I understand that we did not arm OBL directly during the Soviet’s stay in Afghanistan. But to think that we did not enable jihad is absurd. Our people at the time may not have THOUGHT they were helping support jihad, but the reality is they were. The vast majority of Americans including those at State, DoD, and CIA didn’t even understand the term back then, and we are still not using the term now in State or DoD, as I understand it.
Not recognizing that we helped create the conditions for 9/11 by enabling the mujaheddin is no better than calling Hasan and Fort Hood “workplace violence”. It is a studied ignorance of the nature of what we are dealing with.
Note that this is not saying we were 100% at fault for 9/11 by supporting the mujahideen, and by being present in the Middle East, which is what the Left often does. Ultimately Islamics are responsible for their behavior, and their behavior largely hasn’t changed in 1500 years. And Paul seems to more than hint at “getting” this in his speech.
But glossing over the fact that we created some of the conditions that led to OBL being shacked up in Afghanistan does us no good. We must understand the past to better act now for improved future outcomes.
“Not recognizing that we helped create the conditions for 9/11 by enabling the mujaheddin is no better than calling Hasan and Fort Hood “workplace violence”. It is a studied ignorance of the nature of what we are dealing with.”
Your argument is so flawed, it’s difficult to begin.
We did not arm OBL, nor the mujahedin, which were foreign grouops. We armed the local Afghan Alliance to fight the invading Soviets.
Your leap away from logic to connect that to 9-11 is extraordinary. You further weaken you argument by making another leap away from logic and comparing your first failed analysis to the Hassan “workplace violence” act.