Is Ron Paul wrong about Jihadists and Foreign Policy?

[synapz]

This article certainly brings his stance into question:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

Even after reading that, though, I am still convinced he is correct. I think that at the very least, there would be fewer terrorists with a foreign policy of freedom.

That said, even if Ron Paul is wrong, an immoral foreign policy of preemptive war is certainly not the answer. Even if he is wrong, I would rather have his foreign policy over any other I can think of.

It's not just about why they are attacking us. It is also about us doing what is right.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There are some bad ones. Sure there are. And if they are an imminent threat to us, we should go after them. But, we also should not have a foreign policy that is plain wrong and also creates one heck of a lot of additional people who want to do us harm. That's what we are doing now.

 

[joshdvm]

None of this disproves any of the conclusions of those on RP's reading list (Scheuer, Pape, or Johnson) with regard to why OBL's message resonates so powerfully with 100's of millions in the so-called Muslim world and motivates a small percentage of those to carry out extreme acts of violence.

 

[mikelovesgod]

Here is my only fear, namely, the damage has already been done. Historian Hillaire Belloc called Islam the "Sleeping Giant ready to be awoken". I think we awoke the beast and while Dr. Paul's stance is probably best in normal times this is a tough call.

If he's wrong Americans will die, if he's right foreigners will live and our soldiers will live. There won't be senseless violence which creates these tensions and hatred. As of right now I'm up in the air. I think Dr. Paul is right insofar as we should not be police to the world, we should not be in a country where the "collateral damage" greatly outweighs troop containment, and we certainly should not be called on by the UN to do their dirty work.

If we are attacked again I expect Dr. Paul to be smarter and not so far-reaching with war. No matter what his approach fiscally is better for the country. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because the other policies have been an embarassment to this nation's history.

 

[MGS]

No.

 

[FreedomLover]

and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Islam is an anachronism.

Much like the Christianity of the Dark and Middle Ages, Islam needs a renaissance, an enlightenment of its own in order to harmonize it with rational and modern social values.

Their society and culture is backwards, therefore, their religion reflects that.

Im glad Mr. Butt wised up to that, but hes saying what everyone else outside of the neocons and their brainwashed supporters already know. Theyre not going to stop attacking until they either get smart or we stop giving them reasons and opportunities to blow themselves up. I would prefer both.

Ron is adding another dimension to solving this problem, talking to them, trading with them, and not bombing their countries. Bush may find it shocking that you can talk to middle eastern politicians without discussing oil fields or terrorism, but it´s possible. Rons not gonna solve this hundreds of years old problem over night, but at the very least hes not going to exacerbate it. And he'll be coming from an honest and uncorrupted angle, which lessens the complexities and possible blowback, considering how entangled the bush admin and their businesses are with the saudi arabians, musharref, the bin ladens, the taliban (before it was dissolved), etc etc.

Prosperity has kept America free so far, but information is the currency of democracy. The Mideast would be a lot better off with either of these.

 

[glts]

There is a great article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_alex_wal_070701_ron_paul_3a_making_ame.htm

From the article:

"...the fact that we are not protecting our borders exposes the entire exercise as nothing more than a criminal sham. It negates any claims that we are protecting our national security interests in fighting them abroad. Pulling our troops back and stationing them along the border makes far more sense than the policy we are pursuing now."

 

[beermotor]

I really liked Clash of Civilizations, the very last pages had some great points for keeping peace in the world. Check out pages 316-320.

Go browse it at your local store.

 

[Trevorjustco]

The biggest question that I have, following this article, is how does a nation fight against a theology?

The methods, as spearheaded by people like Bush, CFR, and other neo-conservatives is that by subordinating the Islamist states to our own interests, and guiding their public education and government, that we can sway their ideology. Additionally, it seems to be their objective to create a clear rift between the radical Muslims and the moderate ones such that they can be more easily targeted with conventional military actions.

Of course, this is tantamount to ethnic cleansing and morally repugnant should the public view things this way.
Additionally, the people of the Islamic nations will easily see through this charade, and will not accept any "western" modes of thought.

 

[Gee]

That article is complete bullshit, and to me reads more like propaganda than anything else. Hassan Butt just wants to get into the limelight, like many people do, and will slant his story as is necessary in order to do so. Its not so different from what politicians do, in that way.

Yes, certain merry bands of suicide bombers might be motivated strictly by what they think their religion tells them... But the fact remains that there are more Muslims per capita in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Russia, and Singapore, to name the more industrialized countries. Many of those countries have had minor attacks over the decades, but all for specific reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

I mean, what does a hardcore Muslim think of Denmark, where prostitution is legal?

 

[zMtLlC]

I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

This doesn't discredit what Dr. Paul is saying. Both Mr. Sheuer and Dr. Paul don't deny that the Islam doesn't play a part. No one can say for sure what motivates every single member of these organizations to do these things, probably because there are many reasons. However, when one takes into account the fact that this organization sprang up largely to defend against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, one can hardly deny Mr. Sheuer's reasoning in that they are waging a defensive jihad against those who they believe are invading them. Bin Laden's final goal may possibly be to establish a world-wide Islamic state (I'm sure he wouldn't object to its establishment), but his recruiting comes primarily from our foreign policy in the Middle East.

It's not really a black and white issue, so we can't really say they hate us because of "blank." There are many reasons why the people probably join these groups, but logically I can only see our oppressive foreign policy as the main one.

 

[Bryan in Iowa]

Interesting. Hassan Butt, the author of this piece admits to being part of the British Jihadi Network as late as February 2006. It strikes me as strange he would be permitted to walk the streets of London, let alone publish articles...unless they were pro-state propaganda. Not sure I would take his word for anything of substance when it comes to the reasons behind the Jihadist movement. Granted, there are elements within the Muslim community committed to overthrowing the West, but is it the true endgame for OBL? I doubt it. Money rules the world, not religion.

 

[mconder]

I believe much of the leadership in the Islamic world think this way, but they would not have such devoted followers if it wasn't for American foreign policy. Most people are the same, wether they are Americans or Arabs...they just want to live their life, get married, have kids, and enjoy life without dramatic upset. We give middle east leaders all they need to whip people up in a frenzy. Anywhere you find a suffering people, you will find the power hungry would-be saviors of humanity ready to "help" when it's usually these same psychotic people who cause the problems in the first place. The neo-cons operate in this way, though the people are not suffering deep enough to let the ride roughshod over our liberties and install a neo-con dictator quit yet.

 

[AMack]

Indeed. Preemptive war is no more an answer to extremism than total withdrawal is. The good thing about withdrawing is that we don't have to spend ourselves into poverty, which would fulfill the extremist goal to destroy us by attacking our wallets.

I believe in strong borders, and in good security. I also believe that the very nature of America, our liberties and our freedoms, is what makes the Muslim population in America so agreeable. A significantly smaller portion of our Muslim population is radicalized than the Muslim population in Britain, France, and Europe in general. There is a reason for this, and it is for this reason that I never want America to be like Europe. I don't exactly know what it is that attracts good Muslims to this country and prevents the radicalization of the Muslim population, but I do know that whatever it is, we need to keep it up. I suppose it is like that for most every group that comes here. Liberty and prosperity are better motivators than extremist religious doctrine. If the Middle East had more liberty and prosperity, we probably wouldn't be facing this extremist threat.

 

[Trevorjustco]

Gee: One of the arguments that this guy is making is that the Islamic radicals view their fight as one against the entire world and its "secularizing" and corruptive influences on the Muslim nations. That being said, who wouldn't agree that the U.S. has been integral in secularizing several Muslim nations?

I don't think this disagrees with Ron Paul at all. Its just another (important) facet to the argument.

It is foolish to say that a strict interpretation of "blowback" is the complete explanation of the problem. It is only a term invented to explain a simple concept.
The causes and reasons of blowback on behalf of the counter-aggressors are not precisely defined.

 

[d991]

"Blowback" and "Dying to win"

I finished reading "Blowback" and am in the middle of reading "Dying to Win" which were two books Ron Paul suggested Rudy Giuliani read (I doubt he read them.)

From what I took away from these two books is that U.S. foreign policy plays a significant role in radicalizing people all over the world. The major contributing factor for terrorism, and especially suicide terrorism, is occupation of a country by a foreign force. Terrorism is certainly not limited to muslim nations, and there have been many Marxist-Leninst based groups in countries like Sri Lanka that perform suicide attacks to achieve their goals.

Of course there will be offshoots of these occupation fighting groups that interpret goals differently and then seek to achieve their own aims. This is what should be troubling to people. Hezbollah and Hamas, while performing horrible acts against civilians, have 'mission' statements with a basis that they want to remove Israeli forces from what they consider their homeland. Neither group claims that they want to kill Americans unless they occupy their lands, as Hezbollah showed in 1983.

The ironic thing is that people like Bush and Giuliani seem to think that being on the "offence" against terrorism is cruicial, but I don't think they really understand that these kinds of actions are fanning the flames of extremists and creating more groups that not only are against occupation but come up with their own goals, possibly that they want to convert all societies to follow muslim laws. In either case, in the present form the "war on terror" can not work. Attacking Iran will make matters worse, since you will get Shiite muslims becoming more radicalized which will in turn cause Sunni muslims to radicalize as well, similar to bin Laden and al Queda. Unfortunately most of the candidates for the White House probably don't understand these points, and the most worrying thing is that Bush still have a year and a half in office.......

 

[Gee]

It is foolish to say that a strict interpretation of "blowback" is the complete explanation of the problem. It is only a term invented to explain a simple concept.

Yes, but Islamic terrorism itself is not a complete picture of senseless violence. There are crazies of all walks of life, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc. There may be a few Muslims willing to blow themselves up "for our freedoms" or because a McDonald's opens up in Baghdad, but they are certainly no greater in number, and probably much fewer, than the other sorts of people who commit violence for less-than-sane reasons.

Honestly, if people really wanted to stop senseless violence, they wouldn't start with Islamic terrorism. They might start with spousal abuse.

Its all a bunch of crap. Terrorism's danger is inflated because its a headline-grabber; the media likes to report on it because it makes them money. The much larger numbers of traffic fatalities per year doesn't sell newspapers. Unfortunately, our actions seem to have spurred the very thing we feared, and I only hope al Qaeda isn't planning something bigger than 9/11...

 

[Silverback]

As Dr. Paul often says, imagine if you were in their shoes.

Imagine there's a lunatic Imam who says it's your duty to God to blow yourself up in order to kill a few Americans, you've never been harmed by these Americans, in fact you've never even seen one in your village. The crazy Imam may be tolerated but he's not going to do a lot of recruiting is he?

Now imagine your village has been bombed by American planes, or you lost a family member to collateral damage or even that Americans have kicked in your door in the middle of the night and pointed a gun at your head when they swept your neighborhood. All these things help the crazy Imam seem sane.

It's complicated, anyone who says the right course is a simple choice is a fool.

 

[mikelovesgod]

There is a big difference between being in their shoes and knowing they are maniacs to begin with. That's my only fear. I'm not endorsing a foreign policy of war. No matter what we can't do that, it drains us financially. The problem is we started a fire, and now it's spreading throughout the world.

Paul is right, my only question is how will it end? These people want to annihilate the world, and have wanted to do so for 1000 years. To think otherwise is to be blind to history. They conquered the Middle East, Northern Africa, and by war, and Spain. The Crusades were necessary to stop their take-over of Europe and drive them from the Holy Land.

Anyone who looks beyond the abuses of the Crusaders and saw the front of Muslims who were going to invade Europe forget what a mess the world was back then. These people have the same mind-set. They basically took over Spain with Jewish backing in the Moorish conquest. They knew the Jews didn't proselytize so it worked well for both sides.

Slightly less than 1000 years ago the world faced something worse than what we have now. If you think these people don't think they can't finish the job you are not aware of theological/political sub-substructure. There is a reason they don't attack China, because China won't play nice. China would nuke them to Hell and they know it. They attack those people who use democracy, and have openly said so.

 

[Silverback]

You give them too much credit Mike.

What happened 1000 years ago isn't really relevent, those people are all dead.

The claim that they've been determined to take over the world for the last 1000 years seems to me to indicate they're no real threat, they haven't had any success whatever.

The actual terrorist threat is entirely overblown, every attack is a joke. Even on 9/11, when incompetence so extreme many people believe it must have been intentional allowed them to get lucky, they screwed up every target.

Boxcutters, that's the most dangerous weapon they've got.

They missed the white house and had to hit a secondary target.

The plane intended for the Capitol building they lost control and crashed in a field.

Both tower planes hit too high and tens of thousands escaped the towers.

None of their other attacks seem to have the organization or competence of the average boy scout troop behind them.

Relax, they're an irritation not an existential threat.

I understand your other point though, nonintervention is all very good but that doesn't mean we can ignore our responsibilities to clean up the messes our interventions have caused. Dr. Paul has addressed that point. It's a balance that must be found.

He sometimes sounds too extreme in his reaction to our extreme policy, there's immense frustration there because he was right about Iraq all along and no one would listen. I recognize that frustration. I share it.