Why not Ron Paul?

Here's a hastily-written comment I made to the previous post:

I do love Ron Paul, but I won't be supporting him for President. He advocates a foreign policy of radical "non-interventionism" that would leave our allies to fend for themselves. Everyone knows that he supports an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. What some folks don't know is that he also supports the unilateral withdrawal of American troops from South Korea, Europe, and Japan. He believes we should withdraw from NATO and that we should repeal the Taiwan Relations Act.

Rep. Paul advocates free trade, but he doesn't seem to understand how the global American military presence and our treaty obligations are essential to actually securing free trade. If the U.S. withdraws from NATO and brings our troops home, as Rep. Paul would have us do, what does that do for Europe's ability to deal with a Russian Bear that is waking from its temporary hibernation? If the U.S. withdraws its forces from South Korea, how on earth does that serve to promote commerce between our two nations when the immediate impact of such a withdrawal would be to allow South Korea's more militarily powerful neighbors - North Korea and China - to fill the void created by the U.S.'s absence?

Let's not forget that today's world is one in which an all-out nuclear exchange between adversaries would take place in the space of minutes, not hours. Defense and deterrence require military alliances. International knitting clubs and global flea markets are fine and dandy, but it takes guns and armor to protect them.