Ron Paul Podcast #8
Topic: Military and the Future
Technologies that to us seem to be yesterday’s innovations such as nuclear bombs, stealth fighters, and bunker busters are unrealizable dreams for most nations in any era.
Not only is our technology superb, but our soldiers are the best in the world. In every imaginable level, American troops are superior. They have superior captains and thus a superior military. We can all agree that this is incontestable.
But, why has this glorious military with the world’s most powerful technology not been able to control Iraq or beyond that, why have we not yet trained the Iraqis to take over their own country?
Our overall objective is to build up local Iraqi forces to the point where they can police and defend their own country. We are constantly told how well the Iraqi government prepares its forces. Some months, the Iraqis are on schedule but some months not.
If the most powerful army in the world has not been able to train the Iraqis thus far, what guarantee do we have that they will ever train them to protect their own country?
If the American forces have not yet secured Iraq (though the surge has led to some stability; of course “stability” is a flexible word in Iraq), why do we think we could train the poor and unqualified Iraqi army to take over the region? Perhaps this is why John McCain wants us to stay there for another 100 years. Are you ready to sacrifice your children and your children’s children to war?
As the authors observe:
The only solution would be to make the Iraqi army even stronger than our own. Not only is this strategy not humanly possible, it is outright dangerous to long term stability in the Middle East. This armament will only lead to training the next Osama bin Laden.
Imagine the following scenario: We spend another 5-10 years in Iraq (conservatively speaking); we train the Iraqis to protect their own nation. We even come to political unity (remember this is all a big dream), the government establishes their Islamic Constitution, a democracy arises, free elections, etc. All is fine so far. America now focuses on its next military agenda (Darfur, perhaps) and then through democratic elections, a new Saddam Hussein figure arises. Now, this figure has a well-trained military, which we trained, a stable Iraq, US troops are gone en mass, and they have US dollars everywhere.
This scenario I have just imagined is a strong possibility. Our involvement in the Middle East has led to many dictators, what makes Iraq any different? Our writers conclude with the following words:
We are the most powerful military in the world. If the U.S. can’t win a war, it is good evidence that the war was unwinnable in the first place. The conflict will not be won, because it simply cannot be won. Our ultimate choices are between withdrawing our troops now with America as an intact nation or doing so years from now broken and bankrupt.
My own conclusion is simple: Whether you support Ron Paul wholeheartedly as I do, or whether you think he is just not modern enough for this new age, one thing is certain: His foreign policy is the only one that makes sense. Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who once said: “Middle Eastern politics is irrational.” When will we learn?