Posts
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)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.
No comments:
Post a Comment