Rep. Paul and the Founders versus Our Interventionist Elite by Michael Scheuer America’s bipartisan governing elite never expected their common interventionist foreign policy to be damned by a man who has long worked among that august group. But Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) proved himself not only a political maverick, but one of the few elected federal officials who still prizes – indeed, treasures is a better word – his status as an American citizen. Rep. Paul does not view himself as a citizen of the world who deems unrelenting U.S. intervention abroad as the acceptable price the world demands of America for this higher form of citizenship. Rep. Paul rejects that price, which is, of course, enormously expensive in monetary terms, as well as in terms of the blood of American kids, most of whose parents and other kin are seldom if ever found in the country’s governing elite. In the Republican debate in South Carolina, Dr. Paul had the unmitigated gall to tell his fellow candidates the exact truth: America was attacked by Islamists on 9/11, and untold other times since Osama bin Laden declared war on us in 1996, because of the United States government’s foreign policies and their impact in the Muslim world over the last thirty-five years. Dr. Paul then consigned to history’s trashcan the motivations assigned to bin Laden and his ilk by the Bush and Clinton administrations; the nine other Republican candidates; the eight please-don’t-ask-us-about-what-Ron-Paul-said Democratic presidential candidates; most of the media; and the think tanks, left, center, and right. Quite correctly, Rep. Paul deep-sixed – hopefully forever – the idea that our Islamist enemies are attacking us because of our freedoms, liberties, elections, freedom of speech, and gender equality. In response to Rep. Paul, Rudy Giuliani – is there a more unctuous, ill-informed, and arrogant man in American politics? – dismissed the idea that we were attacked for being "over there" as, in his opinion, "absurd." Giuliani added that he had never before heard such an analysis, demanded Dr. Paul retract his words, and clearly implied that Dr. Paul was unpatriotic. In other words, Giuliani applied the usual crude denigration reserved for any American citizen who dares question the establishment’s self-serving interventionism. Sadly for Americans, Giuliani probably was telling the truth, both for himself and the American governing elite. None of the elite’s denizens appear to have heard, read, or even sensed anything that runs counter to the Muslims-hate-us-for-our-freedoms dictum that became revealed scripture on 9/11 and which, in truth, has governed the elite’s perceptions of and actions in the Muslim world for decades. Dr. Paul is right, our governing elite are obsessed with searching abroad for dragons to destroy, especially Islamic dragons; they thereby ignore the Founders’ clear warning that such activity all but assures the ruin of our republic. Soon after the debate, the bone-deep interventionism of both parties focused on by Rep. Paul was underscored for Americans by the spending bill for the Iraq war passed by Congress and signed by President Bush. The bill allowed the intervention in Iraq to continue until at least September and showed there is no real difference between the two parties; the Republicans want to continue pursuing the military option, while the Democrats argue the military option has failed and there must now be a U.S.-dominated political solution. Neither party wants to leave Iraq; each just has its own view of how the intervention should be managed. And they cynically have stage-managed the next three months so that each will have ammunition – in the form of dead U.S. military personnel – to support their agendas when the next Iraq spending bill is debated. The Republicans will argue that the "surge" has been costly in lives but is succeeding and cannot be given up; the Democrats will argue the surge has failed and the high number of U.S. dead show that we must find a political settlement. Odds are the next spending bill will be signed and leave the situation substantially unchanged because no one – save Rep. Paul – really wants to get out of Iraq. Indeed, there is every chance that the next presidential election will come and go and we will still be in Iraq because the gentleman from Texas is the only presidential candidate who is not a rank interventionist. Faced with this reality, the struggle to make Americans face facts on foreign policy must be fought now and the spark struck by Rep. Paul fanned into a fire. Make no mistake, the United States is fighting and losing a growing war against al-Qaeda and its allies. And our evolving defeat is not the result of military weakness on our part, or any God-is-on-the-side-of-the-Islamists factor on al-Qaeda’s side. We are losing because we have underestimated the enemy’s strength and motivation thanks to the belief of Mr. Giuliani and our bipartisan elite that Mr. Paul’s assessment of the Islamists’ motivation is "absurd." That belief – which can now be called the "Giuliani Doctrine" – is al-Qaeda’s only indispensable ally and its maintenance is the Islamists only hope for victory. Our Islamist enemies are motivated by the U.S. policies that have produced America’s military presence in the Muslim world; approval for the repression of Muslims by Russia and China; exploitation of Muslim oil resources; unqualified support for Israel; and a half-century of protecting Arab police states. No American, of course, has to agree with Muslim perceptions of U.S. policies. But perception always is reality, and there is no doubt that most of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims – even those opposed to bin Laden – perceive U.S. foreign policy as an attack on their faith, lands, and brethren. Thus, while our bipartisan governing elite fight a non-existent threat – the freedom-haters and the liberty detesters – the threat fueled by hatred for the impact of U.S. foreign policy grows broader, deeper, and more visceral among Muslims. What to do? Take Rep. Paul up on his idea of debating the components of U.S. foreign policy that are at issue, not to denigrate their authors and upholders, but to allow Americans to assess whether the policies are doing the only thing they must do – protect America. In this nation there should be nothing too dangerous to talk about; energy, Israel, and our tyrannical Arab "friends" ought to be on the table for thorough, even vitriolic debate. An honest, wide-ranging debate would do two things: (1) It would destroy the myth that Muslims hate us for who we are and how we think and live, and (2) it would help Americans see that U.S. foreign policy has consequences, good and bad, and that Washington’s current policies ensure war with the Islamists for the foreseeable future, and probably much longer. Might I suggest, therefore, that the next Republican and Democratic debates focus on a single proposition, and that proposition be taken from the finest book on the history of U.S. foreign relations published in the last quarter century, Walter A. MacDougall’s, Promised Land, Crusader State: The American Encounter with the World since 1776. In the debates, the proposition before the house for discussion – to adapt the words of Dr. MacDougall – should be: "Foreign policy defines what America is at home and is the instrument for preserving and expanding American freedom at home. Foreign policy conducted in the form of crusades for democracy or other ideologies abroad belie America’s ideals, violate its true interests, and sully its freedom. The Founders never intended foreign policy to impose their values beyond America’s own land and waters. None of the Founders perceived a mortal conflict between morality and the national interest; indeed, foreign policy is moral when it is in the national interest." Initially, such a debate would amount to Dr. Paul against all comers, but Dr. Paul would be quickly joined by tens of millions of Americans when they hear the fatuous, theory-stuffed attempts by the seventeen other candidates to justify the profligate waste of American lives, treasure, and security for exactly the kind of ideological crusading – democracy, freedom, human and women’s rights, etc. – the Founders not only warned against, but damned. At debate’s end it would be clear to Americans that their self-appointed, inbred emperors have no clothes. And the way then would be clear to think about a foreign policy that protects American liberty at home and genuine U.S. interests abroad, and one that is not the republic-destroying play thing of our elite interventionists and the interest groups, foreign lobbies, and domestic military industries that fund their election campaigns. Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. Source: http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11052
did you get a brand new keyboard with a cool copy/paste function? all your threads seem to indicate you did.
I was just saying a week or two ago, that RP should mop up with the muslim vote. Id rather see the debates focus on this book: The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) Thomas Jefferson knew, all too well.
Is this part, "Michael Scheuer is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror." 1) A poorly written (unclear) way to say he's been covering the CIA for 22 years? or 2) He's been working for them (obviously not 'undercover') as an employee for 22 years?
Scheuer headed the CIA's Bin Laden unit. He's one of the country's foremost experts on Bin Laden. Nothing in that copy/paste above isn't covered in the 9/11 commission report. The CIA coined the term "blowback" as a consequence of foreign policy, and the Commission Report backs up Dr. Paul's position on foreign policy. The problem is, that everyone here is an expert, just as Rudy Giuliani claims to be an expert because he presided over 9/11 in NY without taking the time to read the report, and understand the before, during and after in any detail. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf Unfortunately, many people prefer rhetoric to facts, jocks to nerds, and Brittney Spears to a young Susan Sarandon. We're a fast food culture that thinks it can address enormous global issues in a top 10 countdown or 30 second sound bite.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html
The bullshit that expressing a different opinion is "unpatriotic" is why the R and the D are coming off my voter registration card. I say anyone that denies another their opinion should be labeled a terrorist. Undermining my freedom is a serious matter. That's UnAmerican.
Lorien, that's a little disingenuous don't you think? First, Paul says that Bin Laden's reasons for (originally) attacking us are cause for concern and change, and you call him a terrorist sympathizer. Now you are using Bin Laden's own words to prove what? I'm seriously confused about you using Bin Laden's words over the words of our own 9/11 report.
At which point do I call him a terrorist sympathizer? Bin Laden didn't say what I quoted. You'd realize this if you looked at the link and, possibly, attempted to understand it.
I apologize for not reading further into your links. The point is the same. You're using a terrorist to disprove the 9/11 report and to discredit Paul's position. In the past, YOU HAVE used Paul's position based upon intelligence estimates and the reasons given by Bin Laden against him.
So, instead of discussing the point, you want to deflect. That's an interesting tactic; and yes, I do realize its the only one available. It's hard not to, isn't it? OBL says this is what we must to do prevent more attacks. PR agrees that we must do this as well. I find that problematic when the foreign policy of RP coincides with the optimal foreign policy of people who wish to kill us. I think its rather disturbing, don't you? So let's post one of these again. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html Ron Paul says the reason for 9/11 was our foreign policy. This guy claims to say that they laughed at the concept; because it dismisses the actual reason - their religious desire to kill non-believers. Paul falls for the concept, hook line and sinker. Don't you find this at all problematic?
It was also the foreign policy of the Founders. Based on the results, do you think our foreign policy has been a net success? "This guy" is a terrorist, and he's the basis of your argument. Don't you find that problematic or disturbing?
You and RP are the one agreeing with his statements. I'm pointing it out. I think you are still deflecting. Why?