On Terrorism - Part 3
My apologies, to a degree, for the political focus of these last few posts. Rest assured, an in-depth criticism of the song I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus is coming up soon.
But Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has posted an important report discussing an unconventional way of thinking about suicide bombers that I think is very much worth your review.
Consider these sentences:
- Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks.
Assuming that's true, isn't that noteworthy? Isn't it worth thinking about?
posted by garrett @ 11:08 AM
9 Comments:
I won't dispute this fact, but I still disagree with the underlying idea that western involvement in the arab world is the cause for islamic violence.
This flawed (and dangerous) thinking gave rise to a question asked of Australian Prime Minister John Howard today (who was visiting London) after new bombings.
John Howard on terrorism (scroll down to the response to a reporter's question.
Bin Laden and Al Qaida had declared war on the U.S. long before our involvement in Iraq or even Afghanistan. These guys have hated us since at least the first gulf war. Did conventional wisdom believe that kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was the wrong move?
I wholeheartedly agree that US foreign policy is aggravating militant islamists. That having been said, I completely reject that this is because we're the bad guys, or that we should pull out of the middle east. This is war, it's ugly, but they brought it to us first.
First and foremost, I want to just state the obvious to make sure we don't confuse the questions I'm asking with siding with the enemy, etc.: terrorism is wrong, bad, immoral, terrible, tragic, and awful. And I'm OK with using police and military to stop terrorists from carrying out suicide bombings. Note - you didn't say anything to prompt that defensive remark, but I want to be clear on that topic.
Now ... to our discussion. Did you read Ron Paul's article? You consider the thinking represented there dangerous?
I think I found the John Howard item to which you were referring. (Was it this: text?)
I think those kinds of remarks are dangerous. Maybe what bothers me about it the most is the tiny sliver of history PM Howard is using as a justification for current military exploits. If he wants to use a chicken and egg argument (who came first, who started it, etc.) he certainly needs to go back a lot farther than 5 years (or whenever the terrible attacks in Bali occurred). And so do you, for that matter, I guess. I'm surprised, for example, that you would say in one sentence that Al Qaida had declared war on the U.S. long before our involvement in Iraq and then in the very next sentence say "[t]hese guys have hated us since at least the first gulf war." The first gulf war certainly involved U.S. involvement in Iraq. For whatever that's worth.
Also, no, I don't think conventional wisdom believes kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was the wrong move. I don't have the technical/factual background to have an informed opinion about that topic. But my uninformed opinion about that and conventional wisdom is that (1) spending US taxpayer dollars on that was a violation of the constition and (2) conventional wisdom is generally wrong.
Can I ask you (and anyone else who wants to pipe in here) a couple of other questions?
What do you think the U.S. goal in Iraq is?
How is it OK for us to take military action that we know will result in civilian deaths/casualties?
Good response. I'll try to take your questions in order.
I did skim the Ron Paul article. I do not dispute the facts, but I think that the conclusion is a bit too simplistic. Mr. Paul neglects to mentioned where 9/11 fits into his analysis. Where was the egregious violation of "homeland" that propted this sort of response?
When defending the actions of Australia, why should Mr. Howard go back in time any further than East Timor? In my limited understand of 20th century Australian history, I cannot think of an offending action that justifies the response in East Timor. If memory serves, Australia only supported the democratic movement, without troops.
I disagree with your thoughts on the first gulf war. That was a necessary military exercise in order to preserve order in the region. Saddam was threatening an invasion of Saudi Arabia, which even the threat of would be too destabilizing to allow. I could care less about the "world community" or International Law, even though the gulf war was taken with both into consideration. If there was any mistake, it was not supporting Kurdish and Sunni uprisingings after the war.
Your final two questions (with overly simplistic answers):
1. This is the battleground for the "war on terror". The crazies from all over the planet are descending on Iraq to try and fight "the great infidel" (which shows how stupid they are). We need to kill them all. Plain and simple.
2. I have little relative problem with civilian casualties in Iraq. The majority of these casualties are coming at the hands of their own people or other arabs, anyway.
Can I get a Jack and Coke over here?
Where is "here", anon?
Coldstone Creamery...waffle cone central.
England... Japan's sending Playstations... Stankonia said they are willing to drop bombs over Baghdad... Rickidy Raw is coming... Afrika Bambaataa and the Zulu Nation.
Whenever anyone has a problem, we just tell Wally. Wally tells everyone, then no more problem.
Nice group you are starting to assemble
Post a Comment
<< Home