Ron Paul has has been attacked by some conservatives who accuse him (while admitting that he has an "impeccable" voting record) of underestimating, misunderstanding, or perhaps even "misunderestimating" the threat of islamic terrorists (aka "jihadists," "islamo-fascists," etc.). For many conservatives, this is such a central issue that it would prevent a vote for Ron Paul inspite of their agreement with Dr. Paul on many other areas of conservative thinking (role of government, taxation, 2nd amendment rights, pro-life stance... see also; I'm a Republican, why should I vote for Ron Paul).
My contention however, is that Dr. Paul's position on this matter is simply not clearly understood. In fact, I will explain how a Ron Paul presidency would do more to protect Americans from islamic terrorism than a Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Romney, or other such presidency.One must start with more clearly defining what exactly it is that we're discussing here. What is the "War on Terror?" Well, in basic terms we are talking about terrorism. But not just the idea of terrorism - or a vague notion that there is this terrorism out there in the world. No, we're talking about something more concrete than that. The "War on Terror" would be more plainly and more correctly identified as "Actions or Measures Against Terrorists and to Prevent Terrorist Acts." Ron Paul understands this and so doesn't concern himself with appealing to fears or proposing actions against an entire concept.
Following are just a few of the measures that Ron Paul has publicly declared his support for - real, measurable actions to pursue and prosecute terrorists and to prevent terrorist acts:
1) Restrict immigrations from nations that sponsor, harbor, or otherwise train/cultivate terrorists. This is a common sense measure, and yet the wheels are already in motion to admit large numbers of Iraqi refugees (just as we did in the 90s - some of whom were later linked to domestic terrorist acts). Few other politicians, even those who throw "War on Terror" into their campaign speeches, are even suggesting that this restriction should be put in place.
2) Secure our borders and enforce our current immigration laws. The Border Patrol and the INS operate with one eye closed and one hand tied behind their back. We have some highly-qualified and patriotic men and women serving their country in these capacities, but they have been increasingly stripped of the ability to effectively perform their duties. Not only would enabling these agencies to be effective provide tremendous economic benefits, but few argue with the inherent security threat of having virtually wide open borders and allowing foreign nationals to overstay visas and wander the country freely (or slip in across the border and no one ever knew they came and went). Some of our politicians (even some of those who want to be president) talk tough about "terror", but offer no specific solutions to address the glaring problem of our insecure borders and lack of enforcement of our immigration laws -- why then do we believe them or see them as "tough" on terror?
3) Arm pilots. If there's a fear that planes could or would be hijacked and used as a weapon by terrorist, the fact that we have not armed commercial pilots (except on a limited scale) is inexcusable. Ron Paul supports immediately training and arming pilots as a strong deterrent against this threat. A "jihadist" with a box-cutter would be no match for an ex-military commercial pilot armed with a .357 Magnum....
4) Massively scale back foreign deployments and operations. No matter how wrong the islamic jihadists are, the fact of the matter is that they do use our presence in the Middle East (and elsewhere abroad) as a powerful tool in recruiting and indoctrinating new jihadist recruits. This is not excusing them or apologizing for their vitriol or hatred, it is simply acknowledging what we can observe. If we remove our soldiers from harm's way, not only do less of our men and women in uniform die for an Iraqi constitution upon which Iraqis can't agree, but we also strip the would-be-terrorists from their most powerful recruiting and fund-raising ammunition.
5) Improve intelligence gathering and inter-agency cooperation. If there was one very clear lesson of September 11th, 2001, its that the attack very likely could have been prevented through agencies enforcing existing measures, and through better agency cooperation. Recently Ron Paul decried the fact that the FBI has so few personnel that are proficient in arabic. We didn't need the creation of additional, massive government bureaucracy any more than we needed to maintain the status quo. We needed our laws enforced and more consistent application of some common sense. This point dovetails nicely with numbers 1 and 2 above.
The "frontrunners" in the still-early presidential race are keeping their focus on "staying on the offense", or "taking the fight to the enemy." Nice words, but where's the practical application? The conflict in Iraq at this point prolongs the creation of a breeding ground for terrorism as explained above. Why does "taking the fight to the enemy" seemingly ignore going after Osama Bin Laden, cited as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks? Ron Paul urges us to apply pressure to Pakistan (who many allege is harboring Bin Laden), or otherwise pursue Bin Laden until we've apprehended him. Dr. Paul doesn't beat us over the head with slogans and one-liners that appeal to your fear. Instead, he offers real solutions through common sense and practical measures.
As I have said before, Ron Paul is a man of integrity, a very rare honest politician with the verifiable voting record to back him up. He believes in the Constitution, something that sadly, few politicians even want to acknowledge these days. But on top of all of this, for those who are concerned about the threat of terrorism -- if you want powerful words that appeal to fear and emotion, by all means, vote for Giuliani or Clinton, Obama or Romney. If instead you want to see the United States remain a nation of liberty and yet also become safer at the same time, well then Ron Paul is the man for the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment