Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Why Rand Paul is wrong (this time)...

I wrote the following in response to Rand Paul's article on Breitbart (both of whom I have great respect).


Apples & Oranges.

Reagan was only able to meet with Mikal Gorbachev after 3 other Soviet leaders died and after Reagan had committed to massive rearmament of the US military.  In the '80's the only war was the cold war.  Reagan was able to institute diplomatic solutions because he was bargaining from a position of strength while the Soviets were reeling from the loss of 3 leaders in 3 years.  And, their economy was not propped up by oil & gas revenue from Western Europe at the time.

Today's situation is different.  It is the KGB vs Acorn.  Our president has managed to alienate some of our closest allies, in addition to those in the former Eastern Block countries like Poland, where he nixed the installation of missile defense systems in his attempted "reset" of east-west relations.  That, along with the recent purposed gutting of the US military budget has made his (our) hand weaker yet.  No president since Carter has looked so weak on the world stage.  [On side note - I believe Obama wants a decline in the US superpower status and he is purposefully using these events to perpetuate - if not accelerate - our decline.] 

Yet, if BHO did want to change the outcome for Crimea, it would be relatively simple (for most men of humility, of which Obama is not one).  He could talk to the remaining 6 members of the G8 and express how wrong he had been to trust the latest leader of the Axis of Evil and that they need to combine forces and oust Russia from the G8 - relocating the meeting to Geneva this summer instead of Sochi.  Then pivot (as he so likes to do) and begin building a case against them in the WTO, immediately bringing the remaining Eastern Block countries into NATO, publicly announcing the reconstituting of the US Military, deploying missile defenses to Poland, fast tracking the Keystone Pipeline (largely a figurative move, as exporting oil or even LNG to Europe would be cost prohibitive), sending in a CIA team to extricate Snowden out from under Putin's protection, and upping the rhetoric against Putin every chance he got.  Then he (we) could bargain for the freedom of Crimea from a position of strength.  Leave or continue to be an outsider in world affairs.

Of course, he'll do none of this.  He'll continue to draw the red line, from Crimea to east Ukraine, to western Ukraine to Poland if Putin sees fit to continue his re-assemblage of the Soviet Empire.  This will only embolden the former KGB operative to do as he sees fit throughout the world, leaving a mess for the next president.  

Those who say, "Who are we to tell them what country they can or cannot invade? We do the same thing" are making a HUGE mistake making some sort of moral equivalency between the US & Russia.  We invade, install democracy (or some semblance, thereof) and turn the countries back over to it's people.  Russia invades, sets up puppet government, "nationalizes" profits makes the rules class unbelievably rich and submits the people to lives of oppression, much like the Statist's here would like to do.  

Rand Paul would be one of the worst choices for president I could think of.  He is NOT the polar opposite of Obama, which is what will be required.  I respect Mr. Paul (and his father) on the domestic economy, but certainly not if foreign affairs.  There is nothing I would like more than for the next president, Scott Walker, to appoint Rand Paul to publicaly audit the Fed, oversee the re-privatization of healthcare insurance, student loans, FREDDIE & FANNIE MAE, etc... 

However, the United States IS the world's policeman, like it or not.  We are the only superpower who can ensure free trade all over the globe by our projection of naval superiority (for now).  Unless we maintain our vast military superiority and projection of power throughout the globe we will fall into the isolationist trap of early 20th century.

No comments: