Ron Paul / The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity & AntiWar.com – 2016-11-15 21:28:57
Memo to the Next Administration:
Defense Spending Must Be for Actual Defense
Ron Paul / The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity
(November 14, 2016) — In a disturbing indication of how difficult it would be to bring military spending in line with actual threats overseas, House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R – TX) told President Obama last week that his war funding request of $11.6 billion for the rest of the year was far too low.
That figure for the last two months of 2016 is larger than Spain’s budget for the entire year! And this is just a “war-fighting” supplemental, not actual “defense” spending! More US troops are being sent to Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere and the supplemental request is a way to pay for them without falling afoul of the “sequestration” limits.
The question is whether this increase in US military activity and spending overseas actually keeps us safer, or whether it simply keeps the deep state and the military-industrial complex alive and well-funded.
Unfortunately many Americans confuse defense spending with military spending. The two terms are used almost interchangeably. But there is a huge difference. I have always said that I wouldn’t cut anything from the defense budget. We need a robust defense of the United States and it would be foolish to believe that we have no enemies or potential enemies.
The military budget is something very different from the defense budget. The military budget is the money spent each year not to defend the United States, but to enrich the military-industrial complex, benefit special interests, regime-change countries overseas, maintain a global US military empire, and provide defense to favored allies.
The military budget for the United States is larger than the combined military spending budget of the next seven or so countries down the line.
To get the military budget in line with our real defense needs would require a focus on our actual interests and a dramatic decrease in spending. The spending follows the policy, and the policy right now reflects the neocon and media propaganda that we must run the rest of the world or there will be total chaos. This is sometimes called “American exceptionalism,” but it is far from a “pro-American” approach.
Do we really need to continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars manipulating elections overseas? Destabilizing governments that do not do as Washington tells them? Rewarding those who follow Washington’s orders with massive aid and weapons sales?
Do we need to continue the endless war in Afghanistan even as we discover that Saudi Arabia had far more to do with 9/11 than the Taliban we have been fighting for a decade and a half?
Do we really need 800 US military bases in more than 70 countries overseas?
Do we need to continue to serve as the military protection force for our wealthy NATO partners even though they are more than capable of defending themselves?
Do we need our CIA to continue to provoke revolutions like in Ukraine or armed insurgencies like in Syria?
If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then I am afraid we should prepare for economic collapse in very short order. Then, with our economy in ruins, we will face the wrath of those countries overseas, which have been in the crosshairs of our interventionist foreign policy.
If the answer is no, then we must work to convince our countrymen to reject the idea of Empire and embrace the United States as a constitutional republic that no longer goes abroad seeking monsters to slay. The choice is ours.
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Ron Paul to Trump:
Don’t Listen to Neocons!
Ron Paul Institute & AntiWar.com
(November 11, 2016) — Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy, presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump’s foreign policy as president. Paul set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his “fingers crossed” regarding Trump’s potential foreign policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump’s comments in the presidential election about “being less confrontational with Russia” and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East.
Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented “vague” foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump’s foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: “Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don’t think that is a good sign.”
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched “deep state” that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have “sinister motivation for these wars,” and media propaganda that “builds up the war fever” can provide significant headwinds against Trump pursuing such an objective.
Watch Paul’s interview here:
RT’s Peter Lavelle interviews Dr. Ron Paul
(November 11, 2016) — With the surprise election of Donald Trump, can we expect an equally surprising foreign policy from him? During the campaign he provided us with a glimpse of his thinking. Will there be a Trump Doctrine? Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.