Rand Paul Foreign Policy Speech Reactions

Rand Paul gave a speech on foreign policy today at the Heritage Foundation. He is clearly trying to split the difference. He isn’t going to please the neocon faithful. He isn’t going to please the hard-core non-interventionists. Can he please GOP primary voters? That remains to be seen. I”ll have more to say later, but I’m not impressed.

Here is Jim Antle’s article on the speech. Note the tweets from Justin Raimondo he cites. Justin is clearly not impressed.

Reason says Rand is clearly trying to distance himself from his father on foreign policy.

Neocon hawk Jennifer Rubin didn’t like it.

Update: Philip Giraldi is not impressed.

This is pre-speech, but Matt Welch at Reason is impressed.

 

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

22 thoughts on “Rand Paul Foreign Policy Speech Reactions

  1. Matt Weber

    What would you be impressed by but hard line non-interventionism? Seeking a middle ground is wise, these things don’t change all of a sudden but rather slowly over time. Not sounding like a totally rabid anti-Israel nut is also a good help. We might have all liked what Ron Paul said, but Thomas Fleming was right–he never achieved a single thing in his entire tenure. Maybe Rand can achieve something?

  2. C Bowen

    When the leading lights of the GOP, the Amnesty Trio, McCain, Graham, Rubio (plus the dead Romney Campaign) all agree on the Clinton/Obama policy of working with radical Islam as it suits them against regimes friendly to the West (and native Christians), tactically, anyone can fill the counter-argument, and Rand has filled that space.

    Just tactically speaking, there would be no reason not to take as much ground as one could, from a Machiavellian stand point.

    Getting excited over these speeches is a little much, and its hard to tell how Raimondo views what Rand was saying in light of a) Raimondo’s support for Hagel, and b) that a Senate vote on Hagel is coming and Rand might start to take some power away from the Amnesty Three.

  3. JDP

    Raimondo, despite his ideological positioning, sounds like your typical snarky leftist with his remarks. who gives a shit what he thinks?

  4. RonL

    I am rather impressed but feel that Paul needs to gove this more thought. Containment is a start. Paul does not explain how to contain Islamism. He repeats the Ron-Paulite and communist lie that the US armed Bin Laden. He forgets that Reagan supported ROLLBACK, not containment. And arming the local Afghans was part of this.

    Dennis Raimondo’s Tweet is a reminder that AIDS affects the brain. It is isn’t sophomoric. It iis nonsensical drunken rant of a freshman.

    Reason.com has the whole speech
    http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/06/containment-and-radical-islam

  5. JDP

    “He repeats the Ron-Paulite and communist lie that the US armed Bin Laden”

    yeah i dislike historical revisionism in service of ideology, though TBF he might actually believe this. the mujahideen were an umbrella group yet people treat the bin Laden-financed foreign fighters and/or the later-formed Taliban like they made up the whole of it.

    it reminds me of a professor i had in college who said that Reagan supported Pol Pot against the Vietnamese-installed Cambodian government, when there were two other groups (Sihanouk, who hated Pol Pot, and a republican faction) engaging in the insurgency against them at the time.

  6. JDP

    “He repeats the Ron-Paulite and communist lie that the US armed Bin Laden”

    yeah i dislike historical revisionism in service of ideology, though TBF he might actually believe this. the mujahideen were an umbrella group yet people treat the bin Laden-financed foreign fighters and/or the later-formed Taliban like they made up the whole of it.

    it reminds me of a professor i had in college who said that Reagan supported Pol Pot against the Vietnamese-installed Cambodian government, when there were two other groups (Sihanouk, who hated Pol Pot, and a republican faction) engaging in the insurgency against them at the time.

  7. RedPhillips Post author

    The way to contain Islamism is to not let them immigrate here and to repeal birthright citizenship so that those who are already here but aren’t yet citizens won’t have kids that are automatic citizens. There, problem solved.

  8. RedPhillips Post author

    Raimondo’s take on Rand vs. Hagel is interesting. He’s is hostile to Rand and friendly to Hagel. I’m not impressed with Rand, but I’m not sure that Rand’s foreign policy might not end up being less entangling than Hagel’s. In all the hoopla people have forgotten that Hagel is an unapologetic internationalist. He’s the Chairman of the Atlantic Council. Raimondo recently wrote that a transformation from the current consensus to a less interventionist policy is going to be a long battle and would require making coalitions with people we don’t entirely agree with. So he isn’t just reacting negatively to Rand because he is not being pure enough. I think for Raimondo the difference is how he perceives them re. Israel. I think he perceives Rand as sucking up on the issue of Israel and Hagel as providing some measure of resistance, although I don’t know what he thought of Hagel’s confirmation hearing.

  9. JDP

    if by “sucking up to Israel” you mean “not fixating on Israel as the Source of All Problems in the region” i guess he’s guilty

    as for Hagel he’s not too “internationalist” (which 99% of people would be by this metric.) he does seem to think tough diplomacy is never effective and likes to remain neutral in condemning any side in a conflict where one’s clearly at fault though. i suppose this is a plus for him in some people’s book, not mine.

  10. RedPhillips Post author

    JDP, who are you trying to kid? I hope not me. Did you see the hearing? The hearing was obsessively focused on Israel. I love it when critics of non-intervention say non-interventionists are obsessed with Israel. The obsession with Israel on the part of the interventionists engenders a counter reaction on the part of non-interventionists.

    Anyway, I was speculating about Raimondo. As I said in another thread, Raimondo is clearly emotionally invested in the plight of the Palestinians. I have always been careful to advise that America should be strictly neutrality and not interfere with the internal affairs of Israel.

    The Atlantic Council, of which Hagel is Chairman, advises American international “leadership.” This is exactly what non-interventionists don’t want. I don’t want America to lead as if we think we are special. I want America to act like a normal country.

  11. SoCalPatriot

    JDP,

    On what basis do you claim Raimondo to be a ‘snarky leftist?Would THE flagship publication of paleoconservatism,Chronicles magazine, have hired a ‘snarky leftist’ as a regular contributor for their prestigious magazine?Would a ‘snarky leftist’ have written a book such as “Reclaiming the American Right”,which is widely considered a classic defense of authentic liberty?I think not.

    In my humble opinion,JDP,you are the one who is being snarky.A snarky,clueless idiot!

  12. Sean Scallon

    Rand missed an opportunity really to spell out why the large size of the U.S. government is directly related to the size of America’s commitments around world and the size of the national-security state. He needed to libertarians and conservatives cannot have a small domestic state and world empire. It doesn’t work that way. It’s easy for Obama (or the Clintons for that matter) to preside over such a state, regardless of what they say on the campaign trail, because they believes in big government.

  13. Matt Weber

    Raimondo isn’t a snarky leftist, he’s just very exercised about Israel. In his mind, any non-interventionist position that doesn’t come hand-in-hand with skepticism about Israel is worthless. This happens with a lot of people, where there is the One True Issue that must be addressed or the discussion is worthless.

  14. C Bowen

    I always feel like the folks who say ‘the US never funded bin Laden” are playing the incompetence card– he was clearly a capable chap from Saudi Arabia, if the CIA was not tolerating money floating to his efforts, I really don’t understand why he was getting positive press in the Anglo media as late as 1993 http://tinyurl.com/c6ef76t.

    If syntax in the interest of agreement is important, okay, the West, allied with bin Laden in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

    Can we agree on that?

    With folks like Romney, Kristol, Graham, McCain…supporting working with radical jihadists to topple regimes friendly to the US and Israel in Egypt, Libya and now Syria, their objections to Hagel are sort of out there.

  15. RonL

    I didn’t realize that the CIA ran British papers. It wasn’t one of Murdoch’s or Blacks. Has it occurred to you that the international left bought into the whole “Serbs are geniciding Bosnians” story and would look fondly on Muslims taking care of their own rather than have British involvement?

    “If syntax in the interest of agreement is important, okay, the West, allied with bin Laden in Afghanistan and Kosovo.”
    Allied may be going too far. But we did allow MAK and GIA to operate in America and fundraise in America. This bit us hard with the World Trade Center attack in 1993.
    But we are still not serious about Jihad. We let the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent org of both, operate in America and run mosques.

    “With folks like Romney, Kristol, Graham, McCain…supporting working with radical jihadists to topple regimes friendly to the US and Israel in Egypt, Libya and now Syria, their objections to Hagel are sort of out there.”

    Yes and no. Both Hagel and the neocons are wrong. I understand the “we have always been at war with Eastasia” pitfall. The reality is that we have multiple enemies.

  16. JDP

    “JDP, who are you trying to kid? I hope not me. Did you see the hearing? The hearing was obsessively focused on Israel.”

    wait wait wait. what’s a big part of the reason for the Hagel enthusiasm in some quarters? that he’d stick it to the Israel lobby, that he wouldn’t “suck up to Israel.” of course, a good amount of people don’t view Israel in this negative light. why the hell wouldn’t they ask him about his past statements there?

    i don’t have a problem with criticism of Israel. i do have an issue with Hagel’s “realism,” which isn’t really realism at all, but a naive belief that by remaining neutral in discussing conflicts, and not supporting any form of tough diplomacy whatsoever, he’s somehow Mr. Statesman.

  17. JDP

    C Bowen

    Afghanistan had a coalition government the U.S. still recognized as legitimate after the Taliban overthrew it, consisting of some of the same people who continued fighting and came back to power after 9/11. bin Laden didn’t need help with funding in any case, and most Afghans obviously hated the Soviets.

    if anything it’s not a lesson about blowback so much as maybe having been more mindful of instability after the Soviets were thrown out.

  18. Savrola

    Lets not forget that the U.S. was funding the Taliban’s anti-opium efforts up to around 2001.
    As only Ron Paul pointed out.

    Which is not ok in my book, even though I think the Taliban are good chaps.

  19. C Bowen

    So we get to the heart of RonL and JDP point: Ollie North and Richard Pearl (and we can throw in Michael Ledeen) were cool with funding jihadists (amongst other things) but they drew the line with Saudis.

    That was a leftist thing (which apparently in their syntax is not USG) as it was Carter’s boy, Brzezinsk’s, idea anyway. So State Department rather than CIA was pulling the strings here and there, with Brit newspapers–and you feel better no “neocon” was involved in the making of this story?

    Mr. Higdon if you are reading this thread, my point about the PATCON uber pats.

    Sav;

    As Geraldo reported, the US military now protects the poppy crop which is now so cheap in the states, a new epidemic is arising. Which is cheaper?

  20. C Bowen

    JDP,

    For the record, did you support the Taliban or the, as you noted, US recognized Afghanistan government that protected the opium crop and that man-boy love thing they have over there?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>