It's OK If Ron Paul Is Right

TSC Daily ^ | 5/18/07 | Gregory Scoblete

[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.

[Fee]

In Australia, muzzie men scream at bikini Australian woman if they are on the beaches near their families, and will not hesitate to beat up any Australian men coming to the woman’s defense. Several times, the Australian men (including a life guard) were knifed by the Muzzies. That is the level of violence the muzzies are willing to do and they are less than 5 percent of the population, imagine what Australia will face if muzzies become 10 percent of the population?? Given enough time, muzzies will smash planes into India over Kashmir, China over Sanjing, and Russia over Chenchenia. 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.

[Steel Wolf]

Muslims war against nations that incessantly stick their nose into Middle Eastern affairs. Other nations are left alone.

Spoken like a good little Dhimmi.

How's Darfur doing these days, btw? 85 and sunny, with a 40% chance of genocide later in the evening?

[Always Right]

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?

Not really the best examples either. Australia has been the target of several attacks. In 2005, there were 17 Islamic terrorists arrested who planning major attacks in Sydney and Melborne. Then their embassy in Jakarta was attacked. The attacks in Bali in both 2002 and 2005 killed numerous Astralians.

[ketsu]

It would be OK if Ron Paul were right, but he's not. UBL's stated reasons for declaring war on the U.S. are good PR in the Arab world, nothing more. He's selling an ugly Salafist product, wrapped in sexy packaging of Resistance to Foreign Aggression!

You're mistaking cause and effect.

Osama would be a grease smear under a Russian tank tread if it weren't for American support. Likewise Hamas wouldn't exist if not for Israel backing Hamas against the PLO(during the first Intifada).

So Ron Paul is right, to an extent. If it weren't for US intervention, AQ very likely wouldn't be a problem. However, if the US didn't support the Taliban and proto-AQ Russia would have a strong position in the middle east today and may not have collapsed. It's a matter of picking your poison.

What the US does need to do though is take a long view. Does the way we deal with threats today create more threats tomorrow? US policy making needs to be less ideological and more realistic. That includes bumping off threats before they can be a problem(if the US had quietly wiped out the Taliban leaders in the 80's ...) and less whinging for "democracy"(you can see how well democracy worked for the occupied territories).

[sauropod]

Thanks for the information! Looks like I have more larnin’ to do!

Wasn’t the first WTC attack an Al Qaeda operation?

[rlmorel]

"...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..."

I am sorry folks. Nothing out of context there. This was not clumsy. He said what he said, and it is just, plain wrong.

Make all the arguments about his possession or lack of conservative credentials, but this is not the battleground you should choose to fight on.

[Always Right]

Muslims war against nations that incessantly stick their nose into Middle Eastern affairs. Other nations are left alone.

The same could be said of Nazis

[eleni121]

Another Rue Paul thread...we’re getting flooded with the 1%centers..

[kevkrom]

less intervention in the Middle East would ultimately improve American security

False. These people are out to conquer the world. They can use whatever excuse they want, but ultimately, their intent is to take over every country, either via warfare or internal methods, and make the world one giant Islamic Caliphate.

They are willing to be slow, patient, and methodical -- attitudes the modern West, and especially the non-interventionist subset of the population, sorely lack.

[agere_contra]

Jack the Ripper killed whores. Other women were left alone.

You may not like trial-by-analogy, but I think it has a certain utility on this occasion. What had those evil prostitutes done to hurt Jack the Ripper?

False Answer: they had occupied the part of Whitechapel which Jack's father had been thrown out of by the feelthy Joos.

True Answer: by simply existing, they were an affront to his world-view, and so they had to die.

[presidio9]

lol, see post 19, you appear to have some misconceptions about libertarianism...

Just a tip: If you are going to use the all-powerful "lol" you might want to have a clue what you're actually lauging at. That quote is often used by libertarians without context. It is from a July 1975 article to Reason Magazine, and it is an indication of why he did not win his party's nomination for President that year. 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. He was the most Pro-Life President we've had since Roe, he stepped up the War on Drugs radically, and he was quick to send US Forces wherever he deemed necessary. In short, Ronald Reagan would have zero time or respect for Ron Paul.

[sauropod]

Oh i see now.

Because we were not in Lebanon in large numbers, but had some soldiers there, that was justification to kill 241 of them. And we left Lebanon right after that happened.

I get it now. Thanks for illuminating my dim mind.

You frigging twit. 'Pod.

[Always Right]

Which means giving up any and all support of Israel.

We have troops in Israel? Who knew? ???? Providing support and having troops are two completely different things. You do realize we support Israel????

[Lurker]

Thanks for illuminating my dim mind.

Apparently I haven't succeed yet.

L

[Always Right]

Which means giving up any and all support of Israel.

We have troops in Israel? Who knew?

???? Providing support and having troops are two completely different things. You do realize we support Israel????....forget to add paragraph last time.

[tophat9000]

You can alway say the policy caused it because it's true but also not the question... the question is, is the policy right?

If we set a policy of becoming Muslim and join there Jihad the would love us ... but is that the policy we want?...No

OK So we set a policy based on the assumption if we don't bother them... they won't bother us.... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption ...no... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption with Islam... no... has that in the past, prove to be a good assumption with militant Islam?...hell no

So how about if they don't bother us.... We won't bother them... problem is they have a habit of uses these times of peace to prepare for the next time to bother us...

Of course you can say it not us it our friends (Israel)

Well has Israel try the same policy if we don't bother them... they won't bother us... yes... did they get the same results as us... yes....

Well maybe in just Jews... if we "Christian" just were not friends with Jews...then militant Islam would not bother us...

But Hindu and Buddhist are not and particular friends of Jews and Christians yet militant Islam seem to bother them... so maybe being a Jews or Christian is not the issue for militant Islam ... maybe militant Islam issue is with anybody thats not militant Islam... because militant Islam seem to even have issues with non militant Islam (hell militant Islam has problem with other branches of militant Islam ...

So you can alway say the policy caused it because it's true ...If we set a policy of becoming Muslim and join there Jihad the would love us ... but is that the policy we want?... We say No so it our own dam fault...

It kind like saying "no" to putting out is the reason the women got raped and therefor it's her own dam fault

[sauropod]

Interesting article in Slate. I saved it for later reading.

So Ron Paul has a point. American intervention in the middle east *does* inflame terrorism in the middle east.

I do not disagree. But what he said implies that it was the sole cause or even the major cause of it and I call BS on that. It would happen whether we were there, had been there or not.

[Rick_Michael]

Ron Paul=Idealogue

[BlackbirdSST]

Actually we, and I do mean we, were in Lebanon. That's why they attacked us in Lebanon you frigging twit.

LMAO! The bad thing here is you had to point that out. Is it any wonder we're in the mess we're in? Go Ron Go! Blackbird.

[sauropod]

Keep trying.