You're watching...
FBN’s John Stossel on why reducing spending on the military and making it more efficient is different than having an isolationist foreign policy.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- problem with Ron Paul is his isolationist foreign policy scares the living daylights I think out of most and I won't use the term of us isolationism.
Is not the solution building a wall around the United States won't work.
-- they use the term isolationist.
That distorts the argument.
Shrinking the military's role this is the same -- isolation.
America can have a huge impact in the world without even deploying our military and we do.
What Ron Paul says is that defense ought to be defense not offense and with America going broke we can't afford to spend more on our military now.
Than we did when -- Russia threatened to annihilate us.
But we do.
Still I'm nervous talking about defense.
All these Smart people say Ron Paul -- -- just wrong.
May say America -- to spend more on the military.
And some of them studied war for years I didn't I covered market so my instincts are hard to believe them.
Except.
My covering markets I did learn -- government doesn't do anything well or efficiently.
I would be different for defense this it.
In 2004 the US military sent twelve billion dollars in -- graft.
Hundred dollar bills to Iraq packages like this a 100000 dollars each.
That twelve billion dollars disappeared we don't know what happened to.
The US official in charge said there was so much cash flying around his office they called these bricks footballs and -- Pass them around the little pick up games.
There's no cure for military and efficiency any more than there is a cure for waste at the post office.
The point is that we should rely on government central planning as little as possible.
Today some people want the military to contain China.
Chased terrorists.
Trained foreign militaries to chase terrorists.
Protect -- keep oil -- stop genocide protect European Asian and Middle Eastern states from aggression.
Spread goodwill through humanitarian.
Missions.
Respond to natural disasters security Internet police and Mexican border and transform failed states in the democracies.
Politicians have a hard time saying no to such noble goals but the list is endless.
Which is part of the problem.
Transforming states nation building as the worst form of central plan.
Eleven years ago running for president George W.
Bush said I don't think our troops ought to be used for nation build.
It four years later he said we're fighting a war is so that the Iraqis can build a nation.
I think candidate bush rather than President Bush had the right idea.
We've tried the nation build in Afghanistan now for more than ten years are we winning hearts and minds.
Don't.
A recent poll of Afghans found just 43%.
Had a favorable impression of the United States weighed down from 83%.
In 2005.
In Afghanistan our attempt to nation build leads to PowerPoint slides like this what.
When this was leaked it became a hit on the Internet because it illustrates the overwhelming complexity of the problem.
What's the likelihood that American soldiers understood this thing -- -- were able to put a workable plan into action.
Saying noted nation building the same is isolationist.
By all means let our movies and music alarm bullets let our web sites and books disseminate ideas Democrats -- dangerous.
Let's trade with -- everybody.
-- said when goods cross borders armies don't.
And a new report funded by European government says the level of armed conflict and Muslim countries is far lower today.
That it was two decades ago.
And that trade is a reason.
We do need a strong military.
But we don't need to police the whole world.
