Just heard Ron Paul on CNN, and he answered Wolf Blitzer's question about being an isolationist, as opposed to an interventionist. Frankly, I like what he said. But I still have some questions. I am also not an interventionist. But I am anything but an isolationist. Paul did state he would withdraw the US military from all overseas basis, and for the most part I don't have a problem with that. But there are certain nations who I won't name who have structured there defense policy on the US being there. At the end of the day, often our influence in certain parts of the world is based on our maintaining certain assets in a country or region. Ad to the fact we need facilities that are available for our forces to walk in, put the key in the door, and flip the "on" switch.
I have heard arguments that our carrier battle groups can pretty much do what we need to extend our reach overseas. That is not entirely true. What I
think upsets people in particular libertarians is that we pay for the privilege of protecting other nations. Sure, I see a problem with that in
concept, but consider this. Democratic governments change parties and doctrine from time to time. Having a US base or presence overseas is in effect
the same as an embassy. It's sovereign US territory with in another nation. The presence should be very subtle, and not even be noticed under the
best circumstances. But it has to be there. Thats not something you can just set up "in a couple of days".
But I was pleased to hear Ron Paul define himself as a "non-interventionist" and not an "isolationist" I like that.