Paul and his supporters, apologists for Dictators and Tyrants

Their views have transformed into a "strident anti-Americanism"

Supporting Saddam Hussein "very anti-libertarian"

Josaih Schmidt has a piece over at Rightosphere, "A Free Market in Foreign Policy." Schmidt rejects both NeoConnism, and Ron Paul strict non-interventionism. He most recently left the Paul camp. He found Paul supporters to be too quick to make excuses for Saddam Hussein and Iran's Ahmadinejad. Schmidt rather, now advocates a gradual move towards a privatized Military.

Excerpt:

Personally, I have adhered to several different schools of foreign policy thought over the span of my adult life.

After 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, I became a hardcore neoconservative: the American government ought to reprise an aggressive Wilsonian strategy of spreading democracy, changing regimes, and treating the opinions of foreign governments and international bodies as secondary concerns. As the wars dragged on, and I began to recognize the financial unsustainability and myriad unintended consequences of the government's actions abroad, I started to drift toward a Ron Paulian non-interventionism.

However, I have lately been finding myself feeling a bit out of place in all of the major foreign policy camps. In recent months, I have found some differences between Ron Paul's approach and mine. For one, many non-interventionists are so scornful and cynical of the US government's foreign policy, that it has almost transformed into a type of anti-Americanism. A lot of Paulian non-interventionists, in their well-meaning quest to avoid war, have taken to defending and apologizing for dictators and tyrants. There is a very good case to be made that the Iranian government may be developing nuclear weapons, but instead of talking about how a Paulian foreign policy could handle such a situation, most Paulians simply fervently deny that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons at all, and label any assertions to the contrary as "war-mongering". When it is reported that Ahmadinejad threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map', non-interventionists are usually among the first to claim that the Persian ruler's words were mistranslated or taken out of context. And non-interventionists' adoption of the legitimate, CIA-documented phenomenon of "blowback" often leads them to oppose foreign intervention or criticism of foreign governments by even private citizens or groups. Some Paulians even make the very anti-libertarian claim that the Saddam Hussein regime was the best government Iraqis could hope for, and that Saddam's brutality actually provided security and stability!

Schmidt goes on to suggest that privatization of the Military industrial complex would better allocate resources in War, than centrally-planned Government strategies. He further comments:

conservatives and libertarians understand better than anyone that government lacks the knowhow to plan other peoples' lives, and that central planners (in the absence of a market pricing system) lack the means to rationally allocate resources to their most value-productive uses...

return war and foreign policy to the free market, we must advocate the government spend less taxpayer money on these services, and reduce government involvement and regulations in this area, etc. Allow private firms and individuals to decide which dictators to topple (and private firms and individuals do have an interest in getting rid of these types of thieves and thugs), allow private firms and individuals to decide which nuclear facilities to bomb, allow private firms and individuals to decide how to negotiate peace between fighting factions, etc. etc.

Read the full article at Rightosphere (formerly Race42012.com)