Ron Paul on Obama's Permanent Nation Building Office

It's included in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act 2009, which includes spending an additional 18 billion dollars towards foreign affairs. With one particular provision including a "civilian stabilization initiative" to "facilitate democratic and political transitions" with the mandate being to "reconstruct societies".

This is an extension of President Bush's administration policies by Barack "more of the same" Obama.

Or is it learning from Bushes mistakes in iraq expecting the military to be good at things like that?

(cant watch the video atm)

interesting fact (but completely irrelevant to any discussion here), did you know that Stormfront endorsed Ron Paul for the presidency. Probably not something he's proud of... or is he....

more relevant though rival, is that these initiative should be judges on how they are done. The democrats weren't saying that the USA should just stay out of everything. They said the USA should be a force for good, not just a policeman using it's military to promote the interests of the capitalist ruling class.

Good point, but once you institutionalize something like this it's asking for abuse, even if it comes from a future Republican.

Don't be silly, they probably support him over his gun policies.

Yes bob makes a similar inference above.



I find this whole notion of class problematic, I think you would be better off referring to special interests groups, which by the way the Democrats are just as guilty in acquiescing to.

But you have all that knowledge already in the state department they just bypassed it completely for Iraq and cocked up so spectacularly.

That’s an expensive (one they can't really afford right now) way to attempt an additional check or balance on an American administration, one which can still override this institutions advice, like the state department.

Now while I understand the requirement for nation building in Afghanistan, especially if it’s a threat to world stability with it’s terrorist training camps, this isn’t something they should be preparing for long term strategies for.

There is also the common argument in respect to interventionist foreign policy causing blow back and being counterproductive. It was understandable during the cold war, even though I object to some of their policies, but now?

I suppose this is to deal with blow back.

Having the knowledge is one thing, how you apply it is quite different. Advisory roles (rather than delegatory) may benefit anyone who listens.

and on tax, the fed, opposition to affirmative action, his pro-life views, etc etc

I didn't know they had so much in common.

Just because they support him doesn't mean he supports them. If they like him because of his pro-life stance they'll be disappointed and/or don't understand that libertarians will keep their personal morals out of their office.

that's not entirely true... in fact, it's completely false.