Ron Paul, Pakistan, and Foreign Policy
The tragic murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has increased fear of even greater instability in that nuclear-armed nation, and brought a renewed focus on foreign policy to the American presidential election. Many voters are understandably looking for a strong leader in these uncertain times, but they should also be looking for a candidate with the wisdom and proven judgment to avoid making the problem worse by continuing the failed policies of the past.
Ron Paul warned of the dangers of American involvement in Pakistan as far back as 2002, pointing out that our financial and political support of an unpopular military dictator would lead to negative consequences.
Ron Paul's critics might argue that the area is too dangerous to pursue a non-interventionist policy there, but Prime Minister Bhutto herself asked for just such a policy in Pakistan in a Parade magazine interview this November, arguing that our ongoing intervention is making the situation more dangerous.
It may be frightening to leave the situation in Pakistan to the Pakistani people to resolve, as Ron Paul recommends, but our continued meddling or calls for new military intervention could lead to much more frightening and unpredictable consequences.
Perhaps it is Ron Paul's medical training, but he refuses to continue a course of action when it has already proven to make matters worse. In the economic arena, he advises us that we can't solve the problems caused by monetary inflation with more monetary inflation. Similarly, he points out that we can't solve the problems caused by an interventionist foreign policy by continuing that same policy.
Ron Paul summarized the key tenets of his non-interventionist foreign policy in a recent essay, reminding us of where his philosophy originates from, and what it means to the American people:
Read more at Paul 4 Prez
Ron Paul warned of the dangers of American involvement in Pakistan as far back as 2002, pointing out that our financial and political support of an unpopular military dictator would lead to negative consequences.
The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharraf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharraf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly, as the Pakistanis almost certainly harbored bin Laden in the months following 9/11. In fact, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today...
We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
Ron Paul's critics might argue that the area is too dangerous to pursue a non-interventionist policy there, but Prime Minister Bhutto herself asked for just such a policy in Pakistan in a Parade magazine interview this November, arguing that our ongoing intervention is making the situation more dangerous.
She would tell him [President Bush], she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
It may be frightening to leave the situation in Pakistan to the Pakistani people to resolve, as Ron Paul recommends, but our continued meddling or calls for new military intervention could lead to much more frightening and unpredictable consequences.
Perhaps it is Ron Paul's medical training, but he refuses to continue a course of action when it has already proven to make matters worse. In the economic arena, he advises us that we can't solve the problems caused by monetary inflation with more monetary inflation. Similarly, he points out that we can't solve the problems caused by an interventionist foreign policy by continuing that same policy.
Ron Paul summarized the key tenets of his non-interventionist foreign policy in a recent essay, reminding us of where his philosophy originates from, and what it means to the American people:
Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
When we look at global situations today, the words of our Founding Fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an "allowance" from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.
