Written by John Brock   

Governor Perry, in preparing for a 2016 Presidential run, chides Senator Paul for what Perry terms “isolationist policies.”

Governor Rick Perry’s op-ed in the Washington Post is a desperate and likely fruitless attempt to get the upper hand over Rand Paul in the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary election, which is over 18 months away. Perhaps only thing it is lacking more than substance is clarity. Perry criticizes Sen. Paul for “isolationism,” but Perry fails to demonstrate how his policy would be different and how the outcome would be preferable to that of Paul’s policy. Perry, like so many GOP Presidential candidates before him, is so ignorant about what is going on in the world that he does not feel comfortable debating these issues during the 2016 GOP primary debates; he would rather use the op-ed pages of the US’s largest newspapers to do so in the hope that when it comes time for the real debate, Perry will not have to defend his militaristic and damaging foreign policy before the American people.

Perry, like so many others who hold a neoconservative worldview, uses the charge of “isolationism” against his opponents, and in so doing reveals that he has not even the slightest grasp of the concept. Isolationism is not simply the absence of military action, nor is it a willingness to follow international law (i.e. do not attack another nation unless provoked). In fact, when the U.S. attacked Iraq in 2003 in violation of international law, something Perry states in his op-ed that he supported, the action could be considered isolationist, because it was the “go it alone” approach and created more enemies of the U.S. Isolationism is denoted by an unwillingness to follow international law and be a part of the international community, not the opposite as Perry and so many others claim.

Perry hails from a deluded school of thought that believes that an invasion of a foreign country (by the U.S.) is somehow a blessing and that it creates liberty. Never mind that Americans would loudly exclaim “BULLSHIT” if a foreign government invaded the U.S. and said they are liberating its people. Perry does not know this because he cannot perform the simple task of putting himself in another’s place (i.e. employing empathy), while Paul apparently is able to do so. The notion that the people who support intervention in Iraq want to save Iraqi lives rings very hollow, given that these very same people supported invading Iraq in 2003, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The logical question for Perry is: if you care so much about Iraqi lives, why did you support the destruction of those lives previously?

Perry is scared, on behalf of the military-industrial complex, that the American people might positively receive Paul’s message of not jumping into every conflict around the world (non-interventionism). In fact, more and more polls are showing what may turn out to be a nightmare for neoconservatives: that a majority of the American people are against haphazard preemptive military interventions and would rather see those funds spent on other things domestically, instead of killing foreigners abroad. Killing foreigners via mass murder is one of the very least efficient uses of taxpayer money, and increasing numbers of Americans are beginning to realize this.

Like in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary, when Hillary Clinton was considered more of a hawk, and Barack Obama was considered more of a dove, Perry and Paul will be in the same positions in 2016, respectively. Although it is true that Obama largely caved to the demands of the military-industrial complex once he became President, the military-industrial complex undoubtedly had to work hard behind the scenes to convince Obama to come around to their side. If Hillary Clinton or Rick Perry is elected President in 2016, the military-industrial complex will be able to sit tight and know that the new President will work on their behalf. If Rand Paul is elected, significantly more effort may be required, without the guarantee of success.

Rick Perry, if he is going to continue utilizing the same “theories” used by every neoconservative for the last 13 years, needs to change his messaging if he seeks to convince people of the validity of the alternate universe in which he lives. Perry’s fear-mongering in his piece is undoubtedly despicable, but again, is nothing new to anyone who has heard a neoconservative politician speak over the past decade. Let us hope that the American people, whether Democrat, Republican, or independent, will see through façade of Perry in 2016.