j-mac,
et al,
I know that many, many people would agree with you on this. But, there are other issues, concepts and principles involved. I may not totally agree with Ron Paul's logic; but it does give pause for concern.
(THE ARGUMENT - THUMBNAIL - GOES LIKE THIS)
The US needs to rank it's "vital interests" with the "vital interests" of all the key players. This constant use, by political midget minds, of the phrase "US vital Interests" and "National Security" as an excuse for unilateral authority to enter into military conflicts is becoming overworked.
There are about 15-20 VLCC Oil Tankers that transit the Straits of Hormuz daily. Only a faction of them are US Flagged. But none of the Persian Gulf Terminals are US. They belong to some of the riches nations in the world. Filthy rich!
(Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman!!!) And every one of them
(with the exception of Iraq) can afford to fund their own protective defense force.
Iran has a GNP of about $187B. Kuwait $59B, Saudi Arabia $289B, Bahrain $10B, Qatar $15B, United Arab Emirates $112B and Oman $23B; not counting Iraq with $16B. For most of them, oil is their only significant export. The Straits are much more critical a passage to them, than to the US. Without the Straits, they are shut-down.
Why is it the US that has to defend the Straits? Well the answer is, the US does not. The US does so because it wants to be Regionally Relevant and exercise hegemonic like influence. The Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea Neighbors to Iran cannot afford to let Iran block the straits any more than Iran itself can afford to box-in its own exports.
Yes, I've heard all the arguments that the 5th Fleet is the only force in the region that can challenge Iran. But each time we play the role of "World Police" - we get our reputation massacred and get virtually no return on our investment. And, we further convince the Regional Government that they need not invest in their own critical defense soft points.
At a time when unemployment is at an all time high, and when the budget is stretched to its limit, when American credit has been internationally down graded, when multinational and transnational corporations
(like Exxon $370B, Royal Dutch Shell $368B, BP $297B, Sinopec $289B, etc, most having a annual revenue greater than the Persian Gulf States) are exporting jobs like crazy, do we need to spend money maintaining the 5th US Fleet to protect Persian Gulf Interests.
Defend the Persian Gulf Region today, and you'll have to do it again tomorrow; even as they condemn you for it. Make them defend themselves, and you'll save yourself the problems associated with infidels interfering.
At some point, you would think we would have learned that we cannot trust these people; and nor can we afford to defend them.
If the Regional Governments of
(Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman!!!) And if they don't have a problem with Iran, and are concerned enough to contain Iran, then why should the US?
(COMMENT)
There is some merit to the argument. And, there are some ironies.
The US did not ratify the UNC Law of the Seas convention when it was introduced nearly 30 years ago. Nor has the US ratified the International Criminal Code (Rome Statues) introduced a decade ago. Yet we tend to exercise military force under the flag of "customary law." Other nations see this as recognizing the conventions as - "when it is convenient for America." They have learned that America will selectively enforce conventions as the "World Police." But are not subject to them. We circumvent UN decrees - when they don't act the way we want (Coalition of the Un-willing), and use them when we take action.
But no matter what the argument - it will not stop the US from taking a military confrontational position. The US needs, it is an essential need, to be militarily relevant in the region.
People like Ron Paul see a different way. Let's not be too hard on them.
Most Respectfully,
R
