Quote:
|
Originally Posted by excon You don't understand libertarians. S'ok. Nobody else does either. |
Yeah, that's why they never get elected. If they spent some time actually explaining their positions instead of leaving everyone confused about what they believe, they might actually win an election.
However, in Paul's case, he's made it pretty clear that he favors what I call a "Citadel Defense" strategy: Bring all the troops home, set them on the borders, and take a defensive position that nobody can break through. Is this a misrepresentation of what he supports? Am I misunderstanding his position? I don't think so.
There are two basic flaws with such a strategy, however. Not surprising, since even while in the Air Force he was a doctor/flight surgeon, and not a fighter. (I in no way mean to say that his service to our country was anything less than patriotic. This is simply a statement regarding his actual strategic/tactical knowledge.) These flaws are insurmountable using the strategy that he has put forth.
They are:
1) No "citadel" can ever be strong enough to completely stop a determined attacker with modern weaponry. No wall is strong enough or high enough. No number of troops can be sufficient to cover every inch of the threat area. And there are some weapons that no wall can stop. The Citadel Defense strategy is, therefore, a weak position from which to defend the country.
2) Any Citadel Strategy, no matter how effective, takes the defenders out of the initiative and makes them completely defensive. It is a position from which we wait for the enemy to attack us, and are REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE in preventing it. It gives the enemy the initiative and flexibility to attack us at a place and time of their choosing without having to commit any forces to self-defense.
By contrast a "forward deployment defensive strategy" opens up the initiative for us, gives us additional flexibility, and makes us proactive in our defensive strategy. It gives us the ability to attack the enemy and forces the enemy to commit at least a portion of its fighting force to defense rather than attack. It increases our defensive and offensive options and automatically takes a large portion of the enemy's fighting force out of the equation.
Simply put, Ron Paul's "citadel strategy" sounds good on paper... on second thought, it doesn't even sound good on paper. In the real world, where no plan survives contact with the enemy and thus flexibility to adapt to the situation as it happens is essential to an effective defensive strategy, the inflexibility of a citadel strategy is a killer. Literally.
Elliot
Linear Mode
