Aside From Ron Paul, There is a Serious Lack of Competing Views in American Foreign Policy

In the foreign policy arena, the United States has had four administrations that have supported the progressive idea that it is our obligation to spread democracy abroad. If you support this position; the war-hawks of the GOP and the bulk of the DNC provide an accurate ally-way to debate which countries deserve nation-building first. 

The problem that these people attempt to debate is whether a nation like Libya or a nation like Iraq should be attacked, controlled, redeveloped through large works programs and/or foreign aid development projects, and ultimately handed over to a handpicked government of “the people.” The debate, unless if your name is Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) or Dennis Kucinich, isn’t whether these policies actually makes logical sense – the party bosses of both political parties already assumes that to be true.

We can see this most plainly in the 2008 political race and the Obama administration. In 2008, the only GOP member running for president that was questioning the foreign policy of the Bush-era (which was in many ways a continuation of the Bill Clinton/ George HW Bush era foreign policy) was Ron Paul. He was cast aside (and in many regards, still is cast aside) because of these stances – called for non-interventionism. On the Democratic side, everyone was claiming to be against the war – but of the two front-runners, Obama and Hillary Clinton, both voted to support the wars. The progressive foreign policy of the DNC requires supporting war in order to remain logically valid. While these individuals can reject certain wars, when a list of justifiable objectives present themselves they will always go to war.  Obama and Clintonnow are in control of the United States foreign policy. 

Under their leadership, the U.S. has continued the support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – along with expanding the wars to other fronts. Obama’s proposed FY 2013 budget calls for $85.6 billion on the war in Afghanistan and $2.8 billion on the war in Iraq. In addition, the department is calling for $4.01 billion in foreign aid to Iraq and $3.2 billion in aid to Afghanistan. In FY 2013, the Obama administration would like to pay $95.6 billion because of these wars. Let us not forget that this spending is occurring in wars that most people who support the DNC do not support and does not include the money that is spent on other regimes that we are currently propping up. The cost has not just been monetary, more importantly the cost of lives in Afghanistan has increased five fold since Obama was elected.

Why do we spend this money and sacrifice American lives? So we can spread Democracy. 

Today, the left is still asleep to the fact that the DNC is a pro-war, anti-peace ticket.

The greatest example of this is the passage of the NDAA, which has declared the U.S. as an active warzone in the War on Terror. Even President Bush, in all of his progressive leaning, was unwilling to make this crucial step. This directive, despite a PR campaign by the Obama administration to the contrary, gives the president and his bureaucracy the ability to place any American that can be suspected of supporting terrorism by any regulation that has been written by our un-elected fourth branch of government to be detained and held in military prison without a trial. The right to review of the decision is only granted after being imprisoned for one-year. Once you stand before the board, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. With the burden of proof on the citizen and not the government – the chance of leaving your new home is not in your favor.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons