Last month, Ron Paul said he would not have ordered the military action that ended in the death of Osama Bin Laden. In his view, “It was absolutely not necessary.” Never mind that the raid by Navy SEALS fulfilled what had been a stated U.S. foreign-policy objective since 2001, tracking down and punishing the perpetrators of 9/11; Pakistan’s “sovereignty” is more important.
That view is consistent with the belief that the U.S. should remain politically and militarily uninvolved in other countries’ internal affairs. But this purist doctrine of non-interventionism is contrary to the founding principles of America’s early foreign policy.
In books, interviews, and speeches, Congressman Paul has advocated a doctrine of non-interventionism, apparently applicable in all cases whatsoever. In the case of the bin Laden raid, Paul argues that the United States had no more right to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty than to violate England’s, had Bin Laden hypothetically been lodged in London instead of Abbottabad.
But bin Laden was not in London, and for an obvious reason: The United Kingdom is an ally, in the true sense of the word. Pakistan, it seems, is not. Nevertheless, the strict non-interventionist argues that the U.S. should have respected Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The Founding Fathers were no strangers to difficult foreign-policy decisions. When faced with the choice of whether to allow Barbary pirates to attack American ships of commerce or to punish the perpetrators of those attacks, President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison chose the latter.
In 1801, just 13 years after the Constitution was ratified, the United States built six frigates and dispatched a naval squadron to seek out and punish the piracy endangering the life and property of American citizens. The Barbary States were undeniably punished by a U.S. naval attack on Tripoli and a landing of Marines on the Barbary Coast, where they captured the Ottoman city of Derma. A blatant violation of the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, this attack met a U.S. foreign-policy objective fully in keeping with America’s guiding principles of maintaining independence abroad, ensuring freedom, and preserving peace.
Strict non-interventionists would apparently object to this historical deployment of the Marines on foreign soil to ensure Americans’ safety in another hemisphere; for the current claim of non-interventionism is conspicuously dogmatic and equally imprudent. Indeed, it is reminiscent of the isolationist views of the 1930s and bears little resemblance to the Founders’ foreign-policy approach.
While a policy of non-intervention is sometimes appropriate, the doctrine of non-interventionism is an isolationist policy which limits the options available to America. It is a limitation that the Founders rejected and so should we. In the years 1783–1860, the U.S. engaged in military action nearly 60 times around the globe. These military actions in the service of America’s interests and principles were both defensive and, at times, interventionist.
The true consistency of American foreign policy is to be found not in its policies, which ought to prudently change and adapt, but in its guiding principles, which should be unchanging and permanent. America is a defender of liberty at home. Abroad, it maintains its independence and pursues its interests while standing for the idea of political freedom across the globe.
From the justice dealt to Osama bin Laden and the ongoing struggle against radical Islam, to standing stalwartly for freedom against rising totalitarian economic powers, the Founders’ principles for America’s role in the world have great relevance today. But this is true only if we understand it as it truly was, and not as a simplistic notion of doctrinaire non-interventionism.
— Marion Smith is a graduate fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies.
ron paul voted to go after osama bin laden 10 years ago. He didnt disagree with the mission, just the way it was handled. His justification for for going after bin laden was the very insident(barbary pirates) which you mentioned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul is consistent, but as with more than a few of his "consistencies" not going after Bin Laden is just another example of his nuttiness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's a candidate for peace while the current foreign policy is creating more enemies; hence, weakening American's safety in the Middle East and at home.
What the US has actually done is united radical Islam at all fronts. Because now they have a commom enemy: the United States. Why dont we just mind our own business? What we should do is trade and do business with countries NOT use force so we can have access to resources. What we are doing is STEALING.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan't you just disagree without calling a principled position "nuttiness"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe real question is what are we still doing in the Middle east now that Bin Laden is gone?
And guess what buddy? Pakistan is an ALLY of the United States when combatting terror. United States DID violate their sovereignty right. They have every righ to be offended. Lets give them their sovereignty right and STOP giving them BILLIONS of dollars of foreign aide.
It's good that we've take out our biggest enemy so NOW we can focus on a much bigger picture: THE ECONOMY.
We need to get our troops out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and spend all those billions of dollars here in the US. Obama has printed so much money bailing out both domestic and FOREIGN banks. He is a corporatist and does not care about the average American person. He has allowed the dollar to lose its value and lose its status as world currency - partnered up with the richest of the rich while the middle class and the poor suffer. Well, we are waking up!
DOWN with OBAMA and His Corporatist Allies!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul is wrong for America on so many levels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps China, or Zimbabwe would be more Amerikan for you, if think Rep. Paul is wrong for Amerika.
There will be a breaking point eventually with the ever growing dictatorial power of the administration branch, and the un-accountability of our representatives to hold them accountable. And unfortunately 'DonnaDiorio' doesn't understand history, nor geopolitics. And is on the wrong side of history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDonna, if you're going to post an opinion like this, you should support it with specifics. Otherwise, you just look angry, opinionated, and dumb.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1) Just because Jefferson and Madison did it, it does not mean it was a good idea. They were, after all, politicians. Regardless of how great their rhetoric and philosophies were (or were not), as politicians they acted as politicians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2) The dominant philosophy of any nation that has ever enjoyed peace and prosperity was one of individualism rather than collectivism. The idea that some marines should be sacrificed to save the money of a few merchants who took the risk of shipping their goods in an area near pirates is the pure collectivism that belongs in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. It has no place in a country seeking freedom, peace and prosperity.
stevewilder,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese were founders, not merely politicians, they are what libertarians like me call classic liberals and consider ourselves to be.
What I call libertarian anarchists love free trade, but somehow think nations shouldn't protect the shipping lanes from pirates or rogue nations and other isolationist nonsense. I believe a government's proper role is to protect it's people's freedom and rights. Those rights extend to free trade on a global level.
Very disingenuous post. In the interview you linked to, Paul made it clear he absolutely would have pursused UBL - but by going through the Pakistani government and the ISI, as we did when they captured KSM and turned him over to us. You may think that's unrealistic, but it's a defensible if minority position that isn't at all the same as saying just let UBL go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis article offered the only rational criticism of Ron Paul I've read in months. While I do agree with Dr Paul that there were other ways of handling the information about Bin Laden's whereabouts, I am glad to see an article explaining why the administration's decision was neither indefensible, nor without precedent.
Why Bin Laden was killed instead of captured, tried and executed is another matter, however...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why Bin Laden was killed instead of captured, tried and executed is another matter, however..."
The only people who don't understand why bin Laden wasn't "captured", are the ones who don't understand the laws of armed conflict.
Osama bin Laden was an enemy combatant who was engaged in the theater of combat - and as the events of 9/11 clearly demonstrated, the 21st Century battlefield is everywhere, sadly.
Had bin Laden taken the opportunity to unambiguously surrendered when confronted by American service members, then he would quite clearly be alive today. He didn't. So, as allowed by the laws of armed conflict, the US forces applied force. Bin Laden didn't survive that application of force. This is what happens in armed conflict, all the time; Enemies are confronted, the demonstrate a desire to fight to the death and that desire is obliged.
Ron Paul might be right on many or even most domestic issues, but he's perfectly clueless when discussing international and military matters.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn spot-checking the Barbary pirates, you neglected to mention the vehicle through which that action was explicitly constitutional: Letter of Marque and Reprisal. That's actually written into the constitution as one of the enumerated powers of Congress (Article 1), so it wasn't in any sense "extra-constitutional". So it's pretty flagrantly misleading to cite that as a case where the founding fathers agreed with your implicit reading, that we don't have to hew to the constitution in such cases.
You may fail to mention that, but Ron Paul didn't. Here he is HIMSELF invoking the Barbary pirates and letters of marque and reprisal as the way he WOULD have gone after Bin Laden (so, incidentally, your implication that he would not have gone after Bin Laden is, also, in direct contradiction to his stated position):
External Link
He also invoked the principle shortly after 911 as the constitutional way to go after this stateless war criminal (vs. declaring war on a state).
So really, your entire post above is pretty dishonest. There IS a constitutional vehicle for going after stateless enemies of the state - it was invoked in the example you cite - and it is that vehicle that Ron Paul advocates using to have gone after the 911 perpetrators in a constitutional, limited fashion. Honestly, when you guys are trying to knock Ron Paul, do you do any research whatsoever? Or, for that matter, when you're trying to knock constitutionalism?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell-said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously, I don't want to pile on, and I'm not being a Ron Paul troll here, but this post is so rife with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations that I would encourage the editors to take it down, or the author to post some corrections. The premises on which the post is based - both about Ron Paul's stated (and much repeated) positions and about the history of the incidents which the author uses - are not just arguments that one might find unfair or disagree with - they are demonstrably untrue.
I understand that blog posting is quick and dirty quite a bit, but it seems pretty evident that the author here just flat out does not know what he's talking about. The straw men he's putting forward are not just strawmen, they are factually, provably incorrect. From a purely journalistic standpoint, this article doesn't pass muster for even a minimum threshold of acceptability, particularly for a publication like National Review. There has to be some standard before letting somebody pop off a hit piece using National Review as a platform, right? It's not like one couldn't make an argument against non-interventionism without resorting to inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour article is flawed. Ron Paul has never said that going after Bin Laden was wrong. As a matter of fact, he said he is glad that Bin Laden is dead. Paul stated that we could have involved the Pakistanis without tipping off any Osama Bin Laden sympathizers. More importantly, the killing of Bin Laden is a rebuke of the Bush/Obama doctrine, because at the end of the day it didn’t require 100,000 troops in Afghanistan or 60,000 soldiers in Iraq. All we needed were a few dozen SEALS to conduct a surgical strike. Just imagine the trillions of dollars spent and thousands of troops who continue to die pursuing a flawed war strategy in multiple countries with no battlefield objective or end in sight. We could have taken Bin Laden out years ago if we weren’t so bogged down in unnecessary wars run by the special interests and driven
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone who thinks the war on terrorism begins and ends with bin Laden, hasn't been paying attention.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Marion Smith's point is that conservatives should vote for Obama, the man we can trust to invade Pakistan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHoward Fineman is one and recent example of a person who misunderstood and then misstated in a book the view of George Washington on foreign policy and actions. He repeated the old false saw that statements by Washington about avoiding foreign entanglements outlined an isolationist policy. What Washington meant was that the U.S. should not get involved at that time in alliances and treaties with foreign countries because the U.S. was so weak and fledgling at the time, that it would be swamped by strong countries. He envisioned the U.S. becoming much stronger and then playing a big role in foreign affairs. Moreover, the trips westward that a book on Washington outlines exhibit his idea that the U.S. should eventually expand West as part of its becoming a big world power; and that implied keeping other countries from ultimately dominating any part of the continental U.S. And Jefferson backtracked on the rights of the President to annex territory when he engaged in the presidential act of buying the Louisiana Territory, thus helping fulfill Washington's dream. And his going after the Barbary Pirates was actually a reversal of his not wanting a central, strong U.S. military that engaged in foreign wars and war actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse