Posted on 05/18/2007 8:13:13 AM PDT by traviskicks
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.
Cause & Effect
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.
So why was Paul savaged?
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 don’t disagree that there are certain aspects of social conservatism that have brownshirt tendencies. However, libertarians are not anarchists. As both Hayek and Von Mises pointed out, a certain amount of enforced social constraint is not only necessary to maintain civilization, it is healthy. For instance, the original laws against prostitution throughout most of Western Civilization were put in place to control the rampant spread of venereal diseases.
I consider myself a social conservative, but I am a strong libertarian. That means I hold conservative views with regard to morality and social interaction. However, I do not believe it is a proper function of government to enforce my social views on others. One cannot equate social conservatism with fascist policy as a blanket generalization.
” However, I do not believe it is a proper function of government to enforce my social views on others. ‘
Bingo. That’s the domain of social conservatism.
There is no historical evidence to back up such an assertion. It is pure conjecture.
It is far more dangerous because it is a religion...
How does that make a difference? I hope you're not implying that religion has any more culpability in promoting violence than any other factor. That is a canard that can easily be refuted.
The vast majority are decent folk, but when religion is involved, even the slightest incident can turn most decent folk into something very dangerous.
Evidence? Once again, this is wild conjecture based on a popular but false notion that religion causes violence.
Once Islamic controlled countries get nuclear weapons, the world will be a very different place.
How so? Will they suddenly have the abilities, namely delivery systems and consistent weaponry, that most of the rest of the nuclear club does not?
Funny how NONE of the quotes sited agree with Paul’s contention at all. As usual the Hysteric Fringers seem to think if they simply scream the lie louder and longer it will magically become “truth”
The fact is Ron Paul is actively propagaqndizing for the enemies of the USA. If anyone on the LEFT had said it the same freeper fringers who are so busy making EXCUSES for Paul would be screaming “treason”.
Maybe the Know Nothings MIGHT finally READ the Fatwa you all so blithely claiming justifies Ron Paul’s treason. DOn’t just quote a line or two, actually READ it this time.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
So Ron Paul agrees with Bin Laden. When a Democrat does that you all scream “treason”. Funny how desperate you all are to try and make excuses for Paul’s demonstrated mental incompetent.
We have had a military presence in Saudi Arabia for decades, so the answer to your question is “Yes.”
And if we don’t learn how our enemy thinks, we can never devise the proper stratagem to defeat him. Hate to be the one to tell you this, but Dr. Paul IS correct on this.
I just wish Paul didn’t bring it up in this format. It was impossible for him to summarize this arguement in 30 seconds to bunch of rabid WOT is all that matters people, especially after being set up with the questioning in the first place. I agree with him in as much as our meddling in the mid east decades ago has come back to haunt us in the form of islamofascists, 9/11 isn’t our fault but it is a great way to distract the peasants over there so they don’t kill the king/mullah keeping them in the stone age. It’s an excellent tool for the fed and govt. at all levels over here to do what govt. does best - infringe upon our liberties and consolidate power.
He lost me because he wasn’t able to communicate this subtle and important point and he shitcanned his campaign, but worse he lost his credibility and now all his wisdom will be easily discounted as “crazy talk” by the big govt. GOP cheerleaders.
Why do we have to stop supporting Israel? Why don’t we just let them blow up who ever the hell they want and sell them all the bombs they want?
So what you’re saying is that your brand of “conservatism” is anti personal freedom and anti Constitution? You are one sick puppy, me boyo. One sick puppy. But it IS good to know where you stand on the subject. Freedom isn’t conservative. The Constitution which set up this nation isn’t conservative. Who’da thunk it?
There is no historical evidence to back up such an assertion. It is pure conjecture.
The number was not important, but between just Stalin and Hitler alone, most historians would put that number at over 50 million. I am not sure what the point was in arguing about what the number is. It is unimportant to the discussion.
It is far more dangerous because it is a religion...
How does that make a difference? I hope you're not implying that religion has any more culpability in promoting violence than any other factor. That is a canard that can easily be refuted.
Religion more than an ideology can make people act irrationally. When you have a religion as Islam where it's mission it to convert people or kill them, it is more dangerous than any ideology I know of. When you have about of quarter of the world who claim that as a religion, you have the recipe for disaster. I think it is naive to think otherwise
The vast majority are decent folk, but when religion is involved, even the slightest incident can turn most decent folk into something very dangerous.
Evidence? Once again, this is wild conjecture based on a popular but false notion that religion causes violence.
No evidence?!?!? I guess Islam having about 1500 history of fighting wars whose sole purpose is to advance their religion isn't evidence enough. I don't think religion inherently causes wars. Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. are capable of having peaceful co-existence with other religions. A fundamentalist Muslim who takes his/her religion as it is written, can not. Islam is inherently a religion of war.
Once Islamic controlled countries get nuclear weapons, the world will be a very different place.
How so? Will they suddenly have the abilities, namely delivery systems and consistent weaponry, that most of the rest of the nuclear club does not?
You assume it requires a missile-based delivery system. We can not even prevent 20 million people from crossing our borders. There is no reason to believe that we can stop someone who is determined to get nuclear weapons into this country from doing so. Even so, it will only take a few more Clintons or Carters and Islamic countries will have deliver systems.
Selling them bombs is supporting them. It is not like Muslims don't know who made the bombs.
It is in their nature to commit violence because unlike most religions, muzzies did not go thru a period of enlightment in their history. They went from the Middle Ages to Modern Age.
Excellent point worth repeating!
Are you seriously making the argument that if we had stayed in Camp LeJeune the Iranians would have bombed us?
Take your time....this should be good.
L
Actually, an interview.
Ronald Reagan is held as an ideal by Conservatives for the man he became as President, not for who he was when he was a registered Democrat, or when he was a libertarian governor who signed an abortion bill into law in California. The man EVOLVED into a Conservative after much soul-searching.
Wasn't he President in 1982? Why do I ask? Because he said:
[T]here is a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches -- political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.Oh yeah, Conservatism is against personal freedom. Yeah, right.
I was referring to your assertion that Islam will dwarf the number. There is no historical evidence to support that. The Islamic conquests of Europe and Mesopotamia were relatively bloodless.
Religion more than an ideology can make people act irrationally.
Once again, that is conjecture based on a popular myth. There is no historical evidence to support that argument.
I guess Islam having about 1500 history of fighting wars whose sole purpose is to advance their religion isn't evidence enough. I don't think religion inherently causes wars. Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. are capable of having peaceful co-existence with other religions.
Well first, that is patently untrue. Islam's history is no more violent than Christendom's. Second, the conquests of the Ottoman Turks and the Moores were more about territory than religion. Any number of generals and warlords have claimed religion in their banner, but religion usually has little to do with the fight. You might as well blame economics since it has a far bloodier history than religion.
We can not even prevent 20 million people from crossing our borders.
Indeed, and all of our interventionism in the Middle East doesn't seem to have changed that fact a bit, has it? Even worse, this neocon President seems to have facilitated that condition. In any case, the myth of the "suitcase nuke" has been adequately debunked elsewhere and is nothing but a fairy tale to frighten children and excite Hollywood producers.
As usual, it is always best to use history as our guide in geopolitical situations and it tells us there is no chance that any sovereign nation can be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons once it is determined to do so. That leaves us only with the option of invasion and occupation, making us no better than any other thug regime who has gone before us.
Hey, OrthodoxPresbyterian, looks like someone needs to go to school.
Paul is right whether Bin Laden really means what he says or not. He may merely be trying to appeal to the masses with his talk of fighting foreign aggression, but it doesn't matter, because it does in fact appeal to the masses. The U.S.' policies in the middle east have been very helpful to AQ's recruiting, whether or not that's really Bin Laden's beef.
They proved it in 1979. Or had you forgotten?
Think about this. The people who blowed up the Barracks were Lebanese. They did so after being told to by Iran.
Why did Iran tell them to do so? Think real hard. Take your shoes off if you want to. Count your toes.
I'm sure you'll come up with the answer, what with your superior intellect and all.
Thank you for answering my question. At least someone paid attention enough to do so.
I know how our enemy thinks. They don’t hide it. They come right out and tell us. Go to www.memri.org and look for yourself.
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.