Why Ron Paul Understands Suitcase Nukes Better Than The Hawks
The interventionists have been hammering Ron Paul pretty hard, but does their argument make sense? by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Monday, January 16, 2012
When you strip down the interventionist arguments of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry against Ron Paul to their essentials, here is what you see. The Washington Times points out that Santorum in particular has made it clear that he would "fund pro-democracy movements in Iran, enforce sanctions, and encourage covert operations to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. But if those efforts didn’t work, he would set a deadline for Iran for inspecting their facilities and take out, with tactical air strikes, the nuclear facilities." The article in particular expresses the views of a New Hampshire voter named Mike Gianino who said of Paul's arguments, "It’s a big concern because I think if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and poses a threat, I’m scared of what Israel will do in response." The other candidates not named Paul have offered similar views.
This is the prevailing theory put forth by hawks throughout the Republican Party, and it is clearly working with some voters, but there is a gigantic flaw in their theory. There is a nation that poses a much greater threat than Iran when it comes to the possibility of dropping a suitcase bomb on New York City or Washington, DC. Yet, this nation-state gets almost no attention at all from the interventionists. You should ask yourself why this is true. What state am I referring to? I'm talking about Pakistan.
The reason I'm mentioning Pakistan is that Pakistan already has a lot of the very same things that Mr. Gianino and his hawkish leaders are afraid Iran will acquire. They have a massive Islamic population that is becoming more and more hostile to the U.S. due to U.S. foreign policy and military intervention. They have a nuclear arsenal. They are protecting and defending an active al-Qaedda ally: the Taliban. Yet, the hawks are not beating the war drums where Pakistan is concerned. They're only concerned about Iran, despite the fact that Pakistan already has nukes, and Iran does not. In fact, a high ranking opposition politician and former ally of the current regime in Pakistan stated recently that the country's nuclear arsenal is not in safe hands. Pakistan's former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi made the statement at an opposition campaign rally according to New Dehli TV.
Clearly, if you're going to engage in a fear campaign at all, you should engage in spreading fear about a determined foe that actually has nuclear weapons, not one that does not have nukes and may or may not be trying to develop them. So why don't the hawks hammer the Pakistan question? Simply, they know they would lose the debate.
The Pakistan situation makes a mockery of the entire interventionist agenda, because you cannot threaten an existing nuclear power into submission. This is why the interventionists turn a blind eye toward Pakistan. They know that they cannot as easily intervene in Pakistan, that it is indeed extremely dangerous for us to do so. So they create a weaker foe out of the Iran in order to justify their continued interventionism around the world.
This is where the wisdom of Ron Paul becomes crystal clear. His non-interventionist stance makes much, much more sense in a world where the bad guys have nukes in their hands, because the alternative can only lead to nuclear brinkmanship.
The hawks also like to trot out the historic example of Neville Chamberlain who was convinced that Hitler would not invade any of his neighbors, but the comparison does not hold water. In this case, it is Paul who is much more realistic about where the greatest danger to the U.S. lies and the hawkish interventionists who have turned a blind eye to the real danger, all in the name of continuing interventionism.
Take a look at an exchange between and interviewer and Ron Paul from last May in which the question of Pakistan was addressed.
Dylan Ratigan: Your thoughts on the actual way forward: in other words we know what your opinions are and we know what your values are. We also know the reality is we’re involved in an incredibly conflicted and inconsistent set of relationships that go back decades. Where would you begin?
Ron Paul: Well, you have to reverse the trend. And you’re right, we’re very much [too] involved to turn a key and the switch and be out of all the mess in one day or two. It is going to be very difficult, but I think the explanation that we don’t intend to run these countries and occupy these countries and own these countries would be a big change. Why is it that we continue to bomb Pakistan and the chaos that’s going on over there? No wonder it’s trouble dealing with their government, cause their government and their people are separated. We, in a way, are inadvertently and some people claim on purpose...causing chaos in Pakistan."
The nuke-in-a-suitcase problem shows just how wise the Paul position truly is. You don't bomb a country if you're concerned that one of their nukes might end up in the hands of the Taliban who might then smuggle that same nuke in the a major U.S. city and then set it off.
Clearly, Ron Paul is not the isolationist. Rather, it is the hawks and interventionists who are the true isolationists, because they are the ones who are isolating us from safety and national security where a known nuclear power is concerned. By continuing to focus their bloody attention on Iran, they continue with their smoke-and-mirrors routine designed to keep America from noticing that the real risk is due to our government's own, interventionist actions.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 24
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
