Ron Paul has been more right about foreign policy than those attacking him

“Ron Paul Stands Up for Putin,” read the Drudge headline last week. “Ron Paul is Putin’s New Best Friend,” read the National Journal headline that Drudge linked to.

This sounded odd. I’ve never known Ron Paul to really stand up for or befriend powerful leaders in any government, much less Vladimir Putin’s autocratic regime.

What I found instead were links to a column by the former Texas congressman that explained why it might not be a good idea to rush to judgment in blaming Russia for the recent attack on a Malaysian airliner. His column examined different aspects of the plane crash in a manner some called conspiratorial. Perhaps. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with every argument or premise in his column. Then again, that’s probably true of most columns I read.

But if you did read it or even listened to a follow up interview some cited, how confusing this situation is was precisely Paul’s overall point. He was saying that when such tragedies occur world leaders are often quick to point fingers that establish black-and-white narratives that might not make much sense once the fighting starts.

And there are always American leaders eager for some sort of fighting to start. Too eager.

Critics can accuse Paul of possibly being too cautious toward Russia. But even if true, it is a reaction to U.S. foreign policy makers who’ve been far too reckless.

Paul reiterated his point about the complexity of foreign affairs in his Newsmax interview regarding U.S. policy in Syria and its relation to ISIS in Iraq. Reported The Blaze:

The weaponry used to shoot down the plane may well have come from Russian sources, Paul admitted, but he said the intervention of big governments into conflicts around the world often produces unintended consequences.

“That may well be true, but guess what, ISIS [the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq] has a lot of American weapons,” Paul said. “We sent weapons into Syria to help the rebels and al-Qaida ends up getting it — it doesn’t mean that our American government and Obama deliberately wanted ISIS to get American weapons.”

The Los Angeles Times reported in June on how U.S. weapons given to Syrian rebels are now likely being used by ISIS in Iraq. Many reports indicate these Syrian rebels have been allied with al-Qaeda.

Ron Paul is accused of “standing up” for Putin or being his “best friend.” John McCain once outright called the al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels “brave fighters,” “risking their lives for freedom”—an unequivocal positive show of support.

Important visit with brave fighters in #Syria who are risking their lives for freedom and need our help pic.twitter.com/tx4uX572ZP

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) May 28, 2013

Did Ron Paul come anywhere close to saying something this positive about Putin and Russia? National Journal’s Lucia Graves noted that Ron Paul’s recent comments were promoted by pro-Russian leaders and media. McCain was also accused of being best buds with terrorists, who posted photos of themselves with the Senator.

Paul shouldn’t be “standing up” for Putin, and he wasn’t. But should McCain be standing next to terrorists? Should the U.S. be doing the same and so often? Should we always rush to judge or intervene before we have more facts, intelligence and deliberation?

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made similar points in his book released in January, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War”:

Wars are a lot easier to get into than out of. Those who ask about exit strategies or question what will happen if assumptions prove wrong are rarely welcome at the conference table when the fire-breathers are demanding that we strike — as they did when advocating invading Iraq, intervening in Libya and Syria, or bombing Iran’s nuclear sites. But in recent decades, presidents confronted with tough problems abroad have too often been too quick to reach for a gun.

Today, in Syria, Ukraine and Iraq, American leaders aren’t always sure what the U.S. should do, but are morally certain we should “do something.” Some even explicitly call for war including boots on the ground in these dicey foreign hotspots.

What has been more damaging to the United States—erring on the side of caution or an eagerness to engage? And who has been more right about these foreign policy questions in the largest sense—Ron Paul or his critics?

On the two most significant foreign policy decisions of the last decade, Ron Paul has been on the right side of history.

Paul voted to go to war in Afghanistan after 9/11, something a majority of Americans supported. Few thought we should have been there a decade and Congressman Paul would become a constant war critic.

It was unpopular to oppose the Iraq war in 2003, especially as a Republican. Still, Paul did. He said the war was wrongheaded from the start.

Today, most Americans agree with him including veterans. In his 2008 and 2012 presidential runs, Paul would receive more contributions from active military and veterans than any other GOP candidate.

The Washington political and media elite attacking Paul have yet to fully come to grips with the fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were failures. Even Republicans who don’t like Ron Paul have slowly come to the realization that the Iraq war was a debacle. There’s a reason Mitt Romney hardly mentioned it during the last election.

You don’t have to agree with everything Ron Paul believes about foreign policy to recognize that he offered an important critique of the Washington consensus that directly challenged it in a way no other Republican did. When Grover Norquist said in 2011, “Ron Paul is the most consequential guy running for president” he was recognizing that the Texas congressman was kickstarting a long overdue debate within the GOP.

If Ron Paul is guilty of anything, it’s trying to examine or discuss the complexities of foreign affairs in a political culture that eschews shades of grey. The Week’s Michael Brendan Dougherty might have said it best when he tweeted last week:

https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/491311438556712960

Not wanting to start a new hot or cold war with Russia is not the same as being “Putin’s best friend.” Putin is a very bad guy who does very bad things.

So was Saddam Hussein. But was going to war in Iraq the right decision?

Ron Paul wants us to remember.

 

Disclosure: I was the official blogger for the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign.