Last week, I wrote about the potential impact that the growing influence of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will have on the ability of Republicans to portray themselves as a solidly pro-Israel party. Senator Paul has written to respond to that piece. My response follows.
Jonathan S. Tobin’s Nov. 9 column, “Will Rand Paul Hijack the Pro-Israel GOP?” makes some wildly speculative assumptions about me, my positions concerning our ally, Israel, and the Republican Party’s future. Since Mr. Tobin took it upon himself to image some of my positions, I thought it best to set the record straight by stating what they actually are.
Israel is a strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests. I believe we should stand by our ally, but where I think sometimes American commentators get confused is that I do not think Israel should be dictated to by the United States. I think that has happened too often, and it has been to the detriment of Israel. Too often we have coerced Israel into trading land for peace, or other false bargains. When President Obama stood before the world in 2011 to demand that Israel act against her own strategic interest, I denounced this as unnecessary meddling. As I wrote in May of that year: “For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy.”
Israel will always know what’s best for Israel. The United States should always stand with its friends. But we should also know, unlike President Obama, when to stay out of the way.
Foreign aid is another example of how our meddling often hurts more than its helps. In my proposals to end or cut back on foreign aid, some have made accusations that my proposals would hurt Israel. Actually, not following my proposals hurt Israel. We currently give about $4 billion annually to Israel in foreign aid. But we give about $6 billion to the nations that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic toward the Jewish state.
Giving twice as much foreign aid to Israel’s enemies simply does not make sense. Our aid to Israel has always been to a country that has been an unequivocal ally. Our aid to its neighbors has purchased their temporary loyalty at best.
These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.
Mr. Tobin speculates that calls by me and others within the Republican Party for Pentagon cuts somehow would hurt our national defense. It is always sad to see conservatives making liberal arguments. Cutting waste in our military would no more hurt our defense than getting rid of No Child Left Behind would hurt education. Every government agency can withstand a little belt-tightening, especially if we scale back on our overseas presence and focus more on true defense and security.
I voted against the original sequester agreement last year. It amused me to watch many of my colleagues who vote for it now wringing their hands over what they’ve wrought. The problem is, if we don’t keep these cuts, where will they come from? My colleagues have shown no greater stomach for domestic cuts than military ones. And with a now $16 trillion national debt and annual deficits between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion, the supposed grown-ups in Washington need to man-up and figure out where to cut. An automatic cut that would disproportionately target military spending was no one’s first choice—but was also the direct result of not enough people getting specific or serious about cuts to begin with.
I am not one of those people. I proposed a fully balanced five-year budget that restored the sequester funds. That path is still open to all Senators so concerned about our defense spending.
But absent the equivalent cuts from elsewhere, I cannot support simply scrapping the sequester.
That’s because the cuts really aren’t that big of a problem, if we also include reform.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and I are now both calling for legislation to audit the Pentagon, believing that a federal department with zero oversight is a good place to start when targeting government waste. We are not the only Republicans to make this observation and I suspect that number will continue to grow. The age of austerity will require as much common sense as possible.
Mr. Tobin is right to note that these are questions that a Republican Party serious about limited government and fiscal responsibility will continue to ask moving forward. But it is absurd to suggest that conservatives who ask these questions are somehow for a weaker defense, or worse, somehow stand on the wrong side of our friend Israel.
Portraying me as being against Israel in any fashion, as Mr. Tobin’s title implies, is as nonfactual as it is offensive. There are many differing opinions about both foreign and domestic policy within Israel. Any healthy, self-governing people necessarily must have robust debate. This is as true in Israel as it is in the United States. The notion that there is an unassailable consensus concerning Israel’s best interests, within the Republican Party, the United States, and even Israel itself, is simple not true and never has been. It assumes too much and asks too little, to the detriment of both countries.
Israel has long been, and will continue to be, one of our greatest allies. I will always fight to maintain the health and strength of this relationship, just as I will always fight for the health, security and best interests of the United States.
Senator Rand Paul, Washington, D.C.
Jonathan Tobin Responds:
In a world full of foes of the state of Israel, far be it from me to reject the wish of any prominent politician to be depicted as a friend of the Jewish state. It may be reasonable to suspect that this desire may have more to do with the senator’s possible presidential ambitions (indeed, the fact that he should take the trouble to defend his record on Israel in COMMENTARY can fairly be construed as a clear indication of his plans) but it is welcome nonetheless. However, his record is a little more complicated than he indicates. While the senator may not be as reflexively hostile to Israel as his father Ron or many of their extremist libertarian fans, it is difficult to reconcile his positions on assistance to Israel or his constricted ideas about the role of America in the world with one that is readily identified as supportive of a strong and secure Israel.
First, let’s give Senator Paul credit for saying that Israel ought not to be pressured into making concessions to its antagonists. Paul criticized President Obama for his ambush of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in May 2011 over the 1967 lines. But it should also be pointed out that Paul was conspicuous by his absence from Netanyahu’s address to Congress that earned bipartisan ovations.
Let’s also specify that the senator is right when he notes that at this point in time, Israel would do well to wean itself from any from of foreign assistance. That is a goal that was first articulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 during an address to Congress. But when Netanyahu made that speech, Israel was getting as much economic aid as it was military help. That is no longer the case.
When Paul called for an end to “welfare” to Israel, he said that the country’s relative wealth ought to render it ineligible for aid. But almost all the assistance Israel gets nowadays is necessary to redress the imbalance in strength between the Jewish state and the entire Arab and Muslim world that is arrayed against it. Though Paul would accompany an end to military aid to Israel with a ban on assistance to any country that is hostile to it, that wouldn’t undo the harm that a stoppage from the country’s only military ally would cause to a nation that is forced to spend exorbitant amounts on defense in order to cope with foes supported by Iran and even Russia. Nor would it offset the encouragement that such a measure would give Israel’s enemies.
Paul’s position ignores the fact that most of the military assistance is spent right here in the United States. But his willingness to characterize the issue as one in which American kids are being asked to go into debt to pay for “rich” Israel showed his willingness to play the same isolationist cards that won his father the applause of a radical fringe.
But just as troubling are Paul’s positions on U.S. defense and foreign policy, irrespective of the warm feelings he says he harbors for Israel.
An essential part of the U.S.-Israel alliance is the assumption that the United States will maintain its military strength as well as be willing to act to defend its interests abroad. Paul’s isolationist wing of the party acts as if America can afford to more or less withdraw its forces to its own borders and ignore the rest of the world. Paul pretends that the draconian cuts he advocates will not materially affect America’s defense capabilities, but that is mere rhetoric. Just as it would be impossible for the United States to assert its influence abroad in ways that are important to making Israel safer, so, too, will a diminished U.S. military undermine the strategic balance in the region in a way that will hurt it.
It is no small thing that the putative leader of a faction of the Republican Party that is virulently isolationist should wish to be seen as a friend of Israel. But he has a long way to go before his positions can be considered particularly supportive of Israel or the sort of American foreign policy stance that is consistent with maintaining the alliance. Barring an unexpected change of heart, Senator Paul’s higher profile must be considered bad news for Jewish Republicans.
Rand Paul, how do you respond to Jonathan Tobin’s asertion that it will be Israel alone which will suffer the brunt of your proposal for your father’s wet dream; US cutoff in aid to “The Near East”, since the The Arab Bloc will simply cash Iranian and Russian Cheques instead of US ones. So come clean Rand, in essense we are talking about cutting off Israel from it’s lifeline. Who do you think you are kidding.
The US will lose it’s diplomatic influence to convince Egypt to adhere to The Camp David Accords, as superficial as that appears to be and Israel will be on it’s own. Given Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Syria’s likely descent into sectarian war and with Jordan as well likely to end up being controlled by The MB….and you want to sell Israel out at the same time, some friend you are, not.
Seems like Israel will be the only one to pay the price.
I do not see any discernable difference between you and your father Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is a friend to Israel, I am from Jupiter. I guess I think you are lying Rand.
This political nepotism thing is repugnant whether it is called Busheys, Kennedys or Clintons or Pauls. There should be a law to prohibit this. It is repugnant.
I won't speak for Rand Paul, but Ron Paul and many Israelis understand that Israel would be better off standing on its own two feet rather than sucking on America's teat. What is Israel going to do when the US can't afford to play sugar daddy anymore?
Israel should not take aid from the US. She is a wealthy country now. Period. It comes with strings attached. n nWhat she needs are iron clad guarantees of resupply of ordinance and spare parts in the event of war. Joint weapons development programs benefit both nations and should continue. n nThe absence of US pressure for deadly Israeli concessions to genocidal savages that surround her would be welcome as well, and I applaud Mr. Paul for articulating it. n nWhy did he sit out Netanyahu's address to congress? That is the one thing I can;t get my mind around. n nAlso, Mr. Paul's dad harbored ideas sympathetic to Israel's arab enemies. Does Rand repudiate them? n nAnswers to the last two points are what are needed for this Jewish American, anyway. n nMr. Paul's other policy prescriptions can be discussed. n n
There'll be strings attached even without aid, Michael; the US has strategic interests after all. Perhaps Israel can swallow the loss of 4 billion per annum but not a continuation of aid to its enemies nor, paradoxicaly, their cutoff. If the latter were to occur, expect petro dollar-flush Muslim states, Russia and China to rush into the vacuum. As things are now, Israel's neighbours are stuck with weapons they can use perhaps against each other, but not against Israel, knowing that the spigot would be turned off. It's a tricky, sticky convoluted situation for sure. n nStill, methinks Israel's problem is less with US dictating (note how it dug its heels in against Obama), or international opprobium (ignoring "the world" won't be the end of the world) , than with its own disproportionally powerful left in the media, academia and judiciary, not to mention the EU-sponsored fifth column which operates brazenly and without challenge.
Paul sat out Netanyahu's address because he was busily filibustering foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya. n nWhat were the sympathetic ideas? I haven't heard them and I'm curious, I doubt Rand holds any sympathy for our enemies.
I would suggest that Rand Paul sat out Netanyahu's address to Congress as a gesture to his anti-Semitic,Buchananite base who will be key in his "ground game", and who couldn't care less about the rationale for cutting off aid to Israel-just so long as the aid is cut off. Or did he claim it was a" scheduling conflict"? Just asking.
Actually, he sat out because the Senate was in session and he was in the middle of filibustering Foreign Aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya.
Yes, anti-semite because he wants to audit the pentagon and think over our foreign aid… even to Israel… he must hate Jews and everyone that supports him feels the same right?r nr nYour mindless lableing of racism to attempt and end any debate or reason is an old liberal trick that few idiots are falling for these days. Keep trying.
As an Israeli and someone who spoke of the issue of US military aid to Israel (of $3 billions a year) with the former General Director of the Israel Ministry of Finance, I can tell you that it is an Israeli interest to stop getting. It hurts Israel's economy, it hurts its political independance, it alllows for waste of ressources in the Ministry of Defense. So yes stop the aid.
Then the U.S. will face the difficult choice of whether to continue supporting Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority, not to mention Turkey and Saudi Arabia (military support): all sworn enemies of Israel. n nIt's all or nothing. Without U.S. aid in the region, others will step in to fill the vacuum, for example China and Russia, and possibly Saudi Arabia, and it's unlikely any of those entities would have any interest in aiding Israel.
Mr. Blister, I think what benji and the others are saying, is, nothing rather than all. Cut off all aid to all countries including Israel.
Is it not a good thing that Rand Paul is linking himself to Tom Coburn? n nMaybe Rand should go pheasant hunting with Gov. Rick Perry, the Texan who is also Defender of Jerusalem. Once you start looking at Israel as a valuable trade partner, as Texas does, it changes everything.
Just don't let him go hunting with Dick Cheney. Bad things happen.
It would be nice if the author did a little more argument by fact and a little less argument by ad hominem. His numerous invocations of "extremist", "isolationist", and my favorite from the previous article, "fever swamps." n nTo Paul's argument that cuts in defense spending don't necessarily mean reductions in the quality of defense, which is just obviously true, though you can argue whether that's the way it'll happen, Tobin is the guy in the back of the room coughing out "Bull***", while avoiding any factual argument. n nAs to the question of American kids being asked to incur debt to pay for "rich" Israel, the author objects to the framing of the question, which he says panders to Ron Paul's radical fringe. This, of course, elides the obvious fact that American kids are, in fact, being asked to incur debt to send foreign aid to Israel, which is a rich country. n nIn addition, the author continues to portray Israel as a small weak country surrounded by hulking Arab behemoths.This, of course, ignores the fact that Israel is militarily stronger than its Arab neighbors, has nuclear weapons, and is supported by the country with the strongest military in the history of the world. n nStop pretending to be the underdog. You're not.
mg1313 : Your assertion is absurd. nIsrael, a nation of only 7 million people may have an excellent military however, they are surrounded by 400,652,486 Arabs. 400 Million vs 7 Million – would you like to face those odds? The last major war in 1973, Israel came very close to loosing and now, those Arab countries have learned from their mistakes and have purchased the finest American made military hardware money can buy to replace their old Soviet made weapons. According to Defense Industry Daily, Egypt has the largest fleet of M1 Abrams Tanks in the world besides the United States numbering over 1,000 and unfortunately, the Israeli Merkava tank is no match to the technologically superior M1A1. Israel is indeed the underdog outnumbered 50 to 1 facing a well armed enemy committed to their destruction.
Excellent point about the ad hominem attacks in the article. Not only does it undermine and distract from Mr. Tobin's argument, but it also presumes that his audience of conservative voters is not sophisticated enough to differentiate between substance and rhetoric. This applies generally to all political commentary, but I wish journalists and commentators would do a better job of treating the readers like independent thinking adults.
Responding to a response AND getting the last word…wow, very impressive John!
What a dishonest characterization on the part of Mr. Tobin. Tobin's brand of journalism is a joke.
Jonathon Tobin has some serious lacks in logic. Hopefully he can be opened up with further education about the implications and consequences of Foreign Aid and strong-arm interventionist foreign policies.
Five years ago I would have said Rand Paul was dangerous, just like his father is. But I've re-evaluated and I have a hunch that Paul would in certain ways be the best thing for America and Israel. I'm not quite 100% there yet, but I am hopeful. Here's why:
1) Paul proposed ending immigration to the U.S. from about ten terror countries that are utterly hostile to Jews (and to America too). If we let in more Muslims, we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Look at European Jews: they let in Muslims and now they it's not safe for Jews. Heck, look at South Africa – they ended Apartheid and now most of the Jews left because it's not safe for Jews. Stop letting in third world peoples to the United States. That is the greatest threat to Jews.
"Look at European Jews: they let in Muslims and now they it's not safe for Jews." European Jews had a hand in "let(ting) in Muslims" to Europe? Wow, who knew? And South Africa would have gone in a different direction but for Jews? (Or are you saying simply that things happened there and Jews were negatively affected as a result of those changes?) Again, who knew?
Things happened there and Jews were negatively affected as the result of these changes
OK, I misread your earlier post and thought by "they" you meant European Jews, rather than those who did influence those decisions. I agree with only some of what you have had to say here, but sorry for the misunderstanding.
2) Continuing with immigration, Paul proposed building a border and capping the number of lower-income Mexicans entering the United States. I have no animosity towards Mexicans, but California went from being the greatest state to being the most bankrupt. It went from being 78% white in 1970 to under 50% white today. Connect the dots. The lower class Mexican population that we've imported is more amenable to large government and less amenable to capitalism. That's bad for Jews – who do best when capitalism is doing well.
3) The Pentagon should be cut – we should not have bases in Europe or South Korea. The Europeans hate us and are anti-semitic. The Koreans put tariffs on our products. n4) The U.S. should not be liberating Muslim countries. It's bad for America, it's bad for Jews and it's bad for our finances. Why? Because there are no good guys in the Muslim world. Thus, we need to fight wars to defeat our enemies, not to liberate them from themselves. In sum, we should bomb Iran, but we should not be hopelessly trying to build up civil societies in Iraq and Afghanistan
I think we need to give Senator Paul a real chance. Listen to what he has to say. If he understands the threat that is Islam and will enact policies that will prevent people from entering the U.S. who are less amenable to Judaism, capitalism and limited government, then he may be the person to stop the U.S.' decline, help Israel and protect Jews in the United States.
I think that Jonathan Tobin is conflating two things, sympathy and support for Israel and what policies are best for Israel. About the former, I think that Rand Paul can reasonably say that he has sympathy for and is supportivve of the state of Israel. Jonathan Tobin points out that he thinks that some of the positions that Rand Paul is espousing is detrimental to Israel's security. That's fine and I generally agree with Tobin's analysis in that regard. Overall, I think Tobin is being unfair to Mr. Paul by not merely disagreeing with his positions, but by treating Mr. Paul's positions as "not pro Israel". This is different than what is going on in the Democrat party where there is increasing symapthy for the enemies of Israel, not mere disagreements about specific policies within an overall position of support for Israel..
If Israel does not feel secure, why would they be expected to concede anything in peace negotiations? I think peace initiatives a fool's errand as this tiny enclave in a sea of Islamic hostility will never know peace. And who is there that they can negotiate with that can guarantee lasting peace anyway? And why should we care…do we have to be the "Nanny State" abroad as well as at home? n nMy conclusion is that the US should butt out and let the protagonists sort it out for themselves. Cut Israel loose as a client state: don't fund it on the one hand but don't leash it on the other. I don't see why it is in our interest to be sending money or weapons to either side…we are simply enabling. So, I'm with Rand Paul on this one. n
I think the comments above show that the Jewish Republican base, such that it is, is more open to the possibility of a Rand Paul candidacy than the Jewish Republican literati. n nIf you look at the actual dollars that will be cut in sequestration, and if you have worked in government before, as I have, then you know that the military can easily make up this difference by cutting out the waste. (Perhaps a few less sexual harassment and anti-smoking seminars for the troops?) The problem, of course, is that the military will keep the waste and instead cut important weapons systems. n nI also agree that Paul's proposed cut in foreign aid to Israel is not something that she can bear at this moment. But Paul's misguided view on this must be counterbalanced by his unequivocal rejection of land for peace and his proposal to limit immigration from Muslim countries. Can I hear a second from a Jewish member of Congress please? Please? n nGiven that Congress retains the power of the purse but the President alone speaks for the nation in matters of state, I think the likely outcome of a Paul presidency would be a reduction in foreign aid that Israel can live with, accompanied by a much stronger ally than any Democratic President and many Republicans as well. No Democrat will repudiate land for peace or move to limit Muslim immigration. And it was the Bush administration that fully pushed for and back the disastrous Gaza withdrawal in return for guarantees that Obama has now abandoned. With the Camp David Accords in tatters, it is clear to any thinking supporter of Israel that land for peace is dead. Anyone who supports this dangerous idea is not a supporter of Israel. n nIn sum, there is every reason to think that Rand Paul would be more pro-Israel than any Democrat and perhaps even than many Republicans. In fact, Rand Paul may be an even better candidate than other Republicans if he can bring the 1% of the voters who pulled the libertarian lever this fall back into the Republican fold. John McCain and Mitt Romney repeated all the proper pro-Israel talking points but failed to do the most important thing needed from a pro-Israel Presidential candidate: Get Elected! n nThis Jewish Republican will happily support a Paul-Rubio or Rubio-Paul ticket in 2016.
What has this Tobin person ever had to say about how extremely anti Israel David Lietraeus is? I’m guessing nothing, and if so he has zero credibility on the matter.
The last bout of isolationism in the 30s (we couldn't afford it) led to the 40s (we couldn't afford it). n nThe policy of bases around the world was to prevent a repeat of the 40s. The generation that understood it in their bones is gone. We will be getting a repeat of the 40s.
Rand Paul has written nothing but a litany of blatant lies. He falsely claims that: n n"Mr. Tobin speculates that calls by me and others within the Republican Party for Pentagon cuts somehow would hurt our national defense. It is always sad to see conservatives making liberal arguments. Cutting waste in our military would no more hurt our defense than getting rid of No Child Left Behind would hurt education." n nThe deep defense budget cuts that Rand Paul and a few other Republicans support – including sequestration – WOULD hurt the US military, and deeply so. This is not a "liberal argument", this is a FACT. That's because they would be deep and would leave the military with a lot less money for training, operations, personnel, the maintenance of existing equipment and facilities, and the development and acquisition of new equipment. A strong military depends on all of these, and none of these will be adequate if FUNDING for defense is not adequate. Under Rand Paul's plans, including sequestration, it would not be. n nThe sequester requires $600 bn cuts in the defense budget over the next decade – $60 bn EVERY YEAR from FY2013 through FY2022. These cuts would come on top of ALL defense cuts implemented or scheduled so far, including the $487 bn in defense cuts mandated by the first tier of the BCA. Cuts on this scale cannot be made solely through waste elimination; they will inevitably involve weakening the military and many tough choices. Due to their scale, these cuts will require deep reductions in funding for personnel, operations, maintenance, training, or the development and acquisition of new equipment (or some combination of the above). Any of which would deeply hurt the US military and undermine its ability to defend America and its allies – including Israel. n nPaul loves to cry about DOD "waste", but when Sen. Coburn released his "Department of Everything" report last week, he found only a grand total of $6.79 bn in annual waste in the defense budget, a rounding error in that budget and a drop in the bucket compared to the cuts the sequester would require ($60 bn per year). If anything, that report only proved that cuts on the sequester's scale cannot be made solely, or even mostly, through waste elimination, and would require deep cuts in the meat and bone of the military. n nNote to defense cutters: crucial weapon programs such as the Next Generation Bomber or the Ground-Based Interceptor program are not "waste".
"Every government agency can withstand a little belt-tightening, especially if we scale back on our overseas presence and focus more on true defense and security." n nBut what Rand Paul proposes – deep defense budget cuts, including sequestration – is not mere "belt-tightening", it's deep, reckless defense cuts. Sequestration, as stated above, requires additional $600 bn in cuts over a decade on top of the $487 bn in cuts already programmed by Sec. Panetta as a result of the BCA. n nAnd the DOD has already done a lot of "belt-tightening" since 2009, while other federal agencies haven't done so at all so far. In 2009 and 2010, the DOD closed over 50 crucial weapon programs, including the F-22 and several missile defense programs. In December 2010, the US ratified the New START treaty, which mandates deep cuts in America's (but not Russia's) nuclear arsenal and undermines nuclear deterrence. In January 2011, Sec. Gates announced another $178 bn in efficiencies and cuts. And the first tier of the BCA mandates pre-sequester defense budget cuts of $487 bn over the next decade, cuts that must happen even if sequestration does not. And even if the sequester is cancelled, it's highly unlikely that defense cuts will stop with that $487 bn. n nYet Rand Paul denies that any of these are real cuts, or that the DOD has undergone any belt-tightening. He even denies that sequestration would be a real cut in defense spending, even though it would take the defense budget from $535 bn today to $469 bn in January, virtually overnight, and keep defense spending below $500 bn (and way below today's level) for the remainder of the sequestration decade. n nSenator, if a deep, immediate, real-term cut in defense spending is not a real spending cut to you, if a cut from $535 bn to $469 bn is not a real spending cut to you, then we learned completely different maths at school. n n"Scaling back on our overseas presence" would not save a penny. It's merely a repackaged isolationist policy of his father's. Bringing the troops home and building new bases and houses for them here in the US would cost MORE than keeping them where they are, and it would undermine America's ability to provide "true defense and security", because troops deployed in-theater can, by virtue of being there, respond IMMEDIATELY to any aggression, and by their very presence, deter it, while troops based in the US would need weeks to arrive on scene – by which time it would be too late as our allies would already be conquered by their aggressive enemies (China, North Korea, etc.). n n"The problem is, if we don’t keep these cuts, where will they come from? My colleagues have shown no greater stomach for domestic cuts than military ones." n nThat's also a lie. The vast majority of Paul's colleagues in both houses of Congress voted for the Ryan Plan. Many House Republicans also voted for the RSC's budget, which makes much deeper cuts in domestic spending AND would balance the federal budget in 5 years. In the Senate, 42 Republicans voted for the Toomey Plan, which would balance the budget in 8 years and make real, deep cuts in all spending. And Sen. McCain – formerly an ueberhawk – now supports early withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would provide additional savings. n n n"That’s because the cuts really aren’t that big of a problem, if we also include reform." n nFALSE. No amount of reform will ever provide for sufficient savings to pay for the sequester ($600 bn per decade, $60 bn per year). There is some waste in the defense budget, but not THAT MUCH – not even close, as Sen. Coburn's own Department of Everything report of last week shows. With cuts that deep, your only choice is to deeply cut the force structure, maintenance, operations, training, or the development and acquisition of new equipment. As defense analysts from the CSBA to the CNAS have stated, cuts on the sequester's magnitude cannot be made through "efficiencies" and "reform" alone, and will require many tough choices. I know, because I'm the author of the largest package of DOD reform proposals ever written, so I know the limits of what reform can accomplish. n nSen. Paul is doing the military and the entire country a huge DISSERVICE by propagating that deep defense cuts, such as sequestration, can be done purely through "reform" and waste elimination.
"Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and I are now both calling for legislation to audit the Pentagon, believing that a federal department with zero oversight is a good place to start when targeting government waste." n nThis is a blatant lie. While the DOD has not yet managed to pass an audit, it is well on its way to achieving that goal by 2017, and the claim that the DOD is a department with "zero oversight" is a blatant lie. The DOD is overseen, and must annually testify and frequently report to, six separate Congressional Committees; must prepare hundreds of reports to the Congress every year; must provide thousands of pages of justifications every year; and is now under obligation to cut over a trillion dollars ($487 bn + $600 bn) from its budget over the next decade. n n"it is absurd to suggest that conservatives who ask these questions are somehow for a weaker defense" n nIf I had a nickel for everytime I heard that! n nBut what Rand Paul (like his father) and other defense cutters are advocating IS a weaker defense, despite their pretensions to the contrary. That's because the defense cuts they advocate – including sequestration – would, as demonstrated above, gut America's defense (especially sequestration, which would simply cut the defense budget blindly, across the board (except personnel), in every program, without any difference as to what that mechanism would be cutting). Thus, they DO advocate a weaker defense. n nThey're indistiguishable from Barney Frank and other Democrats who advocate deep defense cuts. They, too, claim that they support a strong defense, yet, like Rand Paul and his father, they advocate deep defense budget, force structure, and programmatic cuts which would gut the military. Thus, they do advocate a weak military – but like Rand Paul, they're too dishonest to admit that openly. n nAs for Israel, one of America's greatest allies, Rand Paul, by cutting off aid to Israel (which today consists almost exclusively of military aid and pays for Israel's defense, including the missile defense systems that protect Israel), would greatly undermine Israel's defense if he were to be granted his wish. n nJust look at the Iron Dome batteries that protect Israel from the missiles constantly launched at it from Gaza and Lebanon. They've managed to keep Israeli casualties to a minimum. They were co-developed with the US and were largely financed by the DOD and the DOS. Cutting off aid to Israel would mean cutting off funding for these systems. No person who advocates that can call himself a true friend of Israel. n nSimoultaneously cutting off aid to Arab countries does not compensate for this in any way. n nRand Paul is a shameless, blatant liar. But intelligent people won't be fooled by his deception and will see him for whom he really is – a defense gutter and a shameless liar.
At last check, US aid to Israel was around $3 billion, not 4 billion a year. n nBut I too don't see justification for continued financial help to a country doing very well economically. n nPerhaps Senator Rand Paul could help himself politically and the US too, with a more pragmatic rather than libertarian approach to the problems of the Middle East. Pragmatism is in any event a more genuinely American philosophical tradition, think John Dewey, than libertarianism, shades of a Hungarian lady in leather. n nSuppose that total $9 billion US aid money now going to the Middle East, were redirected and spent via monthly installment payments on projects in Gaza, the W/B, Egypt, and Iraq, but with a catch. n nEvery terror attack by Islamists and Jihadists, would divert a substantial part of that month's payments to Israel. Thus for example, the killing of Ambassador Stevens could have cost poor Palestinians $100 million. Hamas would know that with every rocket fired into Israel, $50,000 to $200,000 would be rerouted to a Jewish community in Israel. Would a Sunni Iraqi suicide bomber be so sure of paradise and so quick to wreck havoc in Baghdad, knowing that his act would deny a million dollars to Muslims and grant them to Jews? n nThe policy might even be expanded to Iran. Right now the NPT has no punishment provision for any violations uncovered by the IAEA. Hence, when it was discovered in 2006 that Tehran had not been compliant with the treaty for 18 years, the Iranians simply admitted their fault, and that was that. But the proposed anti-terror fund could punish violators by making them the benefactors of the Jews. The theocracy in Tehran would want to think twice before helping the little Satan with funds denied Allah's Faithful. n nUS aid in some such version might prove a solution against terrorism and make a politician popular.
Firstly, during his tenure as SECDEF, Rumsfeld reduced that to just a few tens of billions of dollars, with the help of his comptroller, Dov S. Zakheim. So your "information" is more than 11 years out of date. n nSecondly, the figures refer to total DOD assets that could not be accounted for at the time (over 11 years ago), NOT to spending. n nThirdly, despite your and Sen. Paul's false claims to the contrary, there ISN'T much waste in the defense budget, and not even close to enough to pay for deep defense spending cuts such as sequestration. Not even close. Last week, Sen. Coburn announced that he found a grand total of $6.79 bn per year of waste in the defense budget. A paltry $6.79 bn per year (which he multiplied by a decade to $67.9 bn per decade to make it look bigger). n nNo, there isn't "lots of fat" inside the military budget. Deep defense cuts, such as sequestration, and ESPECIALLY sequestration, cannot be made solely through waste elimination. They would inevitably involve deep cuts in the force structure, operations, maintenance, training, personnel, and the development and acquisition of new equipment. Those would be the consequences of deep defense cuts, but Rand Paul is too much of a shameless liar to admit them.
I can think of lots of waste. Let's take… every base in Europe as one part of the waste. Correct me if I am wrong, but exactly why is Germany, Italy, and UK unable to provide for their own defense? How do you defend a citizen in Kentucky with a base in Frankfurt? I was in the military, and I know damn well what they do with the money. It's pissed away, tied up in over-promised and under-performing larks like the Osprey and F-35, maintaining enough nukes to destroy all life on Earth 100 times over because 75 times over isn't good enough, training schools they send troops to halfway across the world for 3 days of work, it just never ends. n nThis is the EXACT SAME arguments liberals make for why the education monstrosity can't be cut – conservatives making liberal arguments to keep government fat and happy. Any cut is a complete, unmitigated disaster – if we cut $1 Trillion over 10 years (which, of course, you can't, because no Congress can vote for legislation that imposes on a later Congress, therefore, the next Congress could sweep in and refuse to honor the deal) the troops will be fighting with toothpicks with frying pans for body armor.
@tobincommentary writes: "An essential part of the U.S.-Israel alliance is the assumption that the United States will maintain its military strength as well as be willing to act to defend its interests abroad." There are a number of problems with this statement. n nFirst, it is not correct. Although Israel certainly has the pleasure of knowing that the United States will come to its aid, if needed, the special relationship will ultimately suffer if the United States cannot mitigate the National Security threat posed by a growing national debt and a new era of deficit spending. It is unreasonable to think that cuts to a $800,000,000,000 annual defense budget will jeopardize the U.S.-Israel alliance, or the security of either nation. n nSenator Paul has only suggested modest and reasonable cuts to a bloated defense budget; hardly tantamount to advocating a weakened military. Mr. Tobin calls these cuts draconian and Paul's commitment to a strong military merely rhetoric. But it has only been in recent years that the defense budget swelled. When George W. Bush took office it was less than $400 billion. Now it is double that, and will soon exceed $1 trillion. I do not want to pay more in taxes to maintain a $1 trillion annual defense budget, and I bet most Americans would agree. n nSecond, I am not exactly sure what Mr. Tobin means when he says “willing to act to defend its interests abroad.” Is he talking about defending Israel from an attack? Of course the United States would, although, Israel has proven more than capable of defending itself on multiple fronts in the past. Nevertheless, the United States will be there to help if needed. It’s unclear whether Mr. Tobin is talking about some other foreign military action by the United States. In any event, I have heard nothing from Senator Paul that would suggest he would fail to act in defense of the United States or her interests abroad. n
One can be a libertarian zionist. It is certainly a huge waste of time for the US to pressure Israel toward the chimera of a two-state solution. There can be no Palestine, and Netanyahu and Lieberman know it. No thinking libertarian would countenance Israel's destruction by its enemies. However, the idea of bribing Israel's neighbors to make peace with Israel was working before Obama decided to replace our friends in the region with the Muslim Brotherhood. I can see no benefit to paying Ikwan/Hamas/MB to be israel's friend because they are dedicated to Israel's destruction. That money should be spent on useful things like Iron Dome, better fighters, bombers and tanks. Israel should develop the ability to engage in a sustained long-range bombing campaign, which she can't do today. That would be a credible deterrent.
I think it is time for to take the ideas of Ron and Rand Paul more seriously (and not just on issues of foreign policy). The idea of blow-back needs to be discussed and considered. The notion that US involvement can often times do more harm than good needs to be seriously studied. n nAnd in a time of serious budget deficits and when entitlement programs are on the table, defense cuts also need to be considered. n nEqually important, it's time for a more insightful, intelligent strategy of how to deal with international terrorism. One of Reagan's strengths was that he understood the Soviet threat and how to counter it. n nI'm not sure the Republican party today has a similar insight into how to deal with or counter global terrorism. It may very well be that Ron Paul has something to offer in this regard – namely that there is a source to violent hatred and until one has a sophisticated understanding of what that source is they can't hope to counter the threat. n nThis is not to say that I 100% agree with Ron Paul. I see Iran as much more of a threat than he does – and while he is right that it was the US and the CIA in 1953 that help plant the seeds for the modern day Mullahs in Iran – the fanatical growth that has sprouted their needs to be dealt with. Ron Paul's ideas do more to tell us how NOT to make enemies than how to deal with them once we've made them (although even there he has what to offer). n nAll-in-all, I think both Jews and Republicans need to listen more to what Ron and Rand Paul have to say – we might find that we learn a lot in the process. n
Am shocked! And Koch brothers command Rand Paul Travel to Israel (God-Forbid). In order to look nice he will meet Thugs as well king Abdulla of Jordan & Prez Abbas of PA. I think my commentary that I made to Jonathan S. Tobin Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine article.. More Questions About the Pauls and Israel influenced Rand Paul trip here’s mine.. enjoy. nRand Paul was bluffing when he said: “Israel is strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests.” that’s a lie. Israel ain’t Strong & important ally of USA that’s was very clear for Jews who attended Boca Raton Debate. Both contenders confirmed it. I leave it for you to know who’s is the most strong and important ally of the United States, and share many mutual security interests. Israel never shared the trenches with America in any war. Israel never kept a single dime in any soldier’s pocket. Neither house them or nor feed them. There is no single evidence in sort of Letter of Credit or Escrow proves that Israel ever purchased armaments from USA. All US Arms acquired by Israel throughout extortion made to the White House & Corrupt Congress by Zionist lobby to dole DoD overstocks to Israel free of charge. What can USA share many mutual security interests with Israel? Unless Israel convert CIA to Mossad kindergarten and later degraded to Pravda Radio Station outta Langley as Aviem Sella & Jonathan Pollard did. Pollard still in prison. Back to Rand Paul. He’s ain’t following he’s Dad Footsteps. I wish he did. He has his own agenda to survive as stooopid teeebaggarr at the Senate. Koch Brothers purchased Senator Jim Bunning Senate seat for Rand Paul to be an obedient poodle and toy soldier to obey exactly what he’s recruited for in another word Rand Paul is Koch brother sleepercell in public office. GOP Israelifirsters are few and yet they are fu2721cking America at-large as we speak. Foreplaying Mrs. NO at the House and at the Senate so is Rand Paul. The more he votes NO the more his chance of survival is. THE-BIG-NO to Israel is clotured by GOP Top Brass ain’t generated from Rand Paul. Guess who call the shots? Koch Brothers know that they get nothing outta nagging Israelis but trouble, horsemanure and extortion. Koch Brothers do not require Israel’s help to extort the donut-hole they got their own why should waste money on Israel? And why should they befriend Israel? Israel has no oil!
Since when does our Constitution give Congress the autority to give money to any country? If some country attack our planes or an American ship would one call that country a friend of the U.S.?