Last week Senator Rand Paul gave a speech on foreign policy at the Center for the National Interest, touting something he called "conservative realism." Paul has been at pains to differentiate himself from isolationism. He rightly noted that the "war on terror is not over, and American cannot disengage from the world." He reiterated his support for the decision to go to war in Afghanistan in 2001 (to be fair, it takes no political courage whatsoever to say this) and also for airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS).
But Paul’s speech and other remarks continue to highlight the contradiction at the heart of his position. Paul’s one consistent principle of foreign policy is suspicion of "interventionism," especially if it wanders into the dreaded territory of "nation building."
This is not a sufficient basis on which to formulate a theory of America’s role in the world. Simply being pro- or anti-intervention is not a useful way of thinking about foreign policy. Foreign policy is too complex to boil down to a simplistic choice between more or less intervention. As I’ve argued before, "don’t meddle" isn’t a foreign policy.
In truth, Paul is engaging in a fight against an epic straw man. He explained his view in an interview with our friends at The Federalist:
There are two views, basically, espoused in foreign policy [in the Republican Party]. One is that we’re nowhere any time. That would be isolationism, but there’s another extreme that we’re everywhere all the time. That would be interventionism.
Respectfully, Senator, that is false. There is literally not a single American policymaker or scholar who argues that the United States should intervene "everywhere all the time." Paul is being unkind to his opponents to mischaracterize them so badly.
Paul is trying to make himself look moderate by fabricating an extreme position to disagree with. I’ll admit, compared to proponents of world conquest or global empire, Paul is reasonable, and if there were an election between Paul and Napoleon, I’d vote for Paul. But compared to proponents of a more forward-leaning presence for America in the world — which is who is really on the other side of the debate — Paul looks short-sighted and, yes, neo-isolationist.
Paul tied himself in knots in his speech trying to disguise his instincts for restraint. He said, "We can’t and shouldn’t engage in nation building, but we can facilitate trade and extend the blessings of freedom and free markets around the world." What if "nation building" is the best or only means available to "extend the blessings of freedom" to a country like Afghanistan? Which is more important, "spreading the blessings of freedom," or avoiding nation building at all costs?
There is a mismatch between Paul’s diagnosis and his prescription. He finds the root problem in the Middle East is that, "The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments…. It isn’t always abject poverty or religion that motivates recruits or sets off conflict. Often it is the despair and humiliation that comes from overbearing government."
That’s not a bad description of problems plaguing the Middle East and South Asia. But Paul fails to describe what he thinks the United States should do about it. He rightly says "you can’t solve a dignity problem with military force." What then? He gestures vaguely at a solution. "There is also a time to cultivate allies and encouragers among civilized Muslim nations." This is underspecified, to put it gently.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/29/what-rand-paul-doesnt-get-about-intervention/
