Paul’s position is that the wisdom of our “no-entangling alliances” founders is what should “set” (guide) our foreign policy. That way we don’t MAKE enemies for you to talk twistingly about.
I think even more than our killing of their people, the Arabs object to us trying to impose OUR values, OUR culture, OUR institutions, and OUR style of government on them. That’s why I think it is misleading to call it the War In Iraq. The honest name for it would be the War On Iraq.
We didn't have any entangling alliances when Barbary States decided to go after American shipping in the 19th century. Jefferson thought a navy was too expensive, and would get us too involved in international politics. That worked out until the Barbary States upped the amount of tribute we were required to submit to them for transit rights to the Mediterranean.
The point is that all nations, including ours, are based on taking land and other things that did not originally belong to them by force. This practice hasn't stopped just because we've stopped doing it. And the accumulation of trade routes, resources and population via conquest by other countries can present a threat to our security, depending on what areas of the world are involved. Alliances are an attempt to share the security burden and to set up tripwires far from our shores. They are also geared towards protecting our specific interests. Note that we did not get involved in territorial disputes between Morocco and Spain, and the Philippines and China, despite the existence of mutual defense treaties.
Let me point out Europe did not have any entangling alliances with Israel when Arab terrorists decided to attack them in order to persuade them to become more hostile to Israel in the '60's and '70's. Why did the Arabs attack Europe? Because the Europeans were weak. Singapore, South Africa and Taiwan have had robust security and trade relationships with Israel for decades, but there have been zero terrorist attacks there. Why is that? Perhaps because every one of these countries has the death penalty (and an expeditious process for completing capital cases within a year, including execution), and is known for torturing terrorists for information. They are emphatically not weak.
I think an important fallacy here is that we are the only active players in foreign policy and everyone else is reacting to what we do. The fact is that other players in the game have their own objectives, and some will do whatever it takes to win, including deliberately blow up buildings with tens of thousands of civilians in it. In peacetime. (If the 1993 WTC mini-van bomb incident had worked out, tens of thousands would been killed since no one would have had the time to get out). As I stated earlier, the question boils down to whether we make our own foreign policy - a foreign policy that even our friends and countries with similar values don't get to make for us - or ruthless mass murderers* (with values antithetical to our own) get to make it.
* In fact, it makes no sense to me that we make no concessions to domestic terrorists (Weathermen, Black Panthers, Puerto Rican independentistas, McVeigh-style bombers), but are being called upon to make concessions to foreign terrorists. Shouldn't charity begin at home? Aren't we being a little hypocritical? Or is submitting to foreigners somehow a little more sophisticated and cosmopolitan? Sort of like blonds putting on burkhas?
I think a little chronology is important here. 9/11 occurred *before* (and was the proximate cause for) the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, the Arabs are also trying, with some success, to impose their values, their culture and their institutions on us. The Arab empire was built on the basis of conquest and the mass murder of unbelievers. I don't think they have a leg to stand on. The world doesn't revolve Arab grievances, any more than it revolves around American grievances. They need to grow up. We're not killing them en masse in spite of their incitement of their populations to terrorism. If an Arab A-bomb goes off in an American city, we might start doing so.