Obama's National Security Strategy

We have often joked, especially Dean, about the extent to which O=W, especially in terms of national security policy. But Walter Russell Mead argues in this video that there is an underlying, uniquely American reason, for this. American policy is driven by the democratic forces of our republic. This means that it is incoherent and lurches in various directions in the short term as we elect new Presidents and Congress' level of interference rises and falls. Unlike an historical figure like Bismarck whose intellect almost single-handedly unified Germany, our strategy is an amalgam of the forces of the republic. Our strategy is less like a ship of state navigated by a single Captain, but more like a gang fight on the poop deck for control of the helm.

But somehow this works over the long term. This is because the direction of the U.S. strategy is actually effective and reflective of the actual interests of the citizens. Over time, the strategy is reflective of our values, is effective in establishing a stable world order, and is consonant with our economic interests, which are promoted by free trade and peace.

As a result, the latest military strategy released by the administration looks much like that of the Bush administration. There is consensus that we must defeat Al Qaeda, promote peace in the Middle East, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, prevent Iran from getting nukes, promoting a stable world order. The specific means to conduct this strategy of necessity include working with allies to allow us a smaller, more affordable military. Ron Paul struggles when he talks foreign policy because his ideas, even if correct, do not accord with the current consensus. In my view, that consensus has solidified after the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My personal belief is that some of the tactical ideas of Ron Paul, like closing overseas bases to get a more affordable military, could be grafted onto the consensus on military and foreign policy, because affordability is an important consideration of our strategy.

The Problem with Ron Paul

I agree with Ron Paul on just about every subject, but I am not supporting him for President. What gives? First, he occasionally makes a total clown of himself. He can be absolutely correct and so totally befuddle the listener that he gives his ideas a bad name. When your ideas are the best, you should be able to take it the opponents of greater liberty much more effectively than he has. Second, it has become increasingly clear that he is not in the race to win it. His strategy appears to be pick up enough delegates to get his issues aired at the convention. I would normally not object to such a strategy, as the Republican party has proved themselves unworthy of commitment to any actual principle over the years. However, this year, Barack Obama represents an existential threat to the liberty of all Americans, and he must be defeated and Obamacare repealed. This is imperative to getting us of the road to serfdom and back on the highway to prosperity and liberty. Mr. Paul's continued presence and his goal of extracting concessions at the convention will work to the advantage of the President's re-election.

However, my biggest argument is with his foreign policy, actually, his national security policy. Now, I agree that we could do with a huge cutback of bases overseas, and even the defense budget requires scrutiny, but Ron Paul is naive if he believes that neutrality is going to make America more secure. We know from history that it is tyrannies, not democracies that are the source of war and conflict. Further, a stable world political order, in which small nations are not subject to territorial violations by their neighbors keeps the peace, which helps with both United States' and world economic growth. This means that it is in our best interests to work against tyrants and would be tyrants the world over. It also means that we support Israel, as the only true democracy in the Middle East, against aggression from her neighbors. Al Qaeda and its like minded co-conspirators actively believe in pan-Islamic dictatorship, and have simultaneously made the mistake of attacking the United States. This makes defeating them, and killing bin-Laden as part of a legal war of self-defense, legitimate execution of America's national security policy. Ron Paul always seems to get tongue tied when discussing the killing of bin-Laden. One of the principles roles of President is Commander-in-Chief. It seems that Ron Paul is squeamish in exercising our sovereign right of self defense, and that makes him unfit for the Presidency.

Let me be clear that we should not get into a war with every dictator on the planet who might threaten us. Even if that were desirable, we lack the national treasure to do so. For example, I have argued that attacking Iran, even if they obtain nuclear weapons is not a realistic option. We must pick our battles. But we should retain the right of self-defense, and further, the right to intervene in conflicts where tyrants threaten the international order, when that is in the national interest and Congress so authorizes.