This got me to thinking about how Rep. Paul would have felt about the attack on Pearl Harbor. In 1941, Hawaii was not part of the United Sates. Sure it was a protectorate, but it was not a State. One of the primary arguments by the isolationists against going to War with Japan over Pearl Harbor was that it was thousands of miles from the US. Couple that with the isolationist view that we were provoking the Japanese by having troops in the Philippines, Wake Island, Hawaii, etc. and you can start to see the similarities of Rep. Paul’s view to the “traditional” conservative viewpoints of the early 20th century.
Now, conventional wisdom tells us that we learned from our mistakes of 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles. Instead of allowing an armistice, we demanded unconditional surrender. After the end of WWII we then implemented the Marshall Plan and rebuild our enemies after we have completely devastated them. One of the byproducts of WWII was the emergence of the US as a superpower on the world stage. This allowed for the explosion of our economy to an extent that our economy dwarfs every other economy in the world. To fuel that economic growth, and the lifestyle that it brings us, we have economic ties all over the world, and perhaps nowhere deeper then the middle east that provides the oil that fuels so much of the world’s economy. After all, if you don’t have gas for your car, you won’t buy one. You also need to gas for the trucks to get the products to the warehouses etc. Thus, protecting that flow of oil is in the national interests of any country that uses oil (all of them). I can only assume that Rep. Paul doesn’t understand that withdrawing ourselves into the US would devastate our economy…or perhaps he doesn’t care.