Ron Paul: Stop Nation Building & Cut Military Spending to Keep Us Free and Safe

by Ron Paul

Grover Norquist, the influential conservative activist, recently made some very frank and sobering remarks about the U.S. military budget. Unlike many conservatives, Mr. Norquist understands that American national security interests are not served by the interventionist foreign policy mindset that has dominated both political parties in recent decades. He also understands that there is nothing “conservative” about incurring trillions of dollars in debt to engage in hopeless nation building exercises overseas.

Speaking at the Center for the National interest last week, Norquist stated that “We can afford to have an adequate national defense which keeps us free and safe and keeps everybody afraid to throw a punch at us, as long as we don’t make some of the decisions that previous administrations have, which is to over extend ourselves overseas and think we can run foreign governments.”

He continued: “Bush decided to be the mayor of Baghdad rather than the president of the United States. He decided to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan rather than reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That had tremendous consequences… Richard Nixon said that America’s national defense needs are set in Moscow, meaning that we wouldn’t have to spend so much if they weren’t shooting at us. The guys who followed didn’t notice that the Soviet Union disappeared.”

When a prominent DC conservative like Grover Norquist makes such bold statements, it shows that public support for a truly conservative foreign policy is growing. The American people simply cannot stomach more wars and more debt, especially with our domestic economy in tatters.

The American people should reject the hype about so called defense “cuts” from both side of the political spectrum. When the Obama administration calls for an 18% increase in 2013 military spending, those who propose a 20% increase portray this as a reduction!

Even the supposedly draconian cuts called for in the “sequestration” budget bill would keep military spending at 2006 levels when adjusted for inflation, which is about as high in terms of GDP as during World War II. It’s also more than the top 13 foreign countries spend on defense combined. Furthermore, sequestration only cuts military spending for one year after taking effect. In future years Congress is free to reinstate higher military spending levels– so under sequestration the most drastic case would mean spending $5.2 trillion instead of $5.7 trillion over the next decade.

Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the Pentagon hawks? Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, America easily would remain the world’s dominant military power. Our problems don’t result from a lack of spending. They result from a lack of vision and a profound misunderstanding of the single biggest threat to every American man, woman, and child: the federal debt.


  • Russia was collapsing, at that time, regardless who was in office. Reagan made the MIC boardmembers rich, while Americans skipped from one recession to the next. After the Reagan’s terms, Bush Sr. had to ride out the costs of the Reagan years: The 1992 Recession. The Military Industrialists needed an excuse for more funding, hence the Iraq War #1. You have to be really naive not to see this (or maybe you weren’t alive during that period of time).

  • well you are trying to say that a military build up is a domestic policy (even though we sent a lot of our soldiers to Europe). It is perfectly logical to ask what you call helping build up other countries military’s. You are splitting hairs so badly I thought you were going to try to say its also part of some sort of domestic policy and its still non interventionism.

  • “While I admit the increasing foreign aid is against non-intervention.”
    – HandyMan101

    are you just emotionally responding to my posts? or are you actually reading them….

  • so what do you call Reagan sending money to other counties like Britain, France and West Germany to build their militaries to help us fight the Soviet Union if war broke out? Was that a domestic action? Was it non interventionism? It was Reagan ignoring Ron Paul like what I said to begin with.

    Do you think Ron Paul would have said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”?

  • The Taliban didnt form until the 90s and it was formed in Pakistan not Afghanistan and the Soviet occupation was over by that point. But Ron Paul twists the truth around to make it look like we support the Taliban during the 80s in Afghanistan.

    Secondly, when we went in in 2001, the Afghanis overwhelmingly turned against the Taliban and helped us out.Ron Paul instead distorts the truth, makes it sound like we were paying OBL during the 80s to push his libertarian agenda.

  • It is the responsiblity of the United States government to fight for OUR defense.

    Sending kids off to die for the defense of other countries is immoral.

    I’m sorry you can’t see that.
    And I’m sorry your allowed to vote.

    Increasing the military is a domestic action. Not an interventionist one.
    Try to learn the difference.

  • Ron Paul doesn’t try to make America look bad. The Taliban formed during the soviet occupation of Afghanistan. We were giving the people that became the Taliban money. It’s not about pushing any Agenda it’s not about parties its about common sense. Your logic doesn’t make sense.The “them” that we funded is the Taliban while it was forming.

  • My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.
    Ronald Reagan

    Just because there was not war doesnt mean it was non interventionism. Increasing the military is action.

    Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
    Ronald Reagan

    Ron Paul would have said “Mr. Gorbachev, I dont care if you tear down the wall or not. Someone will eventually tear down the wall but I dont want to offend you so please dont hurt me.”

  • do you know what non-intervention means?

    If you see a fight, you don’t get involved.
    We did not attack the USSR. We did not invade. Even with missiles in Cuba we called them up and backed down from War. While I admit the increasing foreign aid is against non-intervention. Threats are just words, not action. “intervention” is action. “rightly so” lol So you know what would have happened if we hadn’t done those things? What’s it like to predict the future?

  • Reagan did a defense build up, threatened war against the Soviet Union and bolstered our allies military and increased foreign aid. That is not non interventionism. Exact opposite of what Ron Paul says. Reagan ignored Ron Paul and rightly so.

  • please stop with the Ron Paul propaganda. OBL was not the leader of any groups during the 80s. The Taliban and Al Qaeda didnt even exist when we were funding Afghani rebel groups. Then us funding them worked out in the end because when we went in, the Northern Alliance helped us in overthrowing the Taliban. Lets see Ron Paul talk about the Northern Alliance helping us. But Ron Paul prefers to make America look as bad as possible to push his libertarian agenda.

  • OBL’s forces were trained and supplied with weapons by the United States. We currently support the rebel uprisings overthrowing dictators that we put in power. If the United States supports democracy they shouldn’t fund dictators. Afghanistan was and is a money vacuum. The Soviet Union ran out of money from being there to long. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. More like “fund my enemy and then fight them later with the money we gave them”.

  • Stop ignoring the good parts and only focusing on the bad. I don’t endorse Regeans choices, but in this one regard it follows Ron Paul’s advice.

  • I don’t know what Regan recieved as Advice… But non intervention means not invading a country, sanctions, or doing anything aggressive at them.

    Regan did that, according to Ron Paul’s motto of non intervention.

    As bad as the spending was, and the debt, and the military build up, Ron Paul has often said something that they had “30,000 missiles pointed at us, and we didn’t have to fight them”

    Sounds like Regan did what Ron Paul preaches in terms of aggression\nonintervention

  • I was talking about military aggression also. Firing bullets is just one aspect. you cant pick some small aspect and ignore everything else then say Reagan followed Ron Paul’s advice.

  • I was speaking in terms of military aggression.

    I never even touched on those other topics…

  • Namaste

  • Reagan did the exact opposite of what Ron Paul wanted. Reagan increased military spending, increased aid to our allies, and cut all trade with the Soviet Union violating Ron Paul idea of free trade with all nations. All of which Ron Paul opposed. Ron Paul wanted to not help our allies by cutting aid and overseas spending to them, cut military spending, and have free trade with the Soviet Union to increase relations with them. How is that following Ron Pauls advice?

  • We would give money to Mubarak because he was an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood, signed a peace treaty with Israel and was pro America

    we funded Saddam b/c Khomeini attacked our embassy unprovoked and tried to overthrow Saddam in the 80s. The enemy of my enemy is my friend

    We funded the Afghanis in the 80s because the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and lost. How are you going to say nothing good came out of that? OBL was a soldier on the ground. Saying we funded OBL is twisting history

  • secondly, Soviet Union did collapse through US intervention. The problem with you Ron Paul supporters is you dont understand leadership or foreign policy. The Soviet Union did start to fall apart from the inside, but it was under the leadership of Reagan that people united around and it was Reagan standing up to the Soviet Union is when people united to remove the Soviet Union. It didnt happen on its own. It collapsed through US intervention not on its own.