Positive Article on Ron Paul's 9/11 Stance

Questerr · #1 (**permalink**) 05-22-2007, 07:11 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...274174,00.html

Quote:

Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point
Monday , May 21, 2007

By Radley Balko
ADVERTISEMENT
The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."

Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them.

What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.

This isn't to say we should never bomb an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to attack and topple them from government.

But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies (read: Saudi Arabia).

Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.

But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. The head of the Michigan GOP demanded he be excluded from future debates.

Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). One former staffer declared Paul an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.

This is all patently absurd. Actually, it's offensive. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise as outside the bounds of civilized debate is doubly ignorant.

If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests anywhere you can find them, smacking them with sticks. You're bound to get stung again.

It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place and trying to prevent it from happening again.

Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:

— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

— Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:

— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.

The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right.

Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.

JavaBlack · #2 (**permalink**) 05-22-2007, 08:15 AM

Pretty good article. This part bears repeating:

Quote:

The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them

Perhaps we'll see the death of that strawman once and for all.

richrf · #3 (**permalink**) 05-22-2007, 08:29 AM

Unfortunately, the U.S has been messing around in the Middle East far longer than that. We can go back to 1953 and the overthrow of Iran's Mosaddeq by the CIA in 1953.

Questerr · #4 (**permalink**) 05-22-2007, 09:47 AM

rich, are you in agreement with the Blowback theory, or against it. The overthrow of the Prime Minister of Iran is one of the major contributing factors in the Blowback's concept of US influence assisting the radicalization of the Islamic world.

If we would have put the Shah of Iran into power for purely greedy economic reasons (he wanted to Nationalize the Iranian oil industry and bring in more money to help the Iranian people, instead of having their oil profits leeched out of the country), then likely the 1979 Revolution would not have happened. The Shah's crackdown on the even the more liberal clerics (not mention assasinations and exiles of the conservative ones) and his secret police's widespread, rampant torture of anyone with a dissenting point of view led directly to the Revolution.

richrf · #5 (**permalink**) 05-22-2007, 01:28 PM

Yes, all of history is a chain of events. The U.S. began its efforts to plant a "foothold" in the MiddleEast in the 1950s, in order to preserve our interests in the region including oil and shipping commerce (as do almost all industrialized nations). We are a species of "consumers" (that is how we are referred to by our leaders), and indeed we do love to consume. In order to placate our desire to buy, eat, move around, our leaders go into other sovereign countries and meddle. We provide weapons to dictators and we overthrow those who we don't like.

Things have gotten a bit more complicated as of late, because now China and India also want the same stuff that we want (e.g. oil), and don't really like it when we install our own governments in the Middle East or South American anymore. China doesn't have to be a military power to enforce their will - it is sufficient that they have become an enormous economic power and can enforce their will on the U.S., in the same way the U.S. use to do it to them. In any case, life has become much more complicated as of late, and it will be interesting how events unfold. But, in the meantime, let's not forget that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed in Iraq and their only sin was that they were born on some land that hovered above some black gold that the U.S. citizens want to consume. I hope that Americans are enjoying their Hummers and their trips to Europe. Lots of people are dying for those simple pleasures.

FreedomSeeker · #6 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 06:59 AM

I agree that people who talk about blowback, while I despise people who ADVOCATE it, should not be summarily silenced.

The bottom line, however: AQ has no right to be terrorists.

I agree it would be nice if we'd stop supporting totalitarian-thug regimes. One reason we did in the past, however, was that we were fighting a scurge that was almost as dangerous to modern values as the Jihad is today.....SOVIET COMMUNISM. We WON that war, and we'll also defeat the Jihad!

Thank you.

FreedomSeeker · #7 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 07:03 AM

"Faux News Network"....heh heh.

Revolutionary · #8 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomSeeker";p=&quot

I agree that people who talk about blowback, while I despise people who ADVOCATE it, should not be summarily silenced.

The bottom line, however: AQ has no right to be terrorists.

You can't really fight "terrorists"........it's more of an adjective than a noun the way people use. You can only fight nouns.

We should have said War against AQ or War agaisnt Saddam or War against Taliban. A war on terror gives no sort of objective. Terror is an even worse word to use since it's a verb and you definitely can not wage a war on a verb.

FreedomSeeker · #9 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revolutionary";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomSeeker";p=&quot

I agree that people who talk about blowback, while I despise people who ADVOCATE it, should not be summarily silenced.

The bottom line, however: AQ has no right to be terrorists.

You can't really fight "terrorists"........it's more of an adjective than a noun the way people use. You can only fight nouns.

We should have said War against AQ or War agaisnt Saddam or War against Taliban. A war on terror gives no sort of objective. Terror is an even worse word to use since it's a verb and you definitely can not wage a war on a verb.

Well put.

WWII, was arguably a war against the govt of Germany (and Japan, and Italy,) and NOT a "war on Bleitzkreig". Good point you made!

How about if instead of the GWOT, let's rename it the "Global War on Those Islamic Jihadists Who Use Terrorist Tactics" (GWOTIJWUTT)!! Heh heh.

Thanks.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode