I think the post makes many good and correct points, while at the same time suffering from a few inaccuracies and weaknesses in argument - some of which you pointed out. I also think the author failed to address some of those original questions head-on. But that said, I don't think it necessarily diminishes the validity of the perspective. I just think it could have been backed up better and more credibly. I jumped to praise too quickly, before I'd fully digested it, but oh well.
With regard to the foreign policy questions, it's incontrovertible that our history of interventionist action in the Middle East has fanned the fires of hatred. Does that mean the terrorists are right and justified in their actions? No, and Ron Paul has certainly never said as much. But willfully disregarding the potential repercussions of our policies, and refusing to look at the pathology of radicalizing muslims and catalyzing militant activity, is foolish and not in our security interests. That's the larger point here. That's the spirit with which I agree.
There were other questions that I thought were handled better.
My own answers are posted here.
This is an important discussion to have, and I think tossing in the word "idiocy" so abruptly is detrimental to that.
What interventionist actions, please? This is the part no one in the Paul for President campaign has deigned to explain.
I was Dr. Paul's New York State campaign manager in 1988, when he ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate. He's a good man, generally, and given his enormous respect for the Constitution he'd probably be a fine domestic president, but I don't get this bit about American interventions in the Middle East. Apart from the 1991 Gulf War, which we fought to liberate Kuwait and protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein, and the two operations going on today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't think of an incident in which American armed forces have done battle in the Middle East since 1945.
Those of us who'd like to retain our good will toward Dr. Paul would appreciate a clarification. Oh, by the way, to call one pole of a dispute "incontrovertible" isn't exactly cricket; it's like saying "sit down and shut up; I don't want to argue this any more."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Eternity Road
Of course it does. Surely having several gross inaccuracies, weaknesses of argument, and failing to address some questions diminishes the validity of the perspective being expressed.
With regard to the foreign policy questions, it's incontrovertible that our history of interventionist action in the Middle East has fanned the fires of hatred.
What "history of interventionist action"? Suppose I claim that, on the contrary, we've been too passive. Look at Iran for example; how have we "intervened" in Iran in the past 30 years? Many of the other cases often cited (aid to Egypt? defending Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein?) are cases where we are helping or aiding Muslims. To accept the notion that we've engaged in a bunch of "interventionist action" is to buy, lock stock & barrel, the Osama side of the story. It embodies a value judgment, one that can be disputed. My problem with the Paul POV is not so much that he is "factually wrong" as that he accepts and promulgates the Osama value judgment of our actions while pretending to objectivity and detachment. Hogwash.
But willfully disregarding the potential repercussions of our policies, and refusing to look at the pathology of radicalizing muslims and catalyzing militant activity, is foolish and not in our security interests.
Who's "disregarding" potential repercussions? Personally, I regarded them fully, and formed my positions with that knowledge in mind.
Who's "refusing to look at" the pathology of radicalizing Muslims? Maybe I disagree with Ron Paul about how militant activity is "catalyzed" and/or how to deal with that. Is that ok?
There is something tremendously condescending about insisting that anyone who disagrees with you on something is disregarding, or not thinking about, the issue.