Let me say up front that I really hope Dr. Paul sees this note or one like it and responds to us all. If you like what I’ve said here, please post it wherever you can and pass it on. Try to get it to someone who knows someone who can pass it to Dr. Paul.
Dear Dr. Paul,
Like many Libertarian-leaning Americans, I really like a lot of the things you stand for. I’d love to see a smaller government, no Fed, and a lot fewer regulations. I agree that our government has taken too much on itself and stripped us of many of our freedoms.
I’ve talked to a lot of my conservative friends about you and they almost all say exactly the same thing. It goes something like this – “Yeah, I like a lot of his ideas, but his approach to Foreign Policy scares the heck out of me.” I understand why they feel that way, but I’m not so willing to give up on your approach. But the problem is, I have no comeback or answers to their questions. I explain to them the difference between defense and militarism, but the conversation always comes back to something like, “Well, I just don’t see how it could work, considering where we are now.”
Like you, I don’t believe we should be the policemen of the world. Other countries are perfectly able to take care of their own problems eventually if we’ll get out of the way and let them. Also, I want our troops to come home from all these foreign wars. None of my kids are serving in the military, but I would not be happy about them fighting and dying for some other country’s freedom. I’m not even sure I would be comfortable with them fighting for “American interests” (which I interpret as business interests of American companies).
I believe you are on the right track. I really do. The Militarism is expensive and makes it too easy to impose our philosophy and culture on others. Please help us to understand and spread your message.
So here’s what’s in the back of my mind and why I, like many, are having a hard time backing off the militaristic approach we currently pursue, even though the cost and the “rudeness” of it all are pretty good reasons.
Back in the late 1700s, the “avoidance of entangling alliances” was great advice. It makes perfect sense to me. And it would still make sense today, if we had been following that approach for the last 210 years. Actually, if we had not started our present approach back around 1945, we’d still probably be okay. But it doesn’t really matter why we started it – it is what it is today.
So what do we do now? This is the crux of the message I’m trying to convey. We know that “Nature abhors a vacuum” and, if we leave Japan, Korea, and some of the Eastern European countries, somebody is going to fill that space. There’s always someone who is stronger and will prey on the weak, for economic reasons or maybe the whim of some unbalanced personality. Most of our smaller allies no longer field an army because we are there to protect them. They shouldn’t have done that and, yeah, it’s their own fault, but we led them to make that assumption. Right or wrong, that’s where we are.
Here’s another angle. If we pull all our troops back from the Middle East, how do we make sure we still have access to oil? I agree that we need to become more self-dependent and drill at home, etc, but we aren’t there yet. What do we do in the meantime?
So, I guess my real question for you, sir, is “What’s the Plan?”
I’m with you. Let’s bring all our troops home. Do we set up a schedule and tell all our allies they have two years to raise and train a standing army, air force, and navy? Do we just bail on them and say, “Thank you very much, you’re on your own?”
I think a lot of people would be willing to buy into the idea of pulling back to focus on defense if they could see how it could work and know there is a appropriate plan for doing it. So, please tell us. How would it work? What do we expect from the other major powers of the world? What’s the plan?
So I’ll close for now and let you talk. Thanks for listening, sir, and thank you for the great education in history and the Constitution that you continue to give..