Topic: Foreign Policy
Endorsing Blowback: A Tale of Two George Ws Ron Paul has been harshly criticized by neo-conservatives for endorsing the CIA's theory of "Blowback" as an explanation of terrorist acts against Americans. You might be surprised to find that our first president and our present president also endorse the same theory.by Steven McDuffie
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah -- yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore it at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we’re rich and we're free, they come here to attack us because we’re over there." -- Ron Paul
And then the gloves were off. Ron Paul, by endorsing the CIA's theory of Blowback, was declared to be -- among other things -- unAmerican and, most incredibly, was openly accused of being a 9-11 truther.
I have experienced this same phenomenon in my journey from statist Democrat to libertarian. As I went from being, what I thought was, a benevolent interventionist, to being what I called a neo-isolationist, endorsing a foreign policy that I call Armed Neutrality (Ron Paul calls it noninterventionism) I was accused of hating America! Me! A ten year veteran of America's active duty military! An America hater!
To my mind, it is self-evident that people who attack Americans are not doing so indiscriminately. They are not maniacal. They are reacting to something. To paraphrase conservative columnist Charley Reese, it is the height of absurdity to suppose that these people woke up one day and said to themselves "You know, I hate freedom so much, I think I am going to blow myself up."
It is self-evident to me that they are not maniacal, but desperate. They don't have Apache helicopters or aircraft carriers. If they did, they would engage in more conventional warfare. They don't attack "hard" -- that is -- miltary and other governmental targets because they are, well, hard. So they focus on softer targets (i.e. us).
All of this is self-evident. They are reacting. Reacting to what?
In my campaign for US House of Representatives in Colorado's 3rd District, I have been asked what I think caused 9-11. The question, I think, is a loaded one. The questioner is often trying to pigeon-hole me. Trying to find out what makes me tick. Is this McDuffie a True Patriot? Is he a Hate-America-First-Ward-Churchill-type? Is he a 9-11 Truther?
Here you have George W. Bush, the man who popularized the phrase "they hate us for our freedom" endorsing the CIA's theory of Blowback and siding with Ron Paul.
Nevermind that President Bush and I disagree on the aims of previous US foreign policy, the fact is that we both agree with Dr. Ron Paul that the CIA is correct when it warns of Blowback.
When neoconservatives accuse me, Ron Paul and President Bush of 'blaming America' for 9-11, what they fail to understand, as Dr. Paul has explained so many times to the press, is that asking what motivated the murderer in no way endorses the cruel act of murder. We are not, in any sense, blaming the murder victim or the victims family. When investigating a murder, investigators will invariably ask 'Did he have any enemies?'
Do we have any enemies? No, we Americans don't have enemies, but the US Government has been making enemies for decades.
Contrary to President Bush's apparent belief that previous foreign policy was made of sugar candy and rainbows, and smelled of freshly baked cinnamon buns, the US Government had been on a decades long rampage in the Muslim world prior to 9-11.
The US Government has had ships in their waters for decades. The US Government has bombed them. The US Government has given (your tax) money to their tinpot dictators and military hardware and training to their dictator's armies. The US Government has set one against the other, only to turn around and rescind that support and declare its former friends its enemies. The US Government starved and diseased them with sanctions. And worst of all, in the eyes of those who mean us harm, the US Government supports Israel.
I recently went back and reread George Washington's Farewell Address. I haven't read it in some twenty years, and with it being mentioned so often by Ron Paul and his supporters lately, I reckoned it was high time I revisited it. And there I saw it: that prescient man warning us of Blowback, lo those many years ago.
A better writer than I could have written this article like a symphony, with the crescendo occuring right about now. I can imagine myself, with more skills as a writer capturing and enrapturing you, dear reader, with my brilliant mastery of the English language. I can imagine that this 'other McDuffie' would have you on the edge of your seat right now, as the suspense and tension builds more and more to my final, earth-shaking paragraph.
But it isn't to be. I can only conclude this piece by stating that the last Muslim army withdrew from Western lands in the 16th century. Since that time, there literally hasn't been a single decade in which there haven't been Western (European or American) military boots on Muslim lands.
Isn't it time for our government to leave those people alone?
In closing, I would urge each and every reader of this column to order The Thousand Year War by Richard J. Maybury. It is a quick read, and it will give you all the information you need to know about how America got bogged down in this fruitless, futile and idiotic endeavor in the Middle East.
Steven McDuffie is an Independent Candidate for US House of Representatives in Colorado's 3rd District. He is currently seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
2008 Steven McDuffie, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Last modified: Friday, January 11, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Steven McDuffie only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Steven McDuffie is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
One problem is that politicians have a short memory, when they wish to do so. I believe it is described as selective recall. I suspect this selective recall is deliberate and driven by political expediency. Obvious actually. As they are motivated more by attaining and retaining political power, whatever enables this achievement of this goal will be utilized.
Beyond that, many Americans find it more palatable to believe that those who attack us do so because we are free and prosperous. It makes for a good sound bite and makes us feel good about ourselves. The truth is more complicated and involves our government in errors of judgment and action.
Hollow rhetoric and empty clichés draw applause. Admitting to past poor judgments is not a good idea if you wish to garner support for similar actions in the future. “We screwed it up in past years by involving ourselves in unwise actions, and we are going to solve it by involving ourselves in some new actions.” Good luck with that sales pitch.
While the fact we made errors might explain some of the motivations of our enemies, it cannot justify their murderous actions. There is also no doubt that hating the US government and/or our culture is an easy sell for our enemies when recruiting followers to carry out additional murderous acts. Leaders always seem to find it easier to manipulate, particularly if you wish to transform someone into a killer.
I do not blame America first. I do not blame America second. However, I do believe that in some cases our government has played into the hands of those who wish to harm us. At least in part, we have actually assisted in recruiting and motivating the killers, even if it was done inadvertently or through foolish and shortsighted actions.
Obviously, the less we involve ourselves in the internal affairs of other nations, the less likely we will be seen as the force that must be opposed and attacked. Minimizing the numbers of enemies you have would seem a wise strategy. Some will attack and hate us no matter what we do. Nevertheless, why make it easier for them to recruit and motivate followers?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Steven McDuffie, all rights reserved.