It is undeniable that I’ve been posting more and more under my “Politics & Other Objectionable Subjects” category. The blame for this turn of events must be laid at the feet of none other than Ron Paul of Texas, who has managed to excite me about the political process for the first time in years. Heck, throughout my life I’ve consistently sworn off the idea of running for any office because I just didn’t want to be in the spotlight, but in the last few weeks I’ve actually considered the possibility of running for some sort of local office. I suppose with Verizon opening their network and me thinking about that sort of thing, hell must really be freezing over.
As a result of my renewed interest in politics (and economics as well), I’ve been doing a good bit of reading, and of course I’ve been following the development of the 2008 presidential race. Without a doubt, Paul’s stance on these issues has been the most talked-about aspect of his campaign (and beliefs), with accusations flying that he wants to let the terrorists win, that his policies would put our nation in grave danger, and that he simply doesn’t understand the very real threat that extremist Islam poses.
Yesterday evening, I came across a well-written article by David Beito on Lew Rockwell’s site entitled “Why Ron Paul Is Right About Terrorism: A Letter to the GOP Base.” In my opinion, it’s the most eloquent and adequate defense of Ron Paul’s foreign policy that I’ve encountered to date.
Early on in the article, Beito makes this statement:
Ron Paul understands something that the other candidates from both parties apparently cannot: Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda is a relatively small organization with limited reach. The attack of September 11th was a desperate act from a desperate group who has failed miserably in their quest to conquer and unify the Islamic world. They do not control a single state on earth. By all indications Bin Laden, al Zawahiri and their closest followers remain isolated in the no-man’s-land between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This, I think, is the key to dealing with terrorism from extremist Islam. It is undeniable that bin Laden desires that Islam essentially run the world and that we all be under sharia law (another article I’ve read, “Osama’s Big Lie,” by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, argues this point far more eloquently than I could). Yet the vast majority of Muslims in countries where Islam is the dominant religion are not committed to this goal, at least not enough to actually act on it (and lack of action is, after all, an indication of a lack of a firm commitment and/or a willingness to compromise).
In his fatwa of February 1998, bin Laden states that
We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Yet despite this crystal clear call to go to war against our nation, the vast majority of the Islamic world has failed to rally to bin Laden’s side and act on his words. In the Middle East, the most activity that could potentially be attributed to such a motive is arguably occurring in Iraq, yet it is evident that the majority of the population there is not willing enough to take action to support those who are acting … otherwise the bloodshed over there would be far greater than it has been. Furthermore, evidence seems to indicate that many of the insurgents in Iraq have come from other countries.
If those who are willing to sacrifice to act on bin Laden’s words cannot even control Iraq, where their efforts are most likely focused at this point, how can they expect to extend bin Laden’s vision even to the entirety of the Islamic world … and if they cannot do so in the Islamic world, how can they force their vision on the entirety of the planet?
The simple answer is that they cannot, outside of at least a) the majority of persons in the world converting to Islam, and b) many, many more Muslims (including many of the converts) being willing to take up arms in support of the words of bin Laden. Even if that exceptionally unlikely scenario were to materialize, their best hope at controlling the world (or any country) is fear … which is historically the only way a minority can hold power over a majority.
So, while the extremist version of Islam that bin Laden promotes certainly does pose a danger to the United States as long as there are people willing to take up arms or sacrifice their life for that vision (and such a danger will always exist), the United States is hardly in danger of being overrun by such persons.
Despite this, the way our nation has dealt with the terrorist attacks has been essentially a knee-jerk reaction based on fear … fear of additional attacks, and fear of additional lives being lost on our soil as a result of such attacks. As a result, in one sense, bin Laden has won … many of our citizens are actually terrified of what those who follow him might be able to do. Fear is the very goal of terrorist activity … they want us to be afraid.
As if that weren’t enough, we have played right into bin Laden’s hands. Witness these words, once again from his 1998 fatwa:
The Arabian Peninsula has never — since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas — been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
If these words were convincing to Muslims in early 1998, they are certainly far more convincing now. We are occupying an entire nation in the Middle East, plus propping up the relatively unstable government of Afghanistan (in place of the bin Laden-supported Taliban regime that was once in control). As far as bin Laden is concerned, he must be happy that we’ve helped demonstrate that his argument is correct. By reacting without thinking, our misguided attempts to eliminate extremist Islam have done nothing but provide them with more ammunition, which is far from a good thing when you are dealing with a culture that is known to hold grudges against the descendants of those who have wronged them for hundreds of years after the fact.
Despite this, we continue our military action in Iraq, claiming that our tactics are working (and in a sense, they are) and that we are making progress (and again, it seems that we are), and that the Iraqi people are overall much better off without Saddam Hussein in power (and only a fool would deny that). But even if we succeed in whatever our goals in Iraq might be, focusing on the success ignores the critical question … was the decision to invade in the first place the right decision? If the answer is that our decision simply adds more fuel to the fire that bin Laden is stoking, and more Muslims are persuaded to join his jihad against us, which simply continues the status quo, then the answer is most certain an unequivocal “No!”
So, what is the answer? The people of the United States must, first and foremost, face their fear. We must stop abdicating the primary responsibility for our safety and defense to the government (which is readily abusing our trust) and admit that we are our own first line of defense. The most extreme terrorist invasion of the United States by followers of bin Laden will ultimately fail in a scenario where every citizen is willing to personally fight. This, I believe, is exactly why the second amendment is in our Constitution in the first place. Witness Hitler’s treatment of Switzerland during World War II; he wasn’t even brave enough to deploy his massive war machine against a small nation where the majority of citizens are trained marksman (see “Switzerland and the gun” from the BBC), even though it had easily rolled over Poland and France (and through Belgium).
Second, we must mind our own business. No, I’m not foolish enough to think that if we march out of Iraq, pull up our stakes around the world everywhere we have a military base, and bring all our troops home that bin Laden and his buddies will sit back and leave us alone. After all, they’ve said they won’t. The “mind our own business” in Ron Paul’s foreign policy is not, as some seem to believe, some pie-in-the-sky ideal where we keep our head in the sand and pretend the world isn’t the mean, nasty place that it actually is. Yes, al Qaeda (or its sucessors) will probably regroup, and most certainly will attempt another terrorist attack on our soil. But then again, that is also true if we continue to “stay the course.”
Ultimately, the only way that we can truly eliminate the threat posed by extremist Islam is to essentially eliminate the mindset that drives extremist Islam itself, which isn’t remotely likely. If we simply eliminate bin Laden and his thousand closest al Qaeda followers, five thousand more will spring up to take his place. History has shown us this effect again and again. If we eliminate Islam itself, the mindset will continue to exist, and will just take refuge under additional philosophical or religious systems. Elimination of the mindset itself is simply not possible. World War One did not eliminate the mindset that led (and leads) to war. World War Two did not eliminate the mindset of hatred that drove the Nazis’ “final solution.” The civil rights movement in the United States did not eliminate the mindset of the KKK and other groups. Thus, we must stop trying to fool ourselves into thinking that we’re going to somehow, through pre-emptive and/or offensive action, eliminate the mindset that drives people to fly planes into buildings and blow themselves up in crowds of people, and focus on defending ourselves against incursions by those sort of people. The way we do that is by minding our business (and removing as many excuses as possible for them to attack) and being ready when they actually do so.
In the original article that inspired this piece (the one you probably thought I had forgotten about), Beito states
Many Americans believe they need the government to defend them from “radical Islam,” but those who hold truest to enforcing the strictest interpretations of Islam as a way of life have no chance of gaining or maintaining real dominance over humanity in the 21st century. Even if 100 impossibilities found Osama bin Laden leading the new caliphate in the Middle East, it would be as doomed as Communism was in the last century. Do we really fear that a stateless band of pirates in exile in the Hindu Kush will destroy us? Have we so much confidence in the capabilities of those who had to steal our planes in order to launch their Kamikaze attack and so little belief in the resilience of our own civilization?
“Radical Islam,” like Communism, is ultimately doomed to failure. We faced down the very real threat of war with the USSR in the last century without firing a single shot against the USSR proper, despite losing eastern Europe, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Cuba, and other countries to Communism. In the end, though, Communism failed, without our intervention (and despite our actual attempts to intervene). If we were able to survive the threat of Communism backed by nations arguably armed as well as we were (and at least well enough to wipe our whole nation off of the map if they had wanted), then we really shouldn’t have anything to fear from bin Laden and his buddies.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I agree with and stand with Ron Paul when he says “I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.”
Latest Comments
RSS