from those who would cross them to do us harm. Currently, the United States maintains hundreds of thousands of troops in more than 100 foreign countries. In many cases, they are there to defend foreign borders. Maintaining such a global empire drains nearly one trillion dollars from the U.S. economy each year, while offering very little real security for the American people. What’s worse, our U.S. Border Guards are sent overseas to places like Iraq while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, had obtained some 24 visas to enter the United States under false pretenses or with incomplete or misleading applications. All these should have been caught and refused. The fact that this did not happen is another indictment on our inadequate border security system.

As president, I would make securing our borders against a possible terrorist threat the top defense priority. No one who seeks to do us harm should be allowed to cross the border into U.S. territory. After all, a defense policy should benefit those who actually pay for it: the American people.

In addition, I would re-focus the efforts of our military and intelligence services on locating those individuals who planned the terrorist attacks on the U.S. and who remain at large. It must be made clear that the United States cannot be attacked with impunity. When I voted for the authorization to use force against those who attacked us in 2001, I did not imagine that we would be getting bogged down for years in a nation-building exercise in Afghanistan while the perpetrators remain at large. Efforts in that part of the world should be exclusively focused on apprehending those responsible for the attacks against the United States.

We need a complete overhaul of U.S. intelligence requirements and capabilities. For far too long, Congress has operated under the assumption that simply spending more on the intelligence community would make it more effective and efficient. We have unfortunately learned the hard way that this is not a wise approach. I have consulted with numerous current and former intelligence professionals about the need to re-assess our intelligence community and how it should function, and I will take action to implement such reforms as president.

I have introduced several pieces of legislation designed to strengthen our capability to find the 9/11 perpetrators and protect our nation against future attacks:

- H.R. 3216 would authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal, naming private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to fight against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas.

- H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers. Pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.

- H.R. 3217 would prohibit the issuance of student, training, vocational, and diversity visas without presidential review to anyone from a country that repeatedly supports terrorism or does not cooperate fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

Keeping America safe and secure is about more than the size of the defense budget or the number of U.S. military personnel. An America-first defense policy understands the need to rationally assess the threats that do exist to the United States and then figure out what we can do to minimize those threats. Has our foreign policy of interventionism overseas increased or decreased the threats to our security? When we interfere in a foreign election or foment unrest abroad, are the people more or less likely to harbor ill-feelings toward the United States and the American people?

We must move beyond the assertions of some that “they hate us because we are prosperous and free” and earnestly attempt to understand what it is that motivates others to wish us harm and then act upon those wishes. We must understand that many of the threats to the United States from overseas come from non-state actors rather than states. I have consulted and will continue to consult defense experts who are well-versed in such important topics as fourth generation warfare and how the US can respond to emerging trends and threats.

A defense policy for the United States should first seek to make Americans safer. A foreign policy of non-interventionism overseas will be the first step in reducing threats to the U.S. It will enable us to focus our resources where they belong: in defense of the United States and the American people. An America-first defense policy will not go abroad seeking monsters to slay, but will deter through strength and lead by example.

Ron Paul: Time to Refocus on Finding Osama bin Laden

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.

On my first day as commander-in-chief, I will direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our commanders on the ground to devise and execute a plan to immediately withdraw our troops in the safest manner possible.

Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.

Documents

Iraq Statement 1.29.doc
National Defense 1.25.doc