Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Mission: BREAKING IT DOWN

Excerpts from The Daily Caller



Ron Paul has never been one to follow the political norms and in many respects that is worthy of our respect. He is someone who is willing to advance seemingly controversial ideas as a matter of principal. Much criticism has been heaped upon him, but rarely has anyone taken the opportunity to substantively refute his views. This is due in large part because his views are deemed lacking in reality. Above is a portion of an interview of Ron Paul in which he says clearly he would not have authorized the NAVY SEAL raid into Pakistan. Let me break it down.

From: The Daily Caller:

Texas Congressman and prospective 2012 presidential candidate Ron Paul revealed in a radio interview that he would not have ordered the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden almost two weeks ago.

Talking to WHO’s Simon Conway on Tuesday, Paul – who has formed an exploratory committee for president – explained that a better approach would have been to cooperate with Pakistan to arrest bin Laden like the U.S. did with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and try him in civilian court.

“Why can’t we work with the government?” asked Paul.

Ok, now. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured on March 1st 2003 in Pakistan, just Eighteen months after 9/11. The politics of the day were much closer to the events and as such necessitated greater cooperation from the Pakistani Government. More importantly, Pakistan has had free elections since 2008 and at the time of Mohammed's capture Pervez Musharraf was an authoritarian ruler who could successfully direct every phase of political,military,diplomatic and intelligence in the administration of government. The present political makeup in Pakistan has fractured the country and its ability for single minded action. Musharraf could handle Al Qaeda supporters at home, but a much weaker central government is driven by public passions, many of which viewed Bin Laden as a hero. Therefore, the conditions that led to Mohammed's capture in 2003 are no longer prevalent at present. It is evident that sympathetic Pakistani's would never have handed over Bin Laden. Ron Paul, also overlooks the fact that Bin Laden was in that compound for six years in an area coined "The West Point of Pakistan". Does Ron Paul really believe that no one in a position to know was ignorant of Bin Laden's status? Such a conclusion is sadly naive.

Again From The Daily Caller 

“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law and world law, international law,” he continued. “What if he had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the helicopters into London? No, you don’t want to do that.”

Ok, again. Under international law, Osama Bin Laden is an enemy combatant and his life is subject to the rules of war. Killing the enemy does not violate international law. The most disturbing part of Ron Paul's comments was his attempt at analogizing Pakistan with a hotel in London. Is he seriously comparing our relationship with Pakistan to that of the United Kingdom? The very suggestion that the two nations share an equal place at the diplomatic table is bizarre and demonstrates a functional misunderstanding of our nations history as it relates to our relationships internationally. Would we have sent helicopters into London without the knowledge of the British Government? No! Why not? Because our relationship with the British is foremost among nations. It is as free and functional a democracy as ours. Moreover, it can justly be said that the British would not have hidden Bin Laden. To compare our historic relationship with Britain to that of Pakistan of whom it may be argued harbored Bin Laden is absurd on its face. The fact that Ron Paul cannot make the clear and evident distinction between the two nations is again, disturbing. The kindest word is of course, naive. Again.

Ron Paul's view of the United States and its role in the world is straight out of Robert Taft's playbook. I admire Ron Paul's conviction and an unabashed nature in expressing his views, but it is clear that his prospective foreign policy as a President is not grounding in true Taftian principles, but rooted in a dangerous naivete'. To think that Pakistan at present would have cooperated with the facts as we know them is not just naive, but damn near pollyannish. The world is not as Ron Paul sees it and our nation cannot suffer a President whose diplomacy cannot distinguish friend,foe and adversary.

Ron Paul isn't crazy and ought to be heard. But his view of the world born from this interview is wholly incompatible with the realities in the world today. He's not a kook, he's just naive.

PS: At least, unlike many of his supporters he clearly believes Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and that Bin Laden is dead. We can at least be thankful that he's not a "truther" or "deather". So, he deserves a few points in that regard.