Rand Paul’s foreign policy is world class

Rand Paul is not his father, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Last week, Paul laid out a remarkably rational and appealing case for conservative realism at the Center for The National Interest, distilling all of the lessons we have learned since America’s clumsy military adventures at the outset of the 21^st century.

“We need a foreign policy that recognizes our limits and preserves our might, a common-sense conservative realism of strength and action,” Paul said. “We can’t retreat from the world, but we can’t remake it in our own image either.”

The foreign policy points he laid out in his speech struck a pristine balance upon the pendulum of foreign policy. He rejected the hawkish interventionism that caused us to spill our precious blood and treasure in the Middle East, while simultaneously rejecting non-intervention and disengagement from the rest of the world.

Zack Beauchamp at Vox described it as one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades. Paul “isn’t going to move toward the Republican foreign policy consensus; he’s going to run at it, with a battering ram.” It’s about time someone armed himself with a weapon to combat the Republican foreign policy status quo, in which leaders usually just engage in a pissing contest to see who takes national security more seriously.

As we prepare for all of the political posturing and pageantry ahead of the 2016 primaries, Paul has already advanced his foreign policy approach; it offers us a breath of fresh air from the neoconservative approach that dominated the Bush administration, as well as a reassuring departure from the Obama administration’s overly restrained “don’t do stupid shit” doctrine.

In his speech, Paul outlined some revolutionary principles that would guide his foreign policy approach if he were to become president. First, “America shouldn’t fight wars that aren’t authorized by the American people, by Congress.” This would radically depart from Obama’s dramatic expansion of presidential war powers, which he used to justify military force in Libya and now against ISIS.

He also built upon his much-publicized filibuster against the use of drones. “Drone strikes that inadvertently kill civilians may create more jihadists than we eliminate,” Paul said. His aversion to drone warfare is much-needed, especially in light of a recent report by professors at NYU and Stanford, which found that 98 percent of drone strike victims were “collateral damage,” or in more human terms, women, children or civilians who were not involved with the militants in Pakistan.

In addition, Paul recognized that, “To defend our country, we must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred…” This is a dramatic departure from George W. Bush’s neoconservative approach, which arrogantly and unabashedly sought to expand democracy at the barrel of the gun. He understands that there may be unintended blowback from heavy-handed meddling abroad.

“We can’t and shouldn’t engage in nation building, but we can facilitate trade and extend the blessings of freedom and free markets around the world,” Paul said. Accordingly, neoliberalism (laissez-faire capitalism) would likely be the cornerstone of his plans for encouraging economic development around the world.

Finally, “we are only as strong as our economy.” For Paul, the national debt and our clumsy attempts to recover from the 2008 recession are not just economic crises; rather, they are national security crises.

Paul confirmed that he supported the original decision to invade Afghanistan; however, he noted that mission creep and a lack of clear goals sullied our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Although he supports bombing ISIS, he blasted Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels and stated that, “the weapons are either indiscriminately given to ‘less than moderate rebels’ or simply taken from moderates by ISIS.”

However, he did play down the fact that he agrees with major elements of Obama’s foreign policy decision-making. For example, he agrees that we should negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. Additionally, he endorsed Obama’s sanctions/negotiation approach with Russia in response to the crisis in Ukraine. He also called for more cooperation with China.

The global issues America faces are staggering in terms of their scope and gravity.

In the Middle East, the secular dictatorships such as Hosni Mubarrak’s Egypt, Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, are being replaced by the rise of radical jihadist movements with concretely anti-Western sentiments. China continues to flex its muscles and bully other countries for resources in the South China Sea. We face a resurgent Russian Empire in which Vladimir Putin justified his nefarious geopolitical posturing in Ukraine as a way to combat the hypocritical Western powers. Despite the trillions of dollars America has spent on its counterterrorism efforts during the past two decades, a recent report by the RAND Corporation found that jihadist terror groups have swelled by 58 percent in the last three years.

Clearly, the global issues we face will require strong leadership and finesse. Fortunately, I believe Rand Paul can rise to the occasion.