Rand Paul "Realism" and His Foreign Policy "Vision"

By Robert Wenzel

Last night Rand Paul spoke at a dinner in New York City hosted by the Center for the National Interest. RP's operatives promoted the speech as a major speech by Rand on foreign policy. From an RP press release:

 The address outlined a broad agenda to advance security, peace and human dignity. It is Sen. Paul’s belief that these main principles of conservative realism should drive America’s foreign policy

A close examination of the speech reveals that although cloaked in non-interventionist phraseology, it is in fact a policy perspective not much different from what neoconservatives are arguing for: a distrust of Russia, interventions in the Middle East, plus wars "that can be won."

Consider, in his speech, Rand starts of by telling us:

Russia slides backward vainly hoping to resurrect the Soviet Union. 

Vladimir Putin justifies aggression in Ukraine as defense against decadent and hypocritical Western powers... Putin’s actions not only threaten Ukraine, but represent a threat to the post-Cold War European order.

This is absurd. There is no aggression on the part of Russia. Justin Raimondo put it clearly:

 Russia is acting from weakness, not strength: that has been the case ever since the fall of the Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO to the very gates of Moscow...Far from seeking to recreate the old Russian empire, the Russian leader is merely trying to consolidate the country’s Slavic core, reversing the disintegrative process that began in 1989 and has continued to the present day. His strategy, therefore, is necessarily defensive, not offensive – and Washington knows this, even if its journalistic camarilla are clueless on the matter...The Russia-haters will not rest until Putin is overthrown by a Western-backed "opposition." And they aren’t all that choosy about which forces to back...

Rand goes on:

After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war.

America shouldn't fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate.  America shouldn't fight wars when there is no plan for victory.

America shouldn't fight wars that aren’t authorized by the American people, by Congress.

America should and will fight wars when the consequences….intended and unintended….are worth the sacrifice.

Clearly, Rand is not against military adventures of the Empire. He simply wants congressional approval of such adventures and a strategy to win. Though, he does not make clear how you are going to win by attacking people and pissing them off.

Then he goes on with a mixed message, of yeah well, interventions will fuel hatred but we must do it anyway:

The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world.
 President Obama claims that al Qaeda is decimated.  But a recent report by the RAND Corporation tracked a 58 percent increase over the last three years in jihadist terror groups.

To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam, America must have confidence in our constitutional republic, our leadership, and our values.

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, but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests... 

[T]he Use of Force is and always has been an indispensable part of defending our country.

Justin Raimondo called it correctly when he wrote:

Our phony “war on terrorism” on the international front...

And Raimondo wrote in another piece:

New fronts in our endless “war on terrorism” are opened, it seems, with each passing week: Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, the Philippines, Pakistan, and now Libya... By setting up US-aligned “democratic” states in the Middle East, from Egypt to Libya and beyond, the Americans hope to inoculate the region against the virus represented by al-Qaeda.

This is a dangerous policy in so many ways that it would take more than a single column to even list them. Suffice to say that recent events in Egypt, and the growing influence of Islamist elements among the Libyan rebels, underscores how the “blowback” from our efforts could backfire in our faces.

We’ve spent trillions fighting this losing battle...

Rand isn't in favor of all wars. but he does tell us in the speech some of the wars and global interventions he is in favor of:

 The war in Afghanistan is an example of a just, necessary war...

I support a strategy of air strikes against ISIS...

I support the sanctions that the U.S. and the European Union put in place against Russia...

I also agree with the measures taken at the NATO Summit to increase the Alliance’s military preparedness, especially increased European defense spending.

And so, there you have it, couched with much non-interventionist flavoring, this non-intervention, to varying degrees does not apply to Rand's policy "vision", wherever the action really is, whether it be Afghanistan. Russia or against ISIS. As Rand himself puts it:

We need a foreign policy that recognizes our limits and preserves our might, a common-sense conservative realism of strength and action.

In other words, Rand in theory is for non-intervention. but in terms of "realism" he is for interventions. He reminds me of Alan Greenspan who was "in theory" an advocate of a gold backed dollar. Murray Rothbard captured what these type of high theorists, but "realists" are really all about and why the mainstream media can fawn all over them. Just slip Rand's name in for Greenspan's and you will get the picture:

The press is resounding with acclaim for the accession to Power of Alan Greenspan... from right, left, and center weigh in with hosannas for Alan's greatness, acumen, and unparalleled insight...

Greenspan's real qualification is that he can be trusted never to rock the establishment's boat....There is one thing, however, that makes Greenspan unique, and that sets him off from his Establishment buddies. And that is that he is a follower of Ayn Rand, and therefore "philosophically" believes in laissez-faire and even the gold standard. But as the New York Times and other important media hastened to assure us, Alan only believes in laissez-faire "on the high philosophical level." In practice, in the policies he advocates, he is a centrist like everyone else because he is a "pragmatist... Greenspan is only in favor of the gold standard if all conditions are right: if the budget is balanced, trade is free, inflation is licked, everyone has the right philosophy, etc. In the same way, he might say he only favors free trade if all conditions are right: if the budget is balanced, unions are weak, we have a gold standard, the right philosophy, etc. In short, never are one's "high philosophical principles" applied to one's actions. It becomes almost piquant for the Establishment to have this man in its camp.

And so it is with Rand. He is apparently in favor on non-intervention, when the conditions are right, but they are not right at present, given his "vision," in Russia, Ukraine, Afghanistan and where ISIS exists.

He is against foreign aid to Israel, but only if the conditions are right. He is against welfare, but only if the conditions are right.

And so with Rand's "realistic" outlook, he keeps the Establishment pleased, though "only" conditionally and saps the outrage and hate of the state from the libertarian movement. You see when the conditions are right, Rand will save us all and march us toward liberty.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics