Great piece that looks at whether GOP Presidential candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has in his quixotic campaign the seeds for the future of American foreign policy.  I hope not.  Non-interventionism, while maybe not isolationism is still a dangerous view to have of American power.  Contrary to the view that our over exuberant utilization of power abroad is the foundation of the world’s seemingly growing anti-Americanism, I would maintain, it is that exercise in power that maintains “relative” stability. 

We blew the initial postwar phase of Iraq .  This does not mean it was wrong to go in there in the first place.  I could argue forever about the flagrant disregard that regime had for the UN and how the now much ballyhooed UN sanction regime was in fact collapsing before the invasion (so it really makes no sense to say we could have kept him contained).  I could talk about the need to make a more compelling show of force than Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and on and on, but the relevant point is, if a moderately successful regime had followed Saddam, the current debate would be vastly different.  George W. Bush would be a great American President, Republicans would likely have healthy Congressional majorities and Iran would be cowed into negotiating with us from a position of extreme weakness.  Obviously, that’s not where we are today, but the question is what do you do when you have the power America has.  Ron Paul wants us to in large measure sit on it, saying we have no business poking our nose in other countries’ business.  I would say, that power matters whatever we do.  If don’t poke our nose in others’ business, that is still a decision with immense importance attached to it.  Fact is, we are the lone remaining Superpower and we have responsibilities that simply put, other nations do not have.  We should be pragmatic and discerning in the use of that power and work overtime in making sure that when employed, force is appropriately matched to the desired ends.  We also probably should speak more softly, but we certainly should not stop carrying the “Big Stick.”

If we are to be “non-interventionist” I wonder what that means for East Asia .  Do you think South Korea would be a capitalist wonder story if North Korea invaded it again or bombed Seoul into submission?  We prevent that.  Do you think Japan’s economy could grow as much as it has in the post World War II era if they had to worry about diverting even more funding than they already do to defense against North Korea and China?  By us being there, we prevent that.  Do you think China would be growing as much as they are if we didn’t keep Japan from going nuclear?  Do you think that Europe and East Asia’s oil supply would be relatively safe, thus allowing economic growth, in the absence of our presence in the Middle East and willingness to keep aggressors in line?  By doing all of these things we contribute more to the prosperity of the world than any other country in history.  Sure, we have some bad chapters in our history and are not as innocent as we were at our founding, but tell me, who would have done more and helped raise more people up than we have?  Much of this is because we prevent, through military power and exercise of power things that are even worse to contemplate than what has actually happened.  Whether we want to be or not, we are responsible for a great many things.  Power is what allows us meet those responsibilities.

I know that many will argue we are squandering our power and that power is a multifaceted thing that includes values and economic prowess and is not, fundamentally, military based.  I don’t disagree, but it’s all interrelated.  We can defend our economic prosperity because we can defend ourselves and keep the world relatively, though far from absolutely, stable.  We need to be truly realistic and that means acknowledging what we are, what we have, and what we must do to keep it.  I think Ron Paul’s ideas, while noble in intent, abdicate those responsibilities.