It's OK If Ron Paul Is Right

Quixotic presidential candidate Ron Paul landed himself in a bit of hot water - make that a boiling cauldron - for remarks he made in last week's GOP debate suggesting that America's containment of Saddam Hussein led to 9/11.

Responding to a question about whether Paul was blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, he stated: "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there."

Mayor Giuliani interjected in high dudgeon sending the crowd, and later conservative pundits, to their feet. But what Ron Paul said is, in fact, utterly uncontroversial and utterly true. Nowhere did Paul suggest ala Ward Churchill that the U.S. deserved to be attacked, he merely sought to explain the motives of those who attacked us. His explanation was certainly incomplete and a bit ham-handed, but it was not inaccurate or blatantly false.

In fact, if Ron Paul was "blaming the victim" as Mayor Giuliani indignantly implied, then he is in the company of such notorious America-haters as the current President of the United States, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense, the editorial boards of the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal, and many, many conservative pundits and intellectuals.

In a now famous November 6, 2003 address, President Bush explicitly linked U.S. policy with the rise of Islamic terrorism:

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."

This "accommodation" takes many forms, from the generous subsidies to the Mubarak regime in Egypt to the protection of the Saudi "royal" family and other Gulf potentates, first from Saddam Hussein and now from Iran.

In fact, the entire neoconservative argument for "regional transformation" rests on the notion that the prevailing political order in the Middle East - a political order sustained by American patronage and protection - has nurtured the conditions for bin Ladenism and must therefore be overturned.

Paul Wolfowitz - hardly a blame-America-firster - defended the removal of Saddam Hussein explicitly on the grounds that it would assuage one of bin Laden's grievances. In an interview with Vanity Fair the former Assistant Defense Secretary said that U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia had "been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina."

Wolfowitz was correct, of course. In a 1998 fatwa signaling his jihad against America and the West and in interviews, bin Laden cited the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia (necessary for containing Saddam) and the supposed depredations visited upon Iraq by the U.S. through sanctions and the no-fly-zones among his principle grievances. More significantly, America's support for "infidel" regimes led bin Laden to conclude that only by striking the "far enemy" (the U.S.) could he sufficiently weaken American support for the "near enemy" regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, making them easier targets. This initially put him at odds with his number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, who wanted to focus the jihadist firepower on Middle Eastern governments.

On a more transactional level, American support for anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan is widely understood as have playing an instrumental role in the formation of al Qaeda. Pakistan's intelligence service routed American arms and Saudi money to radical forces in Afghanistan to beat back the Soviet invasion. The beneficiaries of this covert subsidy included Osama bin Laden and many of the "Arab Afghans" volunteers who would later form the nucleus of al Qaeda.

Lastly, opinion polls in the Middle East routinely portray a region bristling against American policies and influence (though not, it should be noted, with unrestrained hostility for Americans as a people). Throw in radical Islamic teachings, which reinforce the need to cleanse "holy soil" of any infidel influence, and you have the toxic stew from which al Qaeda sips.

Different analysts weight these two factors - radical theology and nationalistic umbrage - differently. I've argued earlier that this interpretative divide is largely fictitious, that radical Islam is both a reaction to American policies and an expression of Islamic fundamentalism. But it is simply counter-factual to suggest that America's Middle East policy has played no role whatsoever in the terrorist threat we're now confronting.

I believe it's because many conservatives, especially since 9/11, have become increasingly unwilling to internalize the simple maxim that government actions have consequences - many of them unintended, some of them negative. Conservatives are rightly skeptical of grand government initiatives aimed at curing various domestic ills. Yet some have become convinced that the same bureaucrats who cannot balance the budget will nonetheless be able to deftly manage the political outcomes of nations half a world away. The tendency is so acute that it led the libertarian blogger Jim Henley to wryly observe that for some "Hayek stops at the water's edge."

Furthermore, understanding why bin Laden struck at America is not the same as excusing the murderers of 9/11 anymore than observing that Hitler desired Lebensraum excuses his invasion of Poland. Knowing your enemy is the all-important first step to defeating him.

Indeed, Paul has done the debate a fundamental service by raising the complex issues of cost and benefit when it comes to America's Middle East policy. You can argue, as former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski did, that a few "stirred up Muslims" was worth the price of driving a defeated Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. You can also argue, as the Bush administration has done, that 9/11 was not a serious enough event to merit a substantial rethinking of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. You can even claim that more, not less, intervention in the Middle East is what is required to bring about needed change.

What you cannot seriously argue is that the world is a "consequence free" zone in which U.S. actions can never catalyze harmful reactions.

American policy cannot be held hostage to the umbrage of religious fanatics, but we should pursue our policies with the clear-eyed understanding that government is a blunt instrument and that bureaucrats in Washington are not all-knowing sages capable of fine-tuning events and people in far away countries to precisely accord with our interests.

Indeed, beneath his awkward syntax, Ron Paul was making a serious point: that less intervention in the Middle East would ultimately improve American security. If Mayor Giuliani disagrees, he should at least explain why.

I can’t remember the last time a politician suggested all foreigners might not be completely happy with US foreign policy over the past 50 years...

Being "not completely happy with" US foreign policy, and coming to the US to murder random Americans, are not the same thing. It is actually frightening that there are people like you who think that they are. If I took you seriously I would conclude that you believe that randomly-killing-civilians-of-nation-X is a rational and normal reaction to not being happy with nation X's foreign policy.

After re-reading your post three times and giving it some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that you have no idea what we're talking about. Your points are basically accurate, but are not germane to what is being discussed. Like many Ron Paul supporters, (or Paul himself) you seem to have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Thanks for the reply, though.

I'm not a Paul supporter. However I do think Paul broke GOP lockstep enough to allow problems with American strategy in the middle east to be discussed. Which aspects do you think aren't relevant?

“Purely judging an issue off an idealogy, ‘

The word is ideology.

And as a libertarian, I believe I own myself, and anything I do that does not do violence to another is no business of the state. Your definition of libertarian is... what?

However I do think Paul broke GOP lockstep enough to allow problems with American strategy in the middle east to be discussed. Which aspects do you think aren't relevant?

Specifically, the cause and effect analysis. Yes, the U.S. supported Islamists against the Soviets. Lesser of two evils, good strategy, worked well. But we didn't cause extreme Islamism. Even if we've supported it from time to time as a matter of politics, it's not our creation.

So, you can't pin U.S. interventionism on the creation of Islamism, and, by extention, 9/11. Sounds neat and clean, but it doesn't hold water.

As far as breaking the GOP lockstep, I've been watching the Ron/Rudy threads for days now. By and large, it's ignorant, snooty-sounding RP partisans against ignorant, offended-sounding mainstreamers. The lockstep on either side is in no danger of being broken.

Only after all of those alternatives had failed to channel the national drives of the people in the ME did radical Islam take over as the radical ideology of the ME.

But my central point is "I don't care". If anyone should have a grievance, it's us. I don't see blacks flying airplanes into downtown Mexico City as a result of millions of 'immigrants' forcing them out of their (US) ancestral homes.

Or what about the 100s of thousands of UAW workers who have had their lives disrupted & have suffered tremendous economic hardships as a result of Japanese automakers capturing increasing market share?

Or how about everyone else targeting China and/or Walmart for altering our basic underlying manufacturing capacity and way of life?

The bottom line is that the only constant is change. The West deals with it well; the ME doesn't. They're not oppressed - they're just resentful.

There are non-Muslims in Peru, Norway, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia. Why don't Muslims fly planes into buildings and pursue jihad against these nations?

Peru and South Africa: far away and not important enough. No one ever said the jihadis wage jihad against everyone at the same time without regard to the value of the target or to global strategy. Sheesh. (They don't bother with Iceland much either. This proves exactly nada.)

Australia: as others have pointed out, please google "Bali bombings".

Norway: as others have pointed out, Norway is having a serious criminality/rape problem with their non-assimilating domestic Muslim immigrant population.

Mongolia: even that's a bad example. Please google "Uighurs", "Xinjiang", etc.

“Then you admit social freedom is what you think it is. Thanks for proving my point.”

You have no point. I realize what the idealogy of social freedom is. I can do anything if I don’t harm someone physically.

Yet the world is not that simple.

______________________________________________________

“What is it about libertarians that makes your think you are one?”

I’m not an idealogical libertarian. I’m a moderate libertarian conservative.

I believe in as much freedom economical as possible. I actually believe in a private banking system...void of a centralized bank.
—
I believe that social freedoms should be many, but it shouldn’t be a stamp of approval. If all laws allowed for people to screw themselves over, then I would be more than willing to let them. As we have it, social freedoms of the drug sort would transfer fiscal hardship to others....as they already do with cigarettes.

If you don’t think they effect our medical industry and the costs,...well. They do. Methods of resolution may differ, but an idealogical stance is often one-sided.
—

I don’t agree with conservatives often. For one, I don’t think we should have went to Iraq (atleast at the time and how). I think the war should have been declared out-right, and not through vague authorizations.

But I’m not going to favor Ron’s view of pull-out over idealogy. The liberal/Libertarian view on leaving the war right-now (if possible)is just political crap.

“And as a libertarian, I believe I own myself, and anything I do that does not do violence to another is no business of the state. Your definition of libertarian is... what?”

Pretty-much the same thing. Although I don’t live in a fantasy world, so I don’t cling to theories.

Ultimately everything is the pratical and the idealistic. Only using one side of the equation is worthless.

I went back and looked. The bombers in Beirut were from the Amal movement, were Shia, and were directed by Iran through an ambassador to commit the act. This came out in a 2003 court case adjudicated by Royce Lamberth.

I have been unable to find any specific statement that says the Marines were bombed because we were in Lebanon.

Do you have one?

...non-Muslims in Peru, Norway, South Africa, Mongolia, and Australia. Why don’t Muslims fly planes into buildings and pursue jihad against these nations?

Did you actually mean to write that drivel? Your inane reasoning makes it appear that you are affiliated with the STATE dept. or the DU.

But perhaps we should be more cognizant of the fact that actions have unintended consequences, and that defending our vital interests in the world is a bit like using one finger to plug a dam with many holes.

But on the flip side, not taking action, also has unintended consequences.

People are going to be pissed off no matter what course of action (or non-action) you take. Just make sure you piss the right people off, and from what I've seen, our actions in Iraq have pissed off the right people.

I would excuse the awkward syntax, because of the difficulty in handling a complex subject in 30 and 60 second sound bites. It is to be hoped that someone will air a debate that lasts several hours, and allows at least five minute speeches.

Your other point is right on the money. After two days of vile invective, the Paul detractors have yet to actually address his argument. They prefer to feign outrage and hurl invective. Their mindset reminds one, very uncomfortably, of that which prevailed in Soviet Russia from 1917 on, or that which prevailed in Socialist Germany from 1933 to 1945. We must not let their like stifle free debate in America!

Neocons = Woodrow Wilson Democrats.

No, actually, their original guru, according to their proclaimed "Godfather," was Leon Trotsky, one of the most notorious butchers of the 20th Century. (See Neocon Phenomenon.)

Wilson, while off base on post World War I foreign policy, actually supported efforts to stop the Communists, at the time when Trotsky was Lenin's right hand thug.

William Flax

You can’t be serious. Social conservatism is founded on telling other people how to live.

It is sad to see forms of "New Speak," cropping into this forum. Conservatism is about conserving, not adopting new restrictions. Social conservatism may support traditional restrictions--such as enforcing laws against theft, rape, assault, etc..--but it is about conserving the values and cultural achievements of the particular society involved. Words have meanings that should be respected.

Primary among the social values of traditional America, are the treasured personal liberties and personal independence of the American citizen. Social Conservatism in America is very closely allied to the Libertarian values of the Founding Fathers.

The problem I have with a lot of modern (neo)"conservatism" is that it's based on entirely on painting a black and white picture of the way the world works. If you paint your enemies as irrational demons you fail to understand them and you put yourself in a very real position to lose.

I would rank Islam as more evil than Socialism, Communism, Nazism, or any other movement in history. Oh sure, those left-wing movements have killed over 100 million people, but Islam will eventually dwarf those. It is far more dangerous because it is a religion, it is spread across the entire globe, and there is nothing peaceful about it. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims spread out over the world. The vast majority are decent folk, but when religion is involved, even the slightest incident can turn most decent folk into something very dangerous. Once Islamic controlled countries get nuclear weapons, the world will be a very different place. We can sit back and ignore it, or we can try to stop it. It should be our highest priority to ensure that no Islamic country gets nukes, but Iran is almost there. IMHO, sitting back and not getting involved is not the answer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.