A withdrawing USA creates a power vacuum, but that really is the only smart choice we have. We had both the economic success and the moral authority (by having been liberators rather than conquerors) after the first two World Wars. Since then, America (or as I now call it, Amepoble - poor instead of rica for rich) has involved itself in situations in which it really had nothing to gain (although it certainly could be argued that America had something to lose). Now that America's wealth has diminished considerably, it no longer has as much to protect, so why should it have as big a military?

I believe that is the correct argument for the Paul Doctrine. What happens when Putin decides to help Poland?... or pick any combination. IMHO a withdrawing USA creates a power vacuum. Hoping for things to work out with the host we are leaving, say South Korea, would be fool hearty. So, now we have to look at each commitment by degree. Soon all our allies would know we could not be counted on. Kind of like the Obama foreign policy with different press coverage.

Another aspect is that big players here and abroad have made plans based on the rules of the game as we now know them. Change the rules and huge fortunes are in the swing. Some say JFK had a target on his back by calling down the military on the Bay of Pigs and planning to cycle out of Viet Nam. There were, and always will be, fortunes to be made in wartime.

I don't know if the world is just a messy place or if we have made a mess of it. I know there are no easy solutions.

When Ron Paul was running for the highest office here in the good ole U.S.A. I do not think he was just wanting to pull out of every country we are in just to become an isolationist. I thought his ideas to pull out would help our country on the spending side of our debt. I understood him to believe we could trade with anyone without ruling over their citizens. In one debate about our defense the moderator asked all of the participants what they would do in the event someone would attack the U.S.A. and they all had their ideas about getting together with their Generals and Joint Chiefs on what they would do. Ron Paul said that he would not stand for someone else coming up with an idea when if elected He was the Commander -n-Chief. Is that not what his one legal job would be as stated in the Constitution. His ideas would rule over any Senator, House Rep. or any entity that might want to start something without consulting the true Commander-n-Chief. Maybe I am wrong, but I took the idea of removing our boys from all over the world and shutting down over 800 bases as resulting in getting our house in order and streamlining the best Military in the world. We have Special forces when given the chance can knock out any opposing enemy at anytime. This to me was what Ron Paul meant. Put his house back in order like you and I have to stick to a budget then use no more than necessary to elevate our Special Services when needed and then create trade with the countries that need our products and those products we need. Foreign Aid has to stop. We have more problems here, but it seems we go in somewhere and blow this place up then we go back in and fix it. That would be like me building my house and then pour gas on it and light it up. After spending time in prison for arson will those who lent me the monies dare lend me it again? I think not. That to me is what Ron Paul meant. Not arguing just asking for opinions.

Well said. That was the point I was trying to make. Unless a nation could be completely independent they must trade. If they are completely independent that becomes isolationism. In that regard we would have no say in world affairs. the extreme opposite of that would be sticking our nose in and insisting on our way at every juncture. That's not workable either. The Ron Paul doctrine (my name for it) is to stop being the world's police man, pull back troops on foreign soil, close the 150+ bases we have around the world, mind our own business and maybe people wouldn't hate us. I don't believe that either. If we stop leading on American interests we lose.

I believe people all over the world move to their own set of incentives. Putin wants to put the empire back together. Crimea offers sea port access and other strategic benefits. Obama projects a kinder gentler America. Smaller military, downsized budget and capability. What other outcome could there be? Same for Eastern Ukraine. Maybe same for all the eastern european and former soviet countries. If we don't move on Crimea, when do we move? If we don't move on Ukraine, when do we move. If we don't move on Benghazi, I know it's a different arena, but the indecision is still there. So, in many ways we have the Paul doctrine of smaller and less effective military. Instead of the desired effect, we get a power vacuum and Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and all the neighbors are looking for their piece of the pie. American interests are cast off because we are not really at the table and the powers that be in the region are pursuing their interests ahead of ours.

Ron;

I don't know Ron Paul's doctrine, so I've no opinion on that part of your statement but, I believe the "energy independence" people seek won't solve many, if any of our problems. Sure, we import hydrocarbons, but we import many essential raw materials; aluminum, rare earth elements, titanium; and many essential manufactured products (iPhones). Energy independence isn't absolute independence and, many of the materials we import come from China and Russia and other bad actors on the world scene. We are entangled with the rest of the world, and will remain so. I think it best we become better internationalists.

Well, yes, definitely in that sense, we could handle just about anyone--although Russia AND China? Not at the same time. But the price would be too high, is all. I'm just not sure what the long-term consequences would be.

The Ron Paul doctrine, IMHO, can only work if we are energy independent. On one end of the continuum we decide to use solar and wind and cast aside industrial growth and comfort. This is easy because politically we have already decided, many years ago, to limit the use of our own resources. So, on cloudy days we skip the AS forum and email as a reasonable accommodation for our energy and foreign policy. On the other end of the horizon, we could make the political decision to use our own resources to make energy and products the rest of the world would love to buy. In either case, we don't need the Saudi family to help us (for a price), we don't need to fear the cartel, and so we leave those people alone. Maybe peace doesn't break out as Mr. Paul has suggested, but at least they would be fighting among themselves.

Chances are we would be somewhere in the middle of the continuum, with a blend of ideas and outcomes. If it worked, if we had energy to grow at a cost that was efficient. As a result of that we became a world player in both services and manufacturing. The next step would bring more control of the world's financial system to us we would be where most of the transactions occured. If that all happened, how long before other powers would consider taking what we have created? How long before they resented our dominance? At that point we have traveled full circle. The world really does respond to greed and need.

Personally, I'd like to see our Nation leave OPEC and the Middle East oil merchants in the rear view mirror. I think the results will not be an AS Utopia. Here's why! We could build the perfect system. Over time people begin to take that system for granted. Then a politician jumps up with a big mouth and a half baked "new idea". The person defending the status quo will always have a difficult time. The attraction for something new is greater than loyalty to what is proven good. In the imagination, results don't matter. Imagination is where politicians sell their wares. I am still waiting for Bill Clinton to send me a check for my daughter's college tuition. I can still clearly remember him saying all American kids would have a free college education under his administration. Didn't happen, but it changed a few votes. If results don't matter, any idea is valid.

Not to nitpick or anything, but we CAN and did handle Afghanistan and Iraq, in the sense of defeating their armed forces and removing their leaders from power. What we can't do is make them all peaceful and America-loving.

Of course, getting into it with Russia or China would be a whole different ballgame.

For those of us (not me, yet ...) trying to hasten the end of America rather than trying to salvage it, this might be an effective strategy to get to that end.

what if we just walked away from all of the warfare?
ain't gonna happen.

From the article: "A related and not inconsequential consideration: world war would most likely turn the US surveillance state into a police state."

I kinda think we're already there.

There is confusion that what makes the USA strong is its military. But the US military is strong because the US traditionally followed freedom oriented policies. Winning a war is not just about destroying the other sides military, it is also about winning the philosophical battle, which we are not equipped to do right now.

Compelling imagery.

China can probably roll and do whatever they like, really. What can we do about it other than the global equivalent of kicking a hornets nest while naked?

That sounds like the basis of a rational defense and foreign policy.

That is not a fight that the U.S. could win, not without unleashing madness upon the world. I mean, more madness than usual. I mean, if we can't handle Afghanistan or Iraq, then a war against another major power is suicide.

My hope is that we don't pick on anybody who hasn't picked on us.