John Mearsheimer and Ron Paul Criticize Permanent War State: "Social Engineering at the End of a Rifle Barrel"
Former Congressman Ron Paul has long been a proponent of non-interventionism in American foreign policy. His presidential run in 2008 brought the concept of "libertarian realism" to the forefront of public discussion. Paul argued that the "blowback" from Washington's militarism and adventurism abroad was a contributing factor to 9/11. However, his views were considered too radical for mainstream acceptance at the time. Over a decade later, with the continued failure of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), Paul's views are gaining traction, with many now saying "Ron Paul was right".
The seemingly endless wars in the Middle East have resulted in a public increasingly skeptical of any new major foreign intervention. This skepticism may be why, since the Obama presidency, Washington has shown a preference for covert and proxy wars, rather than outright invasions. Currently, the Pentagon and US intelligence are involved in two potentially disastrous hot wars (on a proxy and covert level) that could escalate into massive regional wars, or even world wars, at any moment: Ukraine and Gaza.
In 2014, Professor John J. Mearsheimer accurately predicted the tragic and disastrous Russia-Ukraine war that erupted in February 2022. His 2014 lecture, which gained popularity on YouTube after the Russian invasion of 2022, has since garnered nearly 30 million views. Many people now say "John Mearsheimer was right".
This past weekend, Mearsheimer and Paul shared the same stage at the Ron Paul Institute's Liberty Platform Conference in Washington D.C. Both agreed that there is fundamentally no difference between Republicans and Democrats on the question of foreign policy and Washington's penchant for constant military interventionism.
Mearsheimer explained that when he references the foreign policy establishment, he's talking about both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties, he observed, love their 'color revolutions'. However, the enduring blowback and forever wars have led to a "permanent state of emergency".
Mearsheimer also pointed out that militaries are good at breaking things and are essentially giant killing machines. He questioned the feasibility of using such an entity for social engineering in a foreign country where nobody knows the culture or speaks the language. He argued that even if trained experts replaced soldiers, social engineering in places like South Vietnam or Afghanistan would likely fail.
He warned that people who don't understand the limits of what the military can do and think that the US has the right, responsibility, and capability to reorder the world in its image will end up creating a highly militarized society. He added that the US will always have a large military, but that doesn't mean it should always be fighting wars.
Bottom Line
The views of Mearsheimer and Paul provide a sobering perspective on the current state of American foreign policy. Their criticism of the "permanent war state" and the concept of social engineering through military intervention raises important questions about the direction of US foreign policy. It's clear that a more nuanced and realistic approach is needed, one that takes into account the power of nationalism and the limits of military power. What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and discuss it. You can also sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
John Mearsheimer and Ron Paul Criticize Permanent War State: "Social Engineering at the End of a Rifle Barrel"
Former Congressman Ron Paul has long been a proponent of non-interventionism in American foreign policy. His presidential run in 2008 brought the concept of "libertarian realism" to the forefront of public discussion. Paul argued that the "blowback" from Washington's militarism and adventurism abroad was a contributing factor to 9/11. However, his views were considered too radical for mainstream acceptance at the time. Over a decade later, with the continued failure of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), Paul's views are gaining traction, with many now saying "Ron Paul was right".
The seemingly endless wars in the Middle East have resulted in a public increasingly skeptical of any new major foreign intervention. This skepticism may be why, since the Obama presidency, Washington has shown a preference for covert and proxy wars, rather than outright invasions. Currently, the Pentagon and US intelligence are involved in two potentially disastrous hot wars (on a proxy and covert level) that could escalate into massive regional wars, or even world wars, at any moment: Ukraine and Gaza.
In 2014, Professor John J. Mearsheimer accurately predicted the tragic and disastrous Russia-Ukraine war that erupted in February 2022. His 2014 lecture, which gained popularity on YouTube after the Russian invasion of 2022, has since garnered nearly 30 million views. Many people now say "John Mearsheimer was right".
This past weekend, Mearsheimer and Paul shared the same stage at the Ron Paul Institute's Liberty Platform Conference in Washington D.C. Both agreed that there is fundamentally no difference between Republicans and Democrats on the question of foreign policy and Washington's penchant for constant military interventionism.
Mearsheimer explained that when he references the foreign policy establishment, he's talking about both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties, he observed, love their 'color revolutions'. However, the enduring blowback and forever wars have led to a "permanent state of emergency".
Mearsheimer also pointed out that militaries are good at breaking things and are essentially giant killing machines. He questioned the feasibility of using such an entity for social engineering in a foreign country where nobody knows the culture or speaks the language. He argued that even if trained experts replaced soldiers, social engineering in places like South Vietnam or Afghanistan would likely fail.
He warned that people who don't understand the limits of what the military can do and think that the US has the right, responsibility, and capability to reorder the world in its image will end up creating a highly militarized society. He added that the US will always have a large military, but that doesn't mean it should always be fighting wars.
Bottom Line
The views of Mearsheimer and Paul provide a sobering perspective on the current state of American foreign policy. Their criticism of the "permanent war state" and the concept of social engineering through military intervention raises important questions about the direction of US foreign policy. It's clear that a more nuanced and realistic approach is needed, one that takes into account the power of nationalism and the limits of military power. What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and discuss it. You can also sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
