The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. . . .

‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world. So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy). I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Pres. George Washington, 1796 (farewell address)

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, 1961 (farewell address)

I’m a former Airborne Ranger.  My first full-time job after college was as a rifle platoon leader in the 82d Airborne.  As readers of this blog know, I’m also a believer in the fundamental truths of Christianity: sola Christa, sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia, and Soli Deo gloria.  Accordingly, I’m no fan of the Islamic Republic of Iran and believe the world would be a much better place if it ceased to exist.  Iran is economically, politically, technologically, and morally a decrepit nation-state.  It’s a repressive regime and their Islamic-political leadership is openly anti-semitic.  Their leadership is deluded and dangerous.

In contrast, I like Ron Paul.  I dismissed him last election cycle because of his outspoken criticism of the Iraq war.  Now, four years later with the blood of our soldiers paying the price to establish Islamic regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, insane levels of federal debt with no relief in sight, and spiraling western economies, I find myself much more open to criticism of those wars.  What’s surprised me is how hostile my colleagues on the right are to Paul’s utter disinterest to continuing our mideast war policies and the apparent anger over his refusal to entertain a preemptive war against Iran to stop it from becoming a nuclear state.

Although dangerous, Iran is not the greatest strategic threat to the United States.  Not even close.  Its military is third-rate, if that.  To the extent Iran is within reach of nuclear warheads, however, North Korea has nukes and a formidable army. Today, it is more unstable than ever.  Unstable Pakistan has nukes, as do the Russians and Chinese.  Turkey has nuclear technology and likely warheads and is increasingly trending itself away from US interests and toward political Islam.  In comparison to these military threats, Iran is a basket case.

Iran is also not a global “leader” of international terrorism.  It’s a terrorist state, but there are dozens of such.  Iran’s Persian ethnicity in general and brand of Shia Islam in particular is not popular throughout the Islamic world, to include throughout most of the mid-East.  Iran is not the primary or even a primary source for inspiring international Jihad.  Our “ally”, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia exports the dangerous Wahhabism Islam, built the Pakistani madrassa system and is the majority financier for Hamas.  Saudis started al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 attackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens.  Bin Laden was a Saudi.  Saudi’s are the heart of Arabia.  They are neither fans nor allies of the Persian Iranians. Our “ally” Saudi Arabia is much more dangerous when it comes to global terrorism.

The Iranian issue is not, however, really about Iran.  Iran is about Israel, supposedly.  The argument is that a nuclear Iran would launch a nuclear weapon on Israel.  There are several problems with that claim though, particularly the facts that Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons and several means for delivering them over all of Iran. Israel has one of the best armies and top air force in the world.  It has for a long time, which is why the Six Day War lasted days. Further, Israel’s narrow borders are filled with millions of Muslims and numerous Islamic holy sites. 

I’ve read some claim that Iran would welcome Israel’s nuclear retaliation, that the destruction of Iran would be a national martyrdom of sorts. If Iran wanted martyrdom, they’ve had decades to attack Israel, but have chosen instead asymmetrical means, entirely for purposes of avoiding the consequences of overtly confronting Israel.  Put simply, when confronted by Isreal’s superior strength, for decades Iran has acted like a rational state, even if it’s rhetoric has often been irrational.  While an Iranian nuclear attack would be theoretically possible, citing relying upon that risk to dimiss Paul misses a key point and an important part of Paul’s policy. Israel is an independent nation with a highly sophisticated and skilled military. Paul correctly charges that we should get out of their way and “allow” them to protect themselves as they believe appropriate.  As Iranian nuclear research facilities continue to spontaneously combust and top nuclear scientists meet sudden and tragic ends, one cannot help but suspect the Mossad.  I believe Israel could defend herself quite well if we allow them the same autonomy that we ourselves expect (and practice) worldwide.

Equally important, we simply cannot afford another prolonged military engagement that is not critical to our security.  We are living grossly beyond our means and destined to quickly become the latest republic in history to bankrupt itself. Further, even if we avoid a complete financial and corresponding national collapse, we are grossly encumbering our children’s generation.  We are racking up substantial debt for our children to pay.  You think Greece is bad?  The German socialist sugar daddies are certainly not going to bail us out.  The US needs to immediately contract federal spending in all areas, to include defense and nation building, particularly nation building for cultures that fundamentally reject our ideas of western liberalism and human rights.  We need to end welfare and warfare largesse.  We simply cannot afford not to.  And we simply cannot balance our books without reducing military expenditures, along with all the other expenditures. Paul is the only candidate that has taken on spending and an immoral fiscal policy and made those issues the center of his campaign.

By the Numbers:

Just a few months ago, our family was studying the rich history of the English. We admired how the English planted worldwide highly refined views and systems of law, culture, and society.  The English system as reflected in its former colonies and former and current Commonwealth has been a blessing to millions if not billions over time.  The English belief in the rule of law, the common law, and the integrity of civil institutions has led to some of the freest and materially blessed countries in the world, to include our United States.  Our British friends are a long way from Runnymede and it’s been a dark hour in what used to be the center of an empire where the sun never set.

Are the English riots symptomatic of something fundamentally astray in the UK?  Are these the latest signs of the West unraveling?  Or are these isolated, unique occurrences?

Mark Levin believes the British riots are not an isolated aberrant event, but are instead reflective of the ongoing and accelerating collapse of the West.  See Levin: We are watching our society transform right before our eyes

Michael Youssef opines in Americans Should Learn from London, that those who sounded the warnings and tried to fix the UK’s unsustainable policies are being blamed for the violence and lawlessness – “whoever tries to bring sanity to a nation or a culture heading in the wrong direction will become the scapegoat.” The UK Socialist party readily agrees, at least that the Tory party reformers (conservatives) are to blame for the riots.  Indeed, they argue that the violent protests are a response to “Tory attacks.” The British socialists explain the nature of these supposed attacks – reductions in social welfare and overall government spending.  See here.

A Brit, Iain Murray has perhaps the most pointed and stinging critique of what gave rise to these mass acts of violence:

Most [rioters] have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from which he has decamped.

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.

They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.
…
So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. They are too idle to accept work waitressing or doing domestic labour, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.

They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so.

They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.

They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential.

Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.

Only education — together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives — can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.

They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings. My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters of Tottenham, Hackney, Clapham and Birmingham.

See his full critique: The Failure of the Rule of Law in Britain

In unwittingly supporting Mr. Murray, two English women explained their motivation to riot: “It was madness, good fun … . Showing the rich people we do what we want.”

As always, Jonah Goldberg in Riot Rationalization Misses the Mark, makes eminent sense in cautioning against reading too much into a riot or series of riots, since riots have been around as long as human nature.

The problem, of course, is that even if conservatives are right, there’s precious little government can do to fill the holes in such souls.

Moreover, I think we put way too much effort into intellectualizing or romanticizing mob violence. Whatever the root causes of such behavior, the simple and unavoidable truth is that looters loot because they can.
…
[T]he people tearing apart English society are simply criminals, whose villainy is not diluted by their numbers, but magnified by them.

Solution? I think Mr. Goldberg provides a valid short-term solution: “If Britain lacks prisons to hold them, build more prisons. Call it a jobs program if it helps.”

Ultimately, however, Mr. Goldberg’s suggestion is myopic.  You can never build enough prisons to restrain the vices of an immoral culture.  The disease of systemic immorality is spreading across the West.  Whether it’s a lack of respect for civil authority, rampant sexual promiscuity, normalization of perversion, a disregard for your neighbor’s property, or gross fiscal irresponsibility, the Western nations are rapidly loosing their moral bearings. Indeed, we’re rapidly becoming exemplars of Romans 1:18-32.  This should not be surprising to Christians since over the past 100 years, particularly in Europe, westerners have strayed further and further away from Biblical truth and morality.  You can build more prisons, but the answer long-term is in building more churches and training and equipping the next generation in the truths of God’s word. 

A beauty of the West, thus far at least, is that we can openly observe, comment and argue over what we’re doing incorrect and right ourselves before it’s too late.  While there is presently much going wrong with western liberalism, there’s nothing so drastic that an open, free and determined people cannot overcome.

[revised 8/15/11]