"Close ALL Foreign Bases" vs "Phase out X&Y Bases" vs "Phase out X Bases Now, Y Later"

[WD-NY]

"Close ALL Foreign Bases" vs "Phase out X&Y Bases" vs "Phase out X Bases Now, Y Later"

LibertyEagle had an interest comment that I thought could use it's own thread:

re: Palin

It's just my opinion, but before that would have any chance of happening, Dr. Paul is going to need to clarify his foreign policy. Some of the dots need to be connected. For example, explaining why we don't need to have bases all over the world anymore, for us to have a very strong national defense. There used to be a lot of tactical reasons, such as refueling, etc. He has to make people feel comfortable with his position and that just hasn't happened yet.

By not clarifying, it makes him a sitting duck for other campaigns and the media to define what he is talking about and that isn't good at all.

One thing that's perplexed me for awhile now is Ron's continued instance on not backing off one inch from his "bring ALL troops home and close ALL foreign bases" talking point. It's a silly statement that undermines his very valid argument that many foreign bases should be closed/phased out... It's the only 'absurd' position he still pushes in the debates and is akin to his pushing of "social security, FED, medicare & federal income tax = unconstitutional and need to be shut down asap" positions from 2008.

Why does Ron continue to push this all-or-nothing position when he has already taken the very large and politically smart step to modify the way he frames domestic-Entitlement-spending and war:

• Entitlement Spending (re: social security, medicare, federal taxes, the Federal Reserve, etc.) = "By cutting spending elsewhere, I'm the only one with a plan to take care of those currently dependent on these programs. My goal would be to slowly phase them out..."

• War - "If there's a threat to our national security, I will take the issue to congress. If congress votes for a declaration of war, I will go in, win and get out... no nation building" ... "I'm not against wars of defense... I'm against undeclared wars of aggression". etc.

Playing the 'the other candidates will take us to war with Iran' card = brilliant politics (70%+ of voters are more fearful of a new war than they are another terrorist attack or nuclear iran). We can win A LOT of independents on this issue alone so we need to make the most of it, especially in NH.

But following up his very wise and entirely realistic anti-war position/message with "we also need to bring ALL troops home and close ALL foreign bases" muddies that message because so few voters support "closing ALL foreign bases" (just like very few voters support ending social security, medicare & the FED immediately and entirely). Continuing to push "close all bases now" allows the other candidates to focus their attack on this one weak-spot and extrapolate out that ALL of Dr. Paul's foreign policy = "dangerous", "ridiculous", "absurd", etc.

Long story short, this talking point hurts more than helps (especially with 'conservatives' older voters) and is going over about as well as Ron's "end social security, the FED, taxes and medicare NOW" positions did in 2008.

Ron can very easily temper down this talking point to something far more in line with his positions on Entitlements & War platform... the foreign bases can be "phased out" just like social security, the FED and all of the other federal programs which do more hard than good.

Anyways, thoughts on how the only absolute/all-or-nothing position Ron still pushes is also the one position which has opened him up to the most aggressive (and successful) attacks from both pundits and opponents?

 

[Kuthreck]

Many of his followers truly believe that they should all end but I do agree that "phasing" them out in essence gives you the same outcome even if in a longer period of time.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

No.

End the empire. No shortcuts, no exemptions, no exceptions, no excuses.

 

[69360]

If he flip flops and panders on this he loses the anti-war D and I vote. He can't win without them. Plus he's right, close them all and bring them all home.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Goes for all the policies... but something that is subtle, especially a nicety of thought, or a fine distinction when communicating the economic plan. We have to careful cutting the government...

i.e.: Military phase down of Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Japan, Korea...


The cutting of federal departments, emphasizing attrition through retirements, transfers, resignations... they systematic cuts.



I know a bunch of people in education that won't support Ron, just because he's guiotining the entire depatment. The media they watch have them scared too... they are affraid to lose their jobs. We are talking about an huge amount of people impacted. All in all... the decision of the voters comes down to voting under duress of SHAME and FEAR.

The issues need to be campaign addressed in this Welfare/Warfare Nation and it goes about HOW you say your plan to the people.

I always keep thinking of that Obama Campaign Lie when it was revealed after he was in office and didn't bring the troops home immediately in Iraq.

"I said Troops, not the Combat Troops"

 

[Kuthreck]

Many of his followers truly believe that they should all end but I do agree that "phasing" them out in essence gives you the same outcome even if in a longer period of time.

No.

End the empire. No shortcuts, no exemptions, no exceptions, no excuses.

Lol my point proven. You do agree though Abscess that for the "average fear mongered voter" a position like this will make them easier to win over? I understand our enlightenment but those not so willing to take the red-pill may find it a little easier to swallow.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Lol my point proven. You do agree though Abscess that for the "average fear mongered voter" a position like this will make them easier to win over? I understand our enlightenment but those not so willing to take the red-pill may find it a little easier to swallow.

You should probably remove "Purist" from your signature.

Anywho, if we're worried about offending the "average fear mongered voter," we should pack it up and call it a day. Any infringement on the military throws them for a loop - hell, even cuts in proposed increases are reason for them to scream treason.

If Ron Paul sells out on cutting the empire he will lose a good deal of his support. He's already compromising on the welfare state. Also, if we're not calling to drastically change the system, what's the point of wanting Ron to run? Why not back someone who will simply tinker around the edges, like Obama promised to, or Perry/Huntsman/Romney promise to.

In short, you don't compromise on principle. Should he advocate a partial protection of private property rights? Partial protection of the 1st, 2nd, and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should he advocate only partially ending the war on terror? The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc?

 

[Brett85]

No.

End the empire. No shortcuts, no exemptions, no exceptions, no excuses.

That kind of attitude is why Ron can never reach out to a wider audience and actually become the GOP nominee. It's also why someone like Rand Paul has a great chance to become President someday.

 

[Brett85]

If he flip flops and panders on this he loses the anti-war D and I vote. He can't win without them. Plus he's right, close them all and bring them all home.

The troops should all be brought home, but there's no reason why it can't be phased out over several years.

 

[The Gold Standard]

The reason he can afford to compromise on entitlements is because his plan would immediately close down our empire. Otherwise we will default on our debt before the phase out can be finished. This is why anyone who would support one of the other candidates thinking that we don't need such dramatic spending cuts is a buffoon. We have to cut trillions now or we will be bankrupt. Soon too, not 20 years down the road.

The other option is to convince Americans that we should keep our troops in Germany and Korea and Afghanistan while we eliminate Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure that will go over well.

 

[69360]

The troops should all be brought home, but there's no reason why it can't be phased out over several years.

He shouldn't back off on one of his policy cornerstones. I'm confident that he won't.

If he said tomorrow, the hell with it lets bomb Iran he could probably outpoll mittens and grinch. Is that what you want?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The troops should all be brought home, but there's no reason why it can't be phased out over several years.

Should slavery have been ended full-stop, or codified in the Constitution and then kind of ended over a period of 70 years?

The reason he can afford to compromise on entitlements is because his plan would immediately close down our empire. Otherwise we will default on our debt before the phase out can be finished. This is why anyone who would support one of the other candidates thinking that we don't need such dramatic spending cuts is a buffoon. We have to cut trillions now or we will be bankrupt. Soon too, not 20 years down the road.

The other option is to convince Americans that we should keep our troops in Germany and Korea and Afghanistan while we eliminate Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure that will go over well.

Well stated.

 

[Kuthreck]

You should probably remove "Purist" from your signature.

Anywho, if we're worried about offending the "average fear mongered voter," we should pack it up and call it a day. Any infringement on the military throws them for a loop - hell, even cuts in proposed increases are reason for them to scream treason.

If Ron Paul sells out on cutting the empire he will lose a good deal of his support. He's already compromising on the welfare state. Also, if we're not calling to drastically change the system, what's the point of wanting Ron to run? Why not back someone who will simply tinker around the edges, like Obama promised to, or Perry/Huntsman/Romney promise to.

In short, you don't compromise on principle. Should he advocate a partial protection of private property rights? Partial protection of the 1st, 2nd, and the other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should he advocate only partially ending the war on terror? The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc?

No need to get Personal. I am ALL FOR THAT. I am simply stating that Those who are on the Fence find it HARDER to Swallow their Medicine. In all essence their would be a Gradual Draw down regardless in Area's where bases are, you do not just pack up and leave a multimillion/billion dollar base in 1 day despite Principle as it is just not LOGISTICALLY possible.

 

[Okaloosa]

Maybe a Constitutional expert can inform of how it's done but I have heard Ron Paul say all he can do is an executive order to bring troops home from Afghanistan or any other war. Therefore I believe a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is performed by Congress not the President so this is another philosophical argument rather than a practical approach to what the President can do. This has also concerned me because I believe this fuels helps fuel some of the smears. The argument should be a laid out BRAC that demonstrates a stronger defense at home, strengthening economy as a result, and it will not endanger us or put us at risk. We can't let them scare people. The media and establishment is scaring people away over Social Security and national security. Also you can't have one man saying all this he needs some retired Generals and Admirals on the campaign who help him lay this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure

 

[EBounding]

As a former neo-con, they should come home as fast as the planes and ships can travel. He shouldn't change that message. I'd bet the price of gas would plummet below $2 as a result.

People aren't scared about the speed he would end foreign entanglement. They think the US government's intervention is holding the world together, period. It's that mindset that needs to be changed.

 

[TonySutton]

First as a 20 yr veteran, it would be logistically impossible to shut down the bases instantly. They would certainly need to be closed down on a schedule. The only bases closures that require strategic withdrawal are in South Korea. I believe the UN or other local friendly governments could step in if South Korea feels they need some help.

There is absolutely no reason for us to be building NEW bases anywhere outside of the US. Especially the secret CIA bases which should be closed first.

 

[Okaloosa]

This needs to be improved upon.

 

[Babylon]

Tough Military Ads Needed ASAP

Remember the 'Big Dog' ad with the cool fast-paced graphics?

An ad in that style regard Paul's position on 'intervention' would be awesome.

A brief shot showing a bulked-up Rambo-esque graphic and copy that says Ron Paul is the only former military member in the race. (true?)

Then something along the lines of the following, with fast-paced Big-Dog graphics behind it.

"Ron Paul's Foreign Policy? Simple. If you mess with the U.S. it's Game Over. (explosion graphics.) If Paul goes to War, it will be done right. With a Declaration of War passed by Congress...
When the US declared War on Germany, we kicked the krauts' ass.
When the US declared War on Japan, we nearly wiped them out.
Fast, Furious, and by the book [show constitution].

Want to know what happens when the US doesn't declare War, and instead leaves it up to the Chicken-Hawks and Arms Dealers and Media to make the decisions? [slow mockingly childish music plays as graphics emphasizing the endless nature of Iraq, and Afhganistan (and maybe Vietnam as well).]

When it comes to War, only Paul knows how to do it right... [graphic of a united Congress marching forward.]

Without Paul? [graphic of congressmen and pundits and whatnot pointing fingers at each other... something to signify nobody taking responsibility.]

Strong Defense.
Support of the Troops.
You mess with the US, and Paul will kick your ass. [shot of Declaration of War being executed.]
"

Anyway, that's my two cent contribution to the Ron Paul Campaign of 2012.

 

[RP4Peace]

I like this thread, these are some pretty good valid points.
Its one of the reasons I'm not able to convert a Obama supporter. I do agree with OP because it is not practical to close all the bases immediately.
Some of the questions about removing the bases around the world..
1) The reason for having the bases around the world is to make sure the oil from the gulf reaches safely. Yes it is benefiting Exxon and other major US based oil companies, but is it not true these oil companies are part of the US economy and many share holders futures depends on that (401K and other retirement savings)?
2) What if China started having bases on these countries after we moved away from them? Will not be a threat to US economy?
3) Since US becoming economically weak, is it not making sense to intimidate countries like China with our military power with our presence?

Again, I believe in Dr.Paul foreign policy and his honesty.. but I could not find a convincing answers for these type of questions.

 

[RP4Peace]

Remember the 'Big Dog' ad with the cool fast-paced graphics?

An ad in that style regard Paul's position on 'intervention' would be awesome.

A brief shot showing a bulked-up Rambo-esque graphic and copy that says Ron Paul is the only former military member in the race. (true?)

Then something along the lines of the following, with fast-paced Big-Dog graphics behind it.

"Ron Paul's Foreign Policy? Simple. If you mess with the U.S. it's Game Over. (explosion graphics.) If Paul goes to War, it will be done right. With a Declaration of War passed by Congress...
When the US declared War on Germany, we kicked the krauts' ass.
When the US declared War on Japan, we nearly wiped them out.
Fast, Furious, and by the book [show constitution].

Want to know what happens when the US doesn't declare War, and instead leaves it up to the Chicken-Hawks and Arms Dealers and Media to make the decisions? [slow mockingly childish music plays as graphics emphasizing the endless nature of Iraq, and Afhganistan (and maybe Vietnam as well).]

When it comes to War, only Paul knows how to do it right... [graphic of a united Congress marching forward.]

Without Paul? [graphic of congressmen and pundits and whatnot pointing fingers at each other... something to signify nobody taking responsibility.]

Strong Defense.
Support of the Troops.
You mess with the US, and Paul will kick your ass. [shot of Declaration of War being executed.]
"

Anyway, that's my two cent contribution to the Ron Paul Campaign of 2012.

It would be awesome...!!! It would be a great Ad!!!!