Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul and the War on Islamofacism Why our current policy will allow the Terrorists to win, and why leaving Iraq isn't "surrender" or "retreat"by John Armstrong
(libertarian)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
There have been questions about Ron Paul's willingness to "fight" the radical "Islamofascists." Many in the Republican Party refuse to support Congressman Paul because they mistakenly believe that he is some sort of "pacifist hippy" since they don't understand why he doesn't support the "war." This is my attempt at explaining that position with some analogies, plain language, and references that anyone interested in actually defeating these "evil-doers" should find interesting.
The War with IslamoFascism. Let's look at that statement because it will help explain Dr. Paul's position. First of all, "war" can only be declared by Congress. America hasn't issued a real declaration of war since WWII and we haven't won a war since then. Because this "war" isn't a declared war, Ron Paul doesn't support it because as a congressman who was sworn to uphold the constitution, he understands that he has no right to do so.
Congress can only constitutionally issue a declaration of war if America is attacked or feels that an issuance of war is needed to protect us. America was attacked on September 11th, 2001. But it was attacked by 19 men who represent a larger network of men who hold similar extreme ideas. Fighting a "War" on "IslamoFascism" because of September 11th, makes about as much sense as fighting a "War" on "Depressed Asian Students" because of what happened at Virginia Tech last spring. Dr. Paul's response would have been to commit resources to catch the people who were actually responsible for and supported the attacks. This is why he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan, but now doesn't support the ongoing actions there since they are no longer designed to catch Bin Laden or others who are actually responsible for the attacks.
He also understands that part of the reason we were attacked was because of an interventionist foreign policy. Most of the Sept. 11th hijackers were Saudis. Non-coincidentally, they were upset because of our military presence in their country and the way we had influenced governments in their region. This is a priniciple the CIA calls "blowback" which is also the name of a book (by Chalmers Johnson) that was written pre-September 11th and warned that we should expect coming acts of reprisal by individuals or states because of our meddling in their affairs over the course of the previous few decades. At the time it was written, it was greeted with smug laughter (as noted in the book's introduction) exactly the same way Dr. Paul's comments were by other Republican candidates during the debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5avEmnWrtk starting around the 2:19 mark) when he suggested our current policy was a "road to disaster." Killing terrorists by unconstitutionally going into sovereign countries instead of actually removing the major cause of their hate for us is akin to killing flies instead of removing the dead carcass in the middle of the room. Worse yet, we are not only not removing the carcass we are creating more carcasses on which they feed and multiply. Dr. Paul understands that America has a problem with people who hold radical Islamic views, but doesn't think that a "War" on an "Islamo-Fascism" is the way to solve the problem.
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term used to scare people and make an enemy seem more menacing than it really is. I won't give you the history on it, but you can check out Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism. The 1978 Iranian revolution mentioned there as possibly the first time the word was used, was a direct result of our CIA installing the Shah into power in 1953 (again--our interventionist policy). It has been picked up on an popularized by people like David Horowitz who is a leading proponent of "swatting flies" to solve the problem. As an American citizen, you are more likely to drown in a bathtub than to be killed by a terrorist. Since we decided on this pre-emptive first strike doctrine, more American lives have been lost (soldiers are Americans too--and also support Dr. Paul more via donations than they support any other candidate) than in the September 11th attacks. The money we have spent in Iraq (and will continue to spend if we keep with this policy and move on to Iran) makes the money we lost both directly and tangentially due to the September 11th attacks seem paltry by comparison.
And Bin Laden knew this. This is what he was talking about when he talked about "bleeding America to death" http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html (I can't believe the White House has this on their website and doesn't get it). In short, Terrorists can only defeat the United States by--FEAR which leads to overreaction, overspending, and in the process creates more terrorists who believe the incredibly extreme propaganda promoted by Bin Laden and crew because they have seen the "horrors" of the United States with their own eyes. Dr. Paul is the only person who supports a policy which could actually rid the world of these "Islamo-Fascists" in the long run (or at least return them to a size and threat level which no American could fear). We are the United States of America. If a kid came up and punched you, would you pull your leg back as far as possible and try to kick its head off? If you missed, you'd hurt yourself in the fall far worse than the kid's punch hurt you. If you hit, you would incite the rage of his parents, his community, and even the population as a whole that otherwise would be disconnected from this act until they found out what you did. Compared to us, terrorists are just little kids. The best way to deal with them is to let them know what they did was wrong (tell their parents, or kill the terrorists who actually did this in our case--not overreact and bring people into the battle that have nothing to do with it) and laugh about it and move on.
On the same website, you can find all of his remarks about how important this battle in Iraq is. The current adminstration and media use these words to justify staying in Iraq. How many articles have you read saying that we can't "surrender" or "retreat" because we'll show the "terrorists" how weak we are. We have to stay and "win." Has it dawned on anyone besides me that Bin Laden and friends may want us to stay in Iraq so we can anger more normal people and help his recruitment efforts in the future? Is it possible that these words are no different than a poker player shrugging his shoulders as if he has a weak hand to make someone call--thus walking right into the trap?
By continuing with our current policy, we are playing right into their hands. Even if "blowback" isn't the only reason these people hate us, and they still wish to do us harm because they are just crazy or even if they actually do hate us because we are "rich and free"; by following the policy Dr. Paul proposes, they would be less able to harm us because their numbers would be weakened due to people who wouldn't be drawn to their cause due to our overreaction. If I tried to convince you that Mormons were an evil cult, but the only Mormons you'd known your entire life were a few neighbors who invited you to their board game night and helped you with your math homework, you'd be far less likely to believe my crazy assertions. If we aren't out actually doing the things that show otherwise neutral or even positive people that we really are a country of "evil infidels" (like killing their brothers and moms with a misplaced bomb), it will be very hard for the most extreme factions who hate us just for existing to enlist enough otherwise neutral people to actually harm us. And in the best case scenario if those neutral people actually liked us, they might even turn on the few extreme people and help us in our cause instead of joining them or at least protecting them from our efforts to find them.
Conversely on the homefront, if "someone/media" tried to convince you that "Islamofascists" were "evil-doers" and the only "Islamofascists" you'd ever seen hijacked some planes and created national panic all played out on live television, and that these "evil-doers" needed to be punished, you'd probably believe that too. If you can distance yourself from what you've been told and not hold onto to it because you don't want to feel "stupid" (four years ago I was talking to my friends about how President Bush would be known as a visionary in 40 years because he planted the seed of democracy in the Middle East and that he might not be that bright, but maybe it takes someone who didn't know something wasn't possible in order to try and accomplish the impossible), and you can objectively look at all the facts and still conclude that our current policy makes sense, then you really could be as stupid as the mainstream media and politicians want to believe you are.
More importantly than being "less able to harm us" is that they would absolutely be unable to defeat us. If every single "Islamofascist" in the world came to the United States today with all of their friends, they could not defeat us. When people say "If we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here", I say, "Bring it On." If there are a million of those guys, I like the 300-1 odds in our favor. Show me an Iowa Farmer that wouldn't get his 12 gauge down and do some radical-islamofascist hunting if they were ever stupid enough to come here and really fight, and I'll show you an Amish guy driving a red Hummer. They know this. The only way they can defeat us is to convince us they are a greater threat than they are.
If we spent a fraction of the money currently being spent on our current preemptive strike policy on securing our own borders (like the one that around 65,000,000 Mexicans have successfully illegally crossed) these "Islamofascists" probably wouldn't be able to get a Weapon of Mass Destruction inside our borders to begin with even if they did acquire one from a "rogue state" like Iran. And if somehow a state sponsored the attack via a missile (it would be tragic) but whichever country did it would be unihabitable for a few thousands years after we retaliated and you can bet that nobody else would attempt it again.
We are the only country in the world that can defeat us. We are at an important crossroads about which way we will go. Not that unsimilar to where Rome found itself around 146 BC http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/empiresofabsentmind_article_01.shtml. Because of the decisions the Romans made, Rome is now a city. If we make the right decisions, we can still be a City on a Hill.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think President Bush is an evil man who intentionally lied to bring us into a war. I think he did what he believed was best for the country during an extremely trying time. Someone who picks up a friend after a severe wreck and holds them in their arms instead of letting them lie there doesn't intend to break his friend's neck and paralyze him for life. Once the decision was made, Bush's strongest leadership trait (steadfastness to a commitment regardless of public opinion) became his biggest liability.
I also don't know that we can leave Iraq hanging because of our moral responsibility to make sure we get them back on their feet before we leave since we were the ones to knock them off of their feet to begin with. I do know that pulling out is not retreating and doesn't mean we "lost" (ever see a football team take an intentional safety at the end of a football game which looks weak at the time but puts them in a better position to actually win the game?).
I do know that we need to leave as soon as the Iraqis can take care of themselves. I do know that we shouldn't be building 14 permanent bases in their country including one in Baghdad the size of the Vatican. I do know that we shouldn't invade Iran. I do know that we should bring home all of our troops from all over the globe. I do know that we should never preemptively strike another country again (unless they are a true threat to our national security and Congress issues a declaration of war). I do know that if we do these things, the results could be very similar to the ones another Superpower made over 2,000 years ago. Once we get our foreign policy straight, we can start to work on the stuff at home. A safer home. A freer home. A home that actually looks a little like the one that caused us at one time to be admired by the rest of the world. A place called America. The land of the free and the home of the brave (which means "To undergo or face courageously"--as in facing the truth about where we are and where we are heading if we don't change course).
Like this article? Thumb it. You can also send it to yourself and then send it on to friends if you don't know their email addresses off the top of your head.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 104 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Armstrong only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Armstrong 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.
The people in power (read neocons) are so happy to quickly coin ridiculous terms. "Islamofacism" is a misnomer since it targets the entire islamic faith. Why didn't they call fighting the Davidians in Waco, "Christofacism"? This is a sick trend that has been going for a while, "the war on drugs", "Operation Enduring Freedom", etc...
Those who come up with these names should be continuously challenged and exposed for the false impressions they are trying to engrain in people's minds.
Excellent article. I could not agree with you more. I feel the exact same way about President Bush. I would add that I don't think he envisioned becoming a dictator, but laid the groundwork (unintentionally) for one to possibly exist in the future.
I believe it is high time that we as a country, pause, and do some serious introspection about where we are, repent of some past sins (yes, publicly), and move in a new direction which includes freedom, peace and prosperity. As a "christian" nation, we should know how to do this - what surprises me is that it is mostly the "christian right" that is so adamant about staying in Iraq. May God convict them in their self-righteousness...
A well written article to be sure, nonetheless, I think you've misconstrued some very important issues-- not surprising, since I think Ron Paul makes much the same mistakes:
1) While interventionalist policies are noted by Bin Laden as a justification for his attacks, a vast majority of his attacks on the West-- at least rhetorically-- are said to be justified due to cultural, rather than political reasons. (A good starting point in better understanding the mindset of Al Qaeda is "the Al Qaeda Reader" by Raymond Ibrahim. Likewise, your point that removing troops from Iraq would slow recruiting seems likewise weak in that the resultant chaos would logistically and politically enable extremists-- giving them not only a perfect base of operations, but also a perceived victory-- which could increase terrorist numbers by a significant margin.
2. While I am extremely sympathetic to Paul's desire to restore Constitutional standards of war declaration, I nonetheless would posit that Paul's inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to articulate a means of addressing non-state actors extremely troubling.
3. I fully support your opinion that we should not invade Iran-- as does, I might add, the Bush Administration, which has publically stated on numerous occasions that although "all options" are on the table, that diplomacy is the preferred strategy.
I appreciate you taking the time to pen an essay that, though I might disagree with it, takes a great deal of effort to be reasonable and civil. That is a rare thing these days.
Remarkably naive and simplistic. Although I can't stand the innacuracy and jingoism of a term like 'islamofascism', I'm even less impressed by your use of it as a way of brushing off and dismissing the very real threat of Islamic cultural imperialism and Jihadism.
Yes, 19 men carried off the 9/11 attack, but they represent an entire culture of exclusionism and xenophobia which has at its heart an absolute desire to dominate the rest of the world and which represents a population of almost 2 billion people most of whom at least passively accept religious doctrine which endorses the behavior demonstrated on 9/11.
Whether you like it or not, the threat is real, and even if we choose not to take action it doesn't take two sides to make war. War will be made on us whether we rise to the threat or notand isolationism and denial will not stop it.
The threat is real. But is our policy making us safer (ignoring our borders, borrowing money from China or printing more to support the war and making our dollar worth less than Canada's, making more enemies, attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, etc)?
Those 2 Billion people you mention may believe in the same religion as the jihadists, but they are not the same creature.
You go gently on the topic of what the U.S. foreign policy is about, and that's okay, since no one in the administration is going to cough up a tangible explanation for what is going on. Thus, we're all led to guess while Empire remakes the geopolitical map and tears the world apart in conquest.
I think you may want to start by reading The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Samuel Huntington, 1996) to really get at the motives for U.S. machinations in the mideast. Of course, I don't know that this is THE answer, but I'd bet heavily on it.
This book really explains the demographic destinies that are in store for the world--the rise in the number of Islamists and other non-Westerners, their dispersion, and the ultimate effects of these demographics on the Western civilizations. Essentially, as we see now, the non-Westerners' geopolitical schemes are being counter-balanced by tribal and ethnic loyalties. Nationalism based on ethnic loyalties and "civilizational" concerns of competing states are bound to redraw the world map in one direction; we Anglos seek to draw it in another direction. Thus, the Anglo-oriented intervention (led by the U.S., and supported by many other Anglo/Christian oriented nations) is designed to counter the demographic and ethnic/cultural tendencies of the non-Westerners.
Now, I don't proclaim to know what is in the heads of the elitist world planners and schemers--even if I did, I don't think I could accept or understand it. But the problem of remaking the world map is complex because it is defined by economics, racism, cultural/religious realities, and politics.
The problem is made worse because not one government official will state it. Greenspan comes out and crows about oil. Partly true. But no one is going to say that the U.S. and the Anglo-Christians are trying to stay dominant in a civilizational struggle that will carve up the world into many economic/political factions, apart from the unipolar (U.S.-led) or bipolar (Cold War) structures that we are familiar with.
In reality, I think we Westerners are going to have to deal with eroding power. Of course, the Kissingers and Brzezinskis of the world--who still influence the argument--are never content to let things go toward entropy. They have to control it, manage it, and shape it. They, and their fellow neoconservatives, are trapped in a WWII paradigm. We're all suffering for it. Why? Because we cannot use "modern western values" to create a solution that the elitists want: to eviscerate or inhibit the growth of non-Westerners across the world spectrum.
Instead of dealing with new economic realities, and protecting our national sovereignty, the elitists are concocting all sorts of schemes to meddle with the rise of Islamists and other non-Westerners, while trying to build a powerful Anglo-European Empire. They won't talk about it openly. It is not conspiracy--just stupidity. They want to control and manage things and events that really cannot be managed.
Instead, we Americans have become trapped in the idiocy of elitist thinking, and progress not. 9/11 and other world events should give us pause to restructure our economic and social standing--not be used to form the basis for the ridiculous exercise in competing against world/demographic realities.
Like you, I think 9/11 was an event--a catalyst--so I don't want to believe in conspiracy. I may be wrong. Regardless, that event should not have led to the floodgate of idiotic thinking, redrawing of the world map, and endless warfare. The best policy is adaptation, not manipulation.
I think, now, the manipulators are stewing in their own juices--the people are getting wise to their schemes and revolted by their stupidity. But, the elitist schemers probably won't come clean by themselves; we'll just have to show them the way.
We oblige Bin Laden by playing the part he's cast for us. How is throwing our weight around and annoying or intimidating people in that region – and around the world – making us safer? We neo-Romans have gone broke fighting "barbarians", while distracting the citizenry with bread and circuses.
The invasion of Iraq was not a declared war. There is no "war" on terrorism. The reason it's called a war is because of the emotional response that term engenders. The emotional response is useful. "We must stand behind the Commander in Chief! We're at War! Are you unpatriotic?" The reason the "war" on "terrorism" instead of a nation is so it can be prosecuted indefinitely.
So tell me, when does "terrorism" surrender? Define how we win this "war". Will the leaders of those (more like 1.5) billion Muslims (many of whom are in countries that are not Arabic) suddenly speak as a unit and proclaim: "You got us; we were trying to destroy you. But your invasions of countries where you had an economic interest showed us the true value of your freedom."
If you examine the evidence closely, you'll see that the neocons and globalists are in fact working very dilligently and at all levels to protect Americans.
Remember: Islamofascists hate us because we are wealthy and free.
Neocon response: Steal our liberties a la patriot act etc., and bankrupt us with endless, illegal wars.
Pretty soon, there will be no reason for terrorists to hate us. Good job, neo-con-artists. Brilliant! The higher mind readily sees now why Ron Paul is so wrong with all that common sense crap.
If you think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, you are either ignorant or overly optimistic. Either case is destructive. Open your eyes and research things. The west has constantly screwed these third world countries. The only way to stop the hatred is to stop the cause for inciting the hatred. The United States of America needs to quit propping up dictators that murder their people and opress them. The U.S. needs to quit funding our enemies. This is a long-term, predictable consequence. We incite hatred everywhere our policy causes harm. Ask Iranians, Iraqis, and Pakistanis who have been raped, murdered and tortured by dictators we've funded, trained and supported in every way. From funding and arming Saddam Hussein in 1979, to propping up the hate Shah in Iran in 1953, to currently paying 100$million to the dictator Musharef in Pakistan who we put in power in 1999, we are causing hatred to individuals from every corner of the world. In my definition, and I say this on principle, the people in charge of our foreign policy are evil people. It isnt about supporting democracy or giving a shit about anyone. It's about politics. If we cared about democracy, why would we fund Musharef? Why would we put people in power who arent elected by their people and in many cases harm their populations? Because it's okay as long as we get what we want? So these people's lives don't matter? It's okay Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 of his own people because we said it was okay? But now it's wrong because he no longer supports us? How would you feel if a foreign country came into power and murdered your family? Think of HOW THESE PEOPLE FEEL. THEY FEEL RAPED. IN REALITY, THEY ARE RAPED, AND UNTIL WE STOP RAPING THEM THEY ARE NOT GOING TO STOP HATING US. Realize every emotion you feel and every value and belief you hold. Now picture the people whose lives are forever damaged by our foreign policy. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. The only thing I can ask of you is to please support our soldiers. They want to come home. Over 12,000 of our soldiers have taken their own lives as a result of seeing the barbarism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 60% of military members serving in Iraq/Afghanistan want to come home, as shown by numerous polls. Think of our soldiers, Iraqis, and their families who are forever destroyed and the many more to be destroyed if we continue this war in Iraq and start a new one in Iran. Please think of the soldiers and the people. Put them first, they have already sacrificed enough; they need not sacrifice 1 thing more.
We can't "win", "lose" or "surrender" because there was no legal framework for this war. There will be no signing ceremony on the deck of the Missouri or in a dining car in France. There were no list of grievances that we can point to that we are trying to solve with this war. There is no objective measurement for success, or failure.
The only thing you can measure is the cost in dollars and lives.
I like Donald Trump's idea. Let's declare victory, bring our troops home, and honor their service with a big parade in New York. We can save that $200 billion/yr and insure everyone's healthcare many times over. Or you can give me my share back.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-12-13 09:01:26
Curtis S wrote: "a vast majority of his attacks on the West-- at least rhetorically-- are said to be justified due to cultural, rather than political reasons." This is one of those urban legends that pass into "fact" without a shred of evidence to back them. Without exception, when you do the research to look at the sources for this kind of statement, you will always find that it came from a western analyst, not from a member of Al Qaeda. That should tell you something.
The most that we can say about Al Qaedda's view of the West as a culture is that they believe the West is "decadent" and "evil." But that's a long way from correctly concluding that the so-called "evil" of the West is the driving reason behind Al Qaedda. To the contrary, Bin Laden's own "fatwa" of 1998 declaring war on the U.S. showed that "cultural" issues were not even on his mind. What was on his mind was U.S. interventionism and nothing more.
In that "fatwa" Bin Laden cited three reasons for declaring open season on America. You can read them for yourself by clicking here. The reasons Bin Laden listed are:
"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
"If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.
"The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
"So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
"Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.
"The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."
And that, my friends, is the real truth about why Al Qaedda is out to get the USA. Those who argue in favor of fear-mongering by using such emotionally-laden terms as "islamofascism" need to take a good, hard look at the root causes of Al Qaedda's displeasure with the West, rather than reading only their own, ill-founded mis-analyses.
Walt, what the bin Laden quote makes very clear is that the reason al Qaeda wants to make war on the US is that they see clearly that our efforts in the mideast are designed to weaken Islam as a force for destruction and domination in the world and as a threat to the west, and that those efforts are being successful. I can't shed too many tears that a mass murderer is angry with us because we're making it harder to carry out a program of genocide, economic blackmail and cultural imperialism all designed to hurt the interests of the US and the west.
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.
