I agree that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster since the first war against Iraq. Still, Paul and Chomsky are wrong.
To understand Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, one needs to know the history of the Middle East at least since WWI. The best sources I have found for such history are Bernard Lewis and Amir Taheri. Here are just a few important points to keep in mind:
Muslim leaders like bin Laden hang on every word written by Marxists like Chomsky because of his endless criticism of capitalism and the US. So most of the time you read Muslims giving their reasons for how they act they are just giving us back what writers like Chomsky have written.
From the 19th century at least, most people in the Middle East held to a conspiracy theory that said Britain was behind everything that happened. If anything happened, even bad weather, it was the Brit's fault. The US took over that role somewhere in the 1970's.
For example, Muslim writers have insisted for the past generation that all of the dictators in the Middle East retained their power because the US kept them in power.
In short, Muslim intellectuals blame everything bad in their country on the US and have done so at least since the 1974 Yom Kippur war.
The US has never preferred Israel over the Arabs and tried to maintain a position as an honest broker. But Muslims blamed the US for their defeat in the 1973 war, even though the US played no role until the very end. Muslims were so embarrassed at having lost four straight wars against the tiny, inferior Israel that they had to blame a super power in order to "save face".
Again, I think the two wars against Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were major mistakes, but keep in mind that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban killed at least as many Muslims as the wars did. Today, the Taliban and Muslims terrorists in Iraq murder Muslims daily, but you hear absolutely deafening silence from the Muslim media.
It's perfectly fine for Muslims to murder Muslims all day long. You'll never hear Al Qaeda, which has murdered more Muslims than the US, complain about Muslim on Muslim violence. But let an American kill one Muslim and it justifies all of the violence against the US from now on.
I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul, but he is just naive about the Middle East. Chomsky on the other hand is just plain dishonest.
There is no doubt that problems in the middle east have stemmed partially from the decay and break-up of the Ottoman Empire. At the end, western powers helped to finish it off, as is what often happens to disintegrating powers. That said, the United States has funded, armed and intervened (with the aforementioned western powers preceding the U.S.) in Israel as well as other countries of that region, resulting in a disastrous and incoherent foreign policy that can only result in disaster. Better to leave it alone and have disaster than to intervene and make it even worse. Israel may well not have nuclear weapons if not for the U.S. Logic tells us that no one nation has a right to these weapons and then, to tell other nations they do/do not have a right to nuclear weapons. It is obvious that the world would be better off if weapons of mass destruction did not exist at all. As far as the media silence over Muslim-murdering-Muslim I will simply say one thing: perhaps they are silent because powerful people of those nations prefer to blame an outside threat to solidify control over their own populations. 1984 is for everybody. Even if Ron Paul is naive about the Middle East, the conclusions he draws are the best that is humanly possible: to withdraw and attempt peaceful relations with the whole world.
Ron Paul has never said that Muslim leaders were good people. He says, correctly, that it is not our jobs to police them or the rest of the world, and we're going broke doing so. Hornets may be killing each other all day long in their nest, but when you throw a rock at the nest, the hornets will unite to kill you. Why throw the rock?
Neocons need a bogeyman to scare everyone into supporting their form of big government just like the leftists use capitalists. We have far more to fear from our own government than we do from foreign terrorists. Who has done more to remove our freedom in the last 10 years: terrorists, or the U.S. government?
Wow, Roger, you need to do some serious reading besides neocons like Bernard Lewis and Amir Taheri. Just about every point you made is wrong and the opposite of the truth. Yes, we have supported, like the British before us, all the unsavory regimes throughout the region, including apartheid Israel and authoritarian dictators like Mubarak. Our policies have been very callous and cynical. 500,000 Iraqi children were estimated to have died from our sanction policies and did our leaders care one iota? No, then Sec. of State Albright famously said such a horrendous death toll was worth it when she was asked about it. You say we have been an "honest broker"? Sorry, you are deluded or you are not being honest. We have been totally for the Israelis against the Arabs. Our involvement in Iran also has been very ugly, including overthrowing a democratically elected leader to install the Shah. It goes on and on. We need to stop meddling in that part of the world.
Roger: This has been probably the most misrepresented aspect of Paul's message throughout his entire campaign.
You write, "But let an American kill one Muslim and it justifies all of the violence against the US from now on."
In other words, you are objecting to the claim that the United States is too blame for the acts of terrorism committed against us, and that the terrorists' actions are fully justified. That is perfectly reasonable, and I would also object to anyone who makes that claim. However, that is not the point made by Congressman Paul.
Paul is simply saying that acts of terrorism against us are foreseeable consequences of our military presence in certain regions.
Paul is not the saying that the terrorists are justified in killing Americans because they don't like are policies.
Paul is not saying that the US is morally responsible for the terrorist acts against us.
Indeed, Paul is not even condemning a foreign military base as wrong or even unconstitutional.
He is simply observing the neutral fact that this is what motivates the terrorists to attack us.
The terrorists are still uncivilized savages, and the west is still the modern epitome of human civilization and progress. But understanding what motivates the savages, is not in anyway a justification of their irrational decisions to kill.
R: "To understand Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, one needs to know the history of the Middle East at least since WWI."
At least.
R: "Here are just a few important points to keep in mind:"
Neocon authors. Interesting choice.
R: "Muslim leaders like bin Laden hang on every word written by Marxists like Chomsky because of his endless criticism of capitalism and the US."
Setting up the strawman...Chomsky's politics are irrelevant as to whether his facts (not opinions) are correct.
R: "So most of the time you read Muslims giving their reasons for how they act they are just giving us back what writers like Chomsky have written."
Really? Here's the HILARIOUS part. Back when the Taliban and the Mujahedin and bin Laden were fighting the evil Commies (Soviets), we supported them and liked them. Ditto Sadam: When he was fighting the Iranians, he was a model for the Middle East...a secular leader who was modern and pro-West. Ironically, it was the fact that Sadam was secular that made al Qaeda call for his overthrow. So...please tell me where Chomsky said that Sadam was to be overthrown because he was secular.
R: "From the 19th century at least, most people in the Middle East held to a conspiracy theory that said Britain was behind everything that happened."
True.
R: "The US took over that role somewhere in the 1970's."
At some point, I'll agree.
R: "For example, Muslim writers have insisted for the past generation that all of the dictators in the Middle East retained their power because the US kept them in power."
Let's see... Egypt - Check. Iran (The Shah Years)- Check (UK/US). Jordan - Check. Iraq (Pre-Kuwait) - Check. Saudi Arabia - Check. Kuwait - Check +. Turkey - Check. Pakistan - Check. Taliban (while fighting the USSR) - Check.
R: "In short, Muslim intellectuals blame everything bad in their country on the US and have done so at least since the 1974 Yom Kippur war."
We're not 100% responsible for everything that happened, but, seriously, anyone who claimed to be anti-communist got our support.
R: "The US has never preferred Israel over the Arabs and tried to maintain a position as an honest broker."
Yes, we have. We support, unquestionably, a government that blatantly commits human rights violations. It is unconscionable that we criticize others who do the same thing. We play our own version of the Great Game. The Saudis and Israelis and Sadam commit violations, we ignore it. The Saudis play their games by publicly allying themselves with their Arab brothers (Palestinians) while doing nothing more than issue platitudes while secretly working with the Israelis. Note that we ignore similar things in other countries...look at Central/South America and China.
R: "But Muslims blamed the US for their defeat in the 1973 war, even though the US played no role until the very end."
They got their asses handed to them by the Israelis. No question about that. IDF is a badass army.
R: "Again, I think the two wars against Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were major mistakes, but keep in mind that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban killed at least as many Muslims as the wars did."
And?
R: "Today, the Taliban and Muslims terrorists in Iraq murder Muslims daily, but you hear absolutely deafening silence from the Muslim media."
I thought the Taliban was pretty much wiped out.
Sunni and Shi'a don't get along very well. Kind of like the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland in the bad old days.
Again, so what? Not our problem.
R: "But let an American kill one Muslim and it justifies all of the violence against the US from now on."
Um, it was more than just one Muslim.
Seriously. Educate yourself by reading more than just what neocons write. Read Chomsky before you dismiss him.
"... Not because they hate our freedoms, but because they hate our murderous and brutal policies." With the celebration of this type of thinking, it is no wonder why our univeristies are churning out armies of "double agents". Already widespread, this ideology will become a major force in the destruction of our country from the inside, as more and more apologetic Barack Obama types will rewrite the history of this great nation to fit their own narratives.
The US should apologize - to its own subjects domestically then to its subjects in the rest of the world ... then immediately dismantle its empire and the war machine
a-non-mouse (for fascist chuck and his gang of dictators)
"You'll never hear Al Qaeda, which has murdered more Muslims than the US", Huh? Estimates are about 500,00 Iraqis killed as a result of our sanctions after Gulf War 1 alone*, How can you even make such a claim?
You're right. I didn't count the sanctions, which were immoral. I was thinking of intentional killings.
More Muslim-on-Muslim killing occurred in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. Estimates are as high as one million dead. Did bin Laden ever complain? No. Never. It's perfectly fine with Al Qaeda if Muslims murder Muslims.
More americans were killed in the war between the states than on 9/11, but you won't hear the people condemning al qaeda condemn Lincoln. Did you hear Bush complain about lincoln?
I agree that US foreign policy in the Middle East has been a disaster since the first war against Iraq. Still, Paul and Chomsky are wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo understand Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, one needs to know the history of the Middle East at least since WWI. The best sources I have found for such history are Bernard Lewis and Amir Taheri. Here are just a few important points to keep in mind:
Muslim leaders like bin Laden hang on every word written by Marxists like Chomsky because of his endless criticism of capitalism and the US. So most of the time you read Muslims giving their reasons for how they act they are just giving us back what writers like Chomsky have written.
From the 19th century at least, most people in the Middle East held to a conspiracy theory that said Britain was behind everything that happened. If anything happened, even bad weather, it was the Brit's fault. The US took over that role somewhere in the 1970's.
For example, Muslim writers have insisted for the past generation that all of the dictators in the Middle East retained their power because the US kept them in power.
In short, Muslim intellectuals blame everything bad in their country on the US and have done so at least since the 1974 Yom Kippur war.
The US has never preferred Israel over the Arabs and tried to maintain a position as an honest broker. But Muslims blamed the US for their defeat in the 1973 war, even though the US played no role until the very end. Muslims were so embarrassed at having lost four straight wars against the tiny, inferior Israel that they had to blame a super power in order to "save face".
Again, I think the two wars against Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were major mistakes, but keep in mind that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban killed at least as many Muslims as the wars did. Today, the Taliban and Muslims terrorists in Iraq murder Muslims daily, but you hear absolutely deafening silence from the Muslim media.
It's perfectly fine for Muslims to murder Muslims all day long. You'll never hear Al Qaeda, which has murdered more Muslims than the US, complain about Muslim on Muslim violence. But let an American kill one Muslim and it justifies all of the violence against the US from now on.
I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul, but he is just naive about the Middle East. Chomsky on the other hand is just plain dishonest.
There is no doubt that problems in the middle east have stemmed partially from the decay and break-up of the Ottoman Empire. At the end, western powers helped to finish it off, as is what often happens to disintegrating powers. That said, the United States has funded, armed and intervened (with the aforementioned western powers preceding the U.S.) in Israel as well as other countries of that region, resulting in a disastrous and incoherent foreign policy that can only result in disaster. Better to leave it alone and have disaster than to intervene and make it even worse. Israel may well not have nuclear weapons if not for the U.S. Logic tells us that no one nation has a right to these weapons and then, to tell other nations they do/do not have a right to nuclear weapons. It is obvious that the world would be better off if weapons of mass destruction did not exist at all. As far as the media silence over Muslim-murdering-Muslim I will simply say one thing: perhaps they are silent because powerful people of those nations prefer to blame an outside threat to solidify control over their own populations. 1984 is for everybody. Even if Ron Paul is naive about the Middle East, the conclusions he draws are the best that is humanly possible: to withdraw and attempt peaceful relations with the whole world.
DeleteRon Paul has never said that Muslim leaders were good people. He says, correctly, that it is not our jobs to police them or the rest of the world, and we're going broke doing so. Hornets may be killing each other all day long in their nest, but when you throw a rock at the nest, the hornets will unite to kill you. Why throw the rock?
DeleteNeocons need a bogeyman to scare everyone into supporting their form of big government just like the leftists use capitalists. We have far more to fear from our own government than we do from foreign terrorists. Who has done more to remove our freedom in the last 10 years: terrorists, or the U.S. government?
I think you're missing a big piece here, that without America, specifically the might of the American military, there is no free world.
Deletejoeyfrat, so you think is free? Is that same free used in free market?
DeleteWow, Roger, you need to do some serious reading besides neocons like Bernard Lewis and Amir Taheri. Just about every point you made is wrong and the opposite of the truth. Yes, we have supported, like the British before us, all the unsavory regimes throughout the region, including apartheid Israel and authoritarian dictators like Mubarak. Our policies have been very callous and cynical. 500,000 Iraqi children were estimated to have died from our sanction policies and did our leaders care one iota? No, then Sec. of State Albright famously said such a horrendous death toll was worth it when she was asked about it. You say we have been an "honest broker"? Sorry, you are deluded or you are not being honest. We have been totally for the Israelis against the Arabs. Our involvement in Iran also has been very ugly, including overthrowing a democratically elected leader to install the Shah. It goes on and on. We need to stop meddling in that part of the world.
DeleteRoger: This has been probably the most misrepresented aspect of Paul's message throughout his entire campaign.
DeleteYou write, "But let an American kill one Muslim and it justifies all of the violence against the US from now on."
In other words, you are objecting to the claim that the United States is too blame for the acts of terrorism committed against us, and that the terrorists' actions are fully justified. That is perfectly reasonable, and I would also object to anyone who makes that claim. However, that is not the point made by Congressman Paul.
Paul is simply saying that acts of terrorism against us are foreseeable consequences of our military presence in certain regions.
Paul is not the saying that the terrorists are justified in killing Americans because they don't like are policies.
Paul is not saying that the US is morally responsible for the terrorist acts against us.
Indeed, Paul is not even condemning a foreign military base as wrong or even unconstitutional.
He is simply observing the neutral fact that this is what motivates the terrorists to attack us.
The terrorists are still uncivilized savages, and the west is still the modern epitome of human civilization and progress. But understanding what motivates the savages, is not in anyway a justification of their irrational decisions to kill.
R: "To understand Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, one needs to know the history of the Middle East at least since WWI."
DeleteAt least.
R: "Here are just a few important points to keep in mind:"
Neocon authors. Interesting choice.
R: "Muslim leaders like bin Laden hang on every word written by Marxists like Chomsky because of his endless criticism of capitalism and the US."
Setting up the strawman...Chomsky's politics are irrelevant as to whether his facts (not opinions) are correct.
R: "So most of the time you read Muslims giving their reasons for how they act they are just giving us back what writers like Chomsky have written."
Really? Here's the HILARIOUS part. Back when the Taliban and the Mujahedin and bin Laden were fighting the evil Commies (Soviets), we supported them and liked them. Ditto Sadam: When he was fighting the Iranians, he was a model for the Middle East...a secular leader who was modern and pro-West. Ironically, it was the fact that Sadam was secular that made al Qaeda call for his overthrow. So...please tell me where Chomsky said that Sadam was to be overthrown because he was secular.
R: "From the 19th century at least, most people in the Middle East held to a conspiracy theory that said Britain was behind everything that happened."
True.
R: "The US took over that role somewhere in the 1970's."
At some point, I'll agree.
R: "For example, Muslim writers have insisted for the past generation that all of the dictators in the Middle East retained their power because the US kept them in power."
Let's see...
Egypt - Check.
Iran (The Shah Years)- Check (UK/US).
Jordan - Check.
Iraq (Pre-Kuwait) - Check.
Saudi Arabia - Check.
Kuwait - Check +.
Turkey - Check.
Pakistan - Check.
Taliban (while fighting the USSR) - Check.
R: "In short, Muslim intellectuals blame everything bad in their country on the US and have done so at least since the 1974 Yom Kippur war."
We're not 100% responsible for everything that happened, but, seriously, anyone who claimed to be anti-communist got our support.
R: "The US has never preferred Israel over the Arabs and tried to maintain a position as an honest broker."
Yes, we have. We support, unquestionably, a government that blatantly commits human rights violations. It is unconscionable that we criticize others who do the same thing. We play our own version of the Great Game. The Saudis and Israelis and Sadam commit violations, we ignore it. The Saudis play their games by publicly allying themselves with their Arab brothers (Palestinians) while doing nothing more than issue platitudes while secretly working with the Israelis. Note that we ignore similar things in other countries...look at Central/South America and China.
R: "But Muslims blamed the US for their defeat in the 1973 war, even though the US played no role until the very end."
They got their asses handed to them by the Israelis. No question about that. IDF is a badass army.
R: "Again, I think the two wars against Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were major mistakes, but keep in mind that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban killed at least as many Muslims as the wars did."
And?
R: "Today, the Taliban and Muslims terrorists in Iraq murder Muslims daily, but you hear absolutely deafening silence from the Muslim media."
I thought the Taliban was pretty much wiped out.
Sunni and Shi'a don't get along very well. Kind of like the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland in the bad old days.
Again, so what? Not our problem.
R: "But let an American kill one Muslim and it justifies all of the violence against the US from now on."
Um, it was more than just one Muslim.
Seriously. Educate yourself by reading more than just what neocons write. Read Chomsky before you dismiss him.
"... Not because they hate our freedoms, but because they hate our murderous and brutal policies." With the celebration of this type of thinking, it is no wonder why our univeristies are churning out armies of "double agents". Already widespread, this ideology will become a major force in the destruction of our country from the inside, as more and more apologetic Barack Obama types will rewrite the history of this great nation to fit their own narratives.
ReplyDeleteThe US should apologize - to its own subjects domestically then to its subjects in the rest of the world ... then immediately dismantle its empire and the war machine
ReplyDeletea-non-mouse (for fascist chuck and his gang of dictators)
"You'll never hear Al Qaeda, which has murdered more Muslims than the US", Huh? Estimates are about 500,00 Iraqis killed as a result of our sanctions after Gulf War 1 alone*, How can you even make such a claim?
ReplyDelete*But remember it was "worth it
You're right. I didn't count the sanctions, which were immoral. I was thinking of intentional killings.
DeleteMore Muslim-on-Muslim killing occurred in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. Estimates are as high as one million dead. Did bin Laden ever complain? No. Never. It's perfectly fine with Al Qaeda if Muslims murder Muslims.
I agree with Ron Paul's foreign and military policies completely. I just think he sounds naive when he tries to rationalize them.
DeleteMore americans were killed in the war between the states than on 9/11, but you won't hear the people condemning al qaeda condemn Lincoln. Did you hear Bush complain about lincoln?
DeleteMichael Scheuer endorses Ron Paul. Game - Set - Match.
ReplyDelete