Rand's article in Foreign Policy Magazine: Peace thru Strength

[Saint Vitus]

Rand Pawlenty

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't think peace through strength implies entangling alliances. Part of Rand's political genius is giving better, or proper definitions to familiar concepts. Hating the phrase is no reason to bash him for using it. Not having massive debt is also part of strength; explaining this to people is not pandering.

It's a very loaded phrase in the US at this time. It has very specific connotations to people of a certain age. There are wiser, more neutral ways to express the same sentiment.

 

[Brett85]

I have to agree with the Rand critics on this one, unfortunately. I'm not always going to just line up and agree with everything Rand says, even when he's wrong. The fact is that Rand's position on this issue is 180 degrees opposite of Ron's position, with the exception that he's not opposed to diplomacy with Iran. But the calls for even harsher sanctions and the war threats are the antithesis to the principles of non intervention and the foreign policy that Ron has advocated for over 30 years.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Actually all governments agree that sanctions aren't an act of war unless they are declared to be as such. Try studying international relations some time.

An "act of war" is any act by country A that would justify country B in attacking country A.
Whether country B actually does attack country A or not has got NOTHING to do with it.
This is necessarily true by definition of "act of war." Try studying common sense sometime.

Nice try with that ad verecundiam "all governments" shtick, though.
I guess that means fiat money printing is sound economics, too.
"All governments agree," after all ...

 

[Cabal]

Try studying common sense sometime.

It's Collins.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It's Collins.

ROTFLOLOLOL!!!!

 

[dinosaur]

It's a very loaded phrase in the US at this time. It has very specific connotations to people of a certain age. There are wiser, more neutral ways to express the same sentiment.

I have no idea what you are talking about. A certain age? People who were alive in the 80s? What is unwise about it? This is getting silly. It means being strong so that no one will attack you, and also not attacking anyone. As someone already pointed out, it is the same principle as owning a gun to deter crime. If the criminal thinks that you have a shotgun in the house, he will find someone else to pick on. I expect the Rand haters here to come up with any excuse to stir something up. By why do you find such negative connotations in the phrase?

 

[ONUV]

will Americans ever get tired of war? how much bloodshed is enough?

 

[dinosaur]

will Americans ever get tired of war? how much bloodshed is enough?

I thought Americans were tired of war.

 

[FrancisMarion]

Except this has not been the case at all. It's been the exact opposite as what you state. The U.S. has been a military superpower for many decades, and nevertheless has been engaged in near perpetual war of one degree or another for those many decades. The U.S.'s neighbors are Canada and Mexico--neither of which have ever been even marginally close to being a military threat. To the east and west, the U.S. is guarded by vast oceans. A foreign soldier has not set foot on U.S. soil for like 200 years. The only 'attacks on the U.S.' have occurred within foreign nations, or have been perpetrated by terrorist organizations as a result of our presence in foreign nations. We have enough firepower to blow up the world like 12 times over. Strength, or power, is not something the U.S. has been lacking, militarily.

So no, peace, quite clearly, does not necessarily follow from strength at all.

Global peace?

This whole thread begs the question.

Would there be less or more war without the strength of the U.S. military? Its not a field of flowers out there. If we lose our economic power, and thus our military fades, do you really think there will be less war?

EDIT: The "we" in economic power refers to a group of individuals with rights to what is his/hers.

 

[Cabal]

Global peace?

This whole thread begs the question.

Would there be less or more war without the strength of the U.S. military?

I do not have a crystal ball. All I do know is that US military strength hasn't been in question for a long while, and the US has been in near perpetual war for just as long, so the assertion that strength = peace is clearly in error, which is what that post was in response to.

I would imagine that were the US not strong enough to support hundreds of bases and interventionist foreign policies, such as those that prop up dictatorial regimes and empower future 'terrorists', if not those that facilitate direct military interventions and sustained drone strike campaigns, we'd at least not be pissing as many people off, and perpetuating conflicts.

 

[FrancisMarion]

I do not have a crystal ball. All I do know is that US military strength hasn't been in question for a long while, and the US has been in near perpetual war for just as long, so the assertion that strength = peace is clearly in error, which is what that post was in response to.

I would imagine that were the US not strong enough to support hundreds of bases and interventionist foreign policies, such as those that prop up dictatorial regimes and empower future 'terrorists', if not those that facilitate direct military interventions and sustained drone strike campaigns, we'd at least not be pissing as many people off, and perpetuating conflicts.

I can see your point. I can also imagine a global shit storm as well. Its really a difficult predicament. Its not as black and white as I use to think. Perhaps black and non black.

That being said, I have no problem with Rand saying this. Just because "Strength" has related to action in the past, does not make it so for the future. Strength can be incredibly persuasive with out action. There is a difference. I would like to see the latter.

 

[anaconda]

Peace through strength? Hmmmm. Where have I heard that one before? Is that Dick Cheney or Rand Paul?

It was a hallmark of Reagan's campaign against Carter and his subsequent administrations.

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

 

[Cabal]

I can see your point. I can also imagine a global shit storm as well. Its really a difficult predicament. Its not as black and white as I use to think. Perhaps black and non black.

That being said, I have no problem with Rand saying this. Just because "Strength" has related to action in the past, does not make it so for the future. Strength can be incredibly persuasive with out action. There is a difference. I would like to see the latter.

The larger the gun, the greater the desire there is to use it, and rationalize its purchase, and sustained existence.

 

[FrancisMarion]

The larger the gun, the greater the desire there is to use it, and rationalize its purchase, and sustained existence.

Perfect analogy. I own a gun (its large) and have shot no one.

 

[Cabal]

Perfect analogy. I own a gun (its large) and have shot no one.

I imagine you don't go around sticking it in people's faces, kicking them in the balls, and trying to tell them what to do either; so assuming that's true, it's no real surprise that you've never had to use it. Also, I don't suspect your gun requires a whole lot of sustained investment to maintain. ...Not that you are at all comparable to a State, anyway.

 

[FrancisMarion]

I imagine you don't go around sticking it in people's faces, kicking them in the balls, and trying to tell them what to do either; so assuming that's true, it's no real surprise that you've never had to use it. Also, I don't suspect your gun requires a whole lot of sustained investment to maintain. ...Not that you are at all comparable to a State, anyway.

Haha, no I don't, and a State can choose to do the same without forfeiture of it.

 

[Matt Collins]

I've never studied international relations, but it does seem like by default sanctions would be an act of something if not war.

If another country denies another from medical or food trade/aid or perhaps an oil embargo as was done to Japan in WW2 I can't see how it wouldn't be an act of war. But then again I've never studied we'll say IR so by definition I have no idea..

Yeah I thought the same thing too, but the harsh reality is that Ron is incorrect on this point.

When I raised it I was challenged on it so I did my research, did some reading, spoke with experts, etc and sure enough sanctions are only an act of war if the coutnry they are being imposed on considers them to be an act of war.

An "act of war" is any act by country A that would justify country B in attacking country A.
Whether country B actually does attack country A or not has got NOTHING to do with it.
This is necessarily true by definition of "act of war." Try studying common sense sometime.

This is international relations, NOT common sense. The two are not the same. These are governments we're dealing with, remember?

Nice try with that ad verecundiam "all governments" shtick, though.
I guess that means fiat money printing is sound economics, too.
"All governments agree," after all ...

Well, governments don't make the laws of economics, but they do make international law. So governments are in a good position to decide what is and isn't an act of war. And the consensus is that sanctions are only an act of war if the country they are being imposed upon considers them as such.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is international relations, NOT common sense. The two are not the same. These are governments we're dealing with, remember?

Really? Your response to the charge that your position on this does not make sense is to say that governments are involved - and that therefore, your position on this is not supposed to make sense and should not be expected to make sense. Seriously?

Well, governments don't make the laws of economics, but they do make international law. So governments are in a good position to decide what is and isn't an act of war. And the consensus is that sanctions are only an act of war if the country they are being imposed upon considers them as such.

So what? The laws of economics say that fiat money creation is not sound economics. The meaning of "act of war" is any act that justifies a country going to war (regardless of whether they actually do so or not). In neither case can any government "law making" change these facts.

And governments don't just make "international law" - they make "domestic law," too. So given your respect for what governments decide should be the law, I can only conclude that you believe that, say, smoking pot should be a crime. Because after all, governments "are in a good position to decide what is and isn't" a crime. Funny - I never pegged you for a legal positivist. "That's what it is because governments say that's what it is."

A punch in the nose is a punch in the nose - and a punch in the nose is an "act of war" regardless of whether the person whose nose got punched decides to punch back or not.

 

[Jim Casey]

Peace through strength and clarity is The Cain Doctrine. He kicked it up a notch by adding clarity.