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.
Agreed.
“Again, most of the choses are still left to everyone.
First, there’s all your vice laws.
Then, there’s your war on some drugs.
Then, there’s your online gambling ban.
..I could go on and on.
Social conservatives are not on the side of individual liberty. If they were, there’d be no need for a libertarian party, and half the liberals would come over. But there is, and they don’t. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Publicly stating this would have had you arrested during WWI in any of the Allied countries:
Germans Muslims war against nations that incessantly stick their nose into European Middle Eastern affairs. Other nations are left alone.
The one above or this one would have had you arrested during WWII:
Apparently, the definition of treason & sedition has changed dramatically over the last 60 years.
Maybe the difference is reflected in whether or not Congress actually declares war. All else is ‘police action’ and ‘pre-emption.’
It came out of the Saudi desert in 622 AD via the sword. How else do you think it spread? By peaceful missionaries? The entire religion is nothing more than a pretext to legitimize normal (in the sense that all societies throughout history have them) warlike tendencies. Its genius lies in deflecting criticism that would normally be associated with secular extremism like Fascism, Communism, etc. under the guise of religious persecution.
I admit to a certain inability to view them as anything but irrational demons, especially considering what happened to Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, those 4 Blackwater employees hanging off the Fallujah bridge, etc. etc. I had a friend that bought the farm on 9/11. He had an office in the basement of the Pentagon in the section that was hit. He left behind a wife and two kids, one of whom is a "special needs" child.I respect your feelings and empathize with your loss. Please don't take my response the wrong way.
I don't quite see why I have to understand them. I want to defeat them; vanquish them; destroy them utterly.
“First, there’s all your vice laws.”
Like what? I haven’t been arrested for a vice law yet. Still waiting...
___________________________________________________________
“Then, there’s your war on some drugs.”
Freedom of drugs? Perhaps we can be like China, around the 1700’s and have a 1/3 of our population addicted to opium.
This is common-sense. Weed maybe the most benign of them, but the rest aren’t exactly commercial benefits to society. And since our society doesn’t live on a completely free basis (on so many levels), we’re forced to support these drug-head morons....
So no.
_______________________________________________________
“Then, there’s your online gambling ban.”
This is done over economic reasons, not really social. Vegas still needs to make money. If it was pure social reason, gambling would be completely banned.
__________________________________________________________
“Social conservatives are not on the side of individual liberty. If they were, there’d be no need for a libertarian party, and half the liberals would come over. But there is, and they don’t. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
With every idea there needs to be counter-vailing views. I don’t fear the ‘social coservatives’. That’s just silly. Maybe because I’m not living a drug infested life w/gambling problems.
If that’s the epitome of social freedom, count me out. I’m a moderate libertarian conservative. I’m not fighting for idealogy....common sense will due.
No, the real difference is the Internet. Finally an anonymous vehicle in which to undermine resistance; and our enemies use it to perfection.
Have you even bothered to look at his stance on immigration and the border? And you do know he is pro-life, right? Look, I don’t agree with all his views in regards to the war on islamafascists, but otherwise, he is very conservative in most areas.
from his website:
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth as Ron Paul has shown his new leftist fans that Saddam had a motive to attack America on 9-11.
It came out of the Saudi desert in 622 AD via the sword. How else do you think it spread? By peaceful missionaries? The entire religion is nothing more than a pretext to legitimize normal (in the sense that all societies throughout history have them) warlike tendencies. Its genius lies in deflecting criticism that would normally be associated with secular extremism like Fascism, Communism, etc. under the guise of religious persecution.Sure, but it gained prominence because of the failure of alternatives, fascism(embodied by ba'athism), communism and democracy in the ME. 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.
I call it squeaky wheel syndrome.
It won’t matter; the poor man’s Ross Perot won’t get the nomination.
Etc, etc.
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.
“If that’s the epitome of social freedom, count me out.’
Then you admit social freedom is what you think it is. Thanks for proving my point.
What is it about libertarians that makes your think you are one?
I’m using the keyword “paulbearers” to mark these threads. think of it as the death throes.
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?
Because you don’t get on tv by flying a plane into a building in Mongolia. That is, if they have any tall buildings.
Where was the internet in the 1960s, that hotbed of perfidious treason? Oh, there wasn’t one.
If the president can’t be bothered to ask Congress for a declaration of war, instead advising the day after 9/11 that we could best help by going to the mall, it’s unlikely a sense of common cause will last long.
Oh, I’m a Ron Paul fan of sorts. But he’s fringe, always was, and lone voices crying in the wilderness don’t get elected president. I can’t imagine what he thinks he’s doing.
Which reminds me of one last thing. Whether you believe it or not, my roots are in the libertarian movement. Ayn Rand was my first influence...can’t get more libertarian than that.
This sort of dissention of views has gone on since Adams and Jefferson. They had differing views on what we would indentify as Conservatism and Libertarian views. Their ideas and views are still prevalent to this day. But in all essence they are allies.
They generally make-up what we call the Republican Party.
C&L should debate rigorously, but I fail to see the worth of such semantic apraisals of idealogy above common sense. Purely judging an issue off an idealogy, is often not the best means of understanding the issue.
I’m sure he thinks he’s just telling us what the deal is. Doesn’t make it right though.
;-)
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.