For all those out there who are enamored with Ron Paul and his foreign policy, I ask you to consider some implications of his views. Specifically, I ask you to imagine what would be the case if Ron Paul had been President of the U.S. in 1941 when the U.S. (in actual history) was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and subsequently entered into World War II. Think about it: If Ron Paul had been President in 1941. . .
- China would probably still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.
- The Philipines would still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.
- Some of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska would still be under Imperial Japanese occupation.
- Korea, Burma, and most of SE Asia would be under Imperial Japanese occupation.
- Australia would very well have been invaded by Imperial Japan and would still be under its occupation.
- Nazi Germany would still exist and would still be occupying most of continental Europe and problably Russia too and possibly Great Britain.
- Nazi Germany would still occupy most of North Africa and would likely have extended its rule to Palestine and other parts of Arabia.
Ron Paul supporters might object to all this by saying, "Wait a minute! Paul does believe in military responses to agression against the United States. Japan attacked the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor. And then the Nazi's declared war on us. So, Paul would not have objected to our participation in World War II." However, this response falters on the fact that if Ron Paul were President in 1941, we would not have had any naval or military bases in Pearl Harbor for the Japanese to attack in the first place! And even if we had military bases in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese would not have attacked us given Paul's non-interventionist policies. They would have gone about their business and invaded the Philipines, Australia, etc., and not had to worry about our naval fleet in Pearl Harbor.
Ron Paul's foreign policy would have been naive and dangerous then (not to mention cruel), and it's naive and dangerous now.
2 comments:
Well, this is all speculation, isn't it? You're right to say that a non-interventionist US probably wouldn't have been attacked in 1941 because there wouldn't have been any incentive for the Japanese to do so.
But it's a big leap to say that, if the US had not intervened, everything would be worse off than it is today. (North Africa, for instance, is hardly a paradise of liberty today; who's to say the Japanese wouldn't have been milder rulers after a while?) There's no way to know. I can provide a counterfactual history just as well:
The Soviets (who killed far more people than the Nazis and were no friendlier to minorities, etc.) and the Nazis would have bled each other out. If they still dominated more than their prewar territory, their grip would be weakened, and local insurgencies could have established home rule or independence. There would have been no Cold War, no Mao (who killed more than Stalin). The US would have never militarized, and thus we wouldn't have had 9/11, and our example of liberty, peace, and prosperity would have inspired people in other nations to demand like conduct by their governments.
Now, I happen to think that my version of counterfactual history is more plausible than yours. But so what, really? It's moral principles that are important in deciding whether to, say, immolate hundreds of thousands of women, not historical speculation.
Daniel Davis, and what of the Jews?
You lose.
Post a Comment