Monday, May 21, 2007
By Radley Balko
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
