(XV) Further Notes on Dr. Paul’s Studies
Recapitulating our job here at the Ron Paul Notebook, we are to read, summarize, review, and then add further commentary and tangential examination in regards to the book Liberty Defined by Ron Paul. This is done issue-by-issue——all 50 of them.
Continuing issue number fifteen, it should be useful to open up Dr. Paul’s earlier 2008 work The Revolution: A Manifesto and turn to chapter two to examine his studies on empire and terrorism so as to better understand his position and why it’s credible.
In The Revolution, three experts specifically are consulted:
Michael Scheuer, Philip Giraldi, and Robert Pape.
Researching more of this issue brings up their respected writings. Mr. Scheuer’s books include Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Osama Bin Laden. You can frequently find the writings of Mr. Giraldi in The American Conservative magazine and website. Dr. Pape wrote Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
Let’s review and highlight in bullet form, with Dr. Paul as our guide…
Michael Scheuer:
- former CIA chief of bin Laden unit
- conservative, pro-life man who can’t be called a conventional leftist
- research points to interventionism as what increases terror in world
- the CIA created a term for this and other unintended consequences, especially from covert operations: “blowback”
- Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini spoke of “moral degeneracy” to recruit men into a jihad against the West, but was unsuccessful
- Osama bin Laden spoke against U.S. foreign policy for recruits and got results in comparison
- bin Laden talked about U.S. support for bad regimes, troop presence in Arabian Peninsula, bias for Israel, etc. and almost never talked about American freedom/culture (when he did, only 1% of time) [See, e.g., this, this, this, & this]
Philip Giraldi:
- counterterrorism expert who worked in the CIA
- conservative man
- cause and effect relationship with terror results
- al Qaeda mentions precise grievances; specifically, U.S. governmental presence
- btw, neocon Paul Wolfowitz has admitted 9/11 was helped motivated by this presence
- consider, e.g., 1953 overthrow of Iran minster and his replacement by a shah resulting in a blowback hostage situation
Robert Pape:
- from University of Chicago
- author of Dying to Win which collects all 462 suicide terror attacks from 1980-2004
- found that religious reasons for attacks statistically low
- terror attacks statistically high where U.S. troops are; 2/3rds of attacks
- al Qaeda member ten times more likely to be found in country with U.S. troops
- Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history until U.S. occupation [also see: “Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat, says American intelligence report”]
- 1982-1986 Lebanon, e.g., had 41 attacks and only ended after occupation
Blowback is just another term for the unintended consequences of foreign policy. Just as unintended consequences follow interventionism in civil society, we can verify that vastly intervening in the societies of other peoples does the same.
It’s worse when we consider the policies the government has chosen.
The neoconservative worldview doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Consider Iraq. If anything, it has helped Islamic fundamentalism which the neocons say we need to fight against. Before it was more or less secular, now it has an Islamic constitution. Before Christians could live there, now they can’t. And it’s a more dangerous place. A breeding ground, actually, for terrorism.
Another source we should all consult is the work by the late Chalmers Johnson. His books include Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
