The point here is not to argue that in their time La Follette and Taft got things exactly right. They did not -- although events proved them to be more prescient than either Wilson or FDR, each of whom prophesied that out of war would come lasting peace. Rather, the point is that in those days, there existed within the national political arena a lively awareness that war is inherently poisonous, giving rise to all sorts of problematic consequences, and that military power is something that democracies ought to treat gingerly. Today, in sharp contrast, such sensitivities have been all but snuffed out. When it comes to military matters, the national political stage does not accomodate contrarian voices, even from those ostensibly most critical of actually existing policy.
Prof. Bacevich's book is an analysis of how the way contemporary Americans think about the military, its uses and America's place in the world leads us into dangerous folly divorced from America's principles and America's real interests. In the introduction to the book, which came out last year, the conservative scholar (and retired officer) says it would be too easy to blame Bush and his coterie for the Iraq folly; in truth, he argues, that fault belongs to the American people, because the Iraq policy was the natural consequence of our own bad ideas about the military and its role in fulfilling our romantic ideas of American greatness.
I'm thinking that as obnoxious as Ron Paul's remarks came across last night in the moment, he said something important and necessary to think about. If we're ever going to avoid getting into quagmires like Iraq again, we've got to be able to talk about the kind of thing that Ron Paul had the bad taste to bring up last night. It feels good (felt good to me, anyway) to watch Giuliani's eyes blaze and smoke come out his nostrils in rebuking Paul, but really, indignation is not the same thing as refutation. And insofar as indignation is allowed to kill the discussion of US foreign policy and its relationship to anti-American Muslim extremism, it does not serve the national interest. Ron Paul's argument deserves to be answered, not shouted down as beyond the pale of discussion. "How dare you!" is not an argument, but an argument-ender.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Ron Paul was my congressman a few years ago, and once wrote to me to tell me I was wrong. I had never had a congressman tell me I was wrong and why before. Ron was right, and had done his homework. I have admired Ron Paul ever since and periodically send him a contribution. Ron Paul does his homework and knows about the history of Iraq and the Middle East. I wish members of the Bush team did their homework like Ron Paul. We would not be in the mess we are in in Iraq. I don't think George Bush knew the difference between Sunni and Shiite, when he planned to go to war. Every president needs a maverick on his cabinet, like Ron Paul, to play "devils advocate". Bush is surrounded by "yes" men who don't do their homework.
I think Ron Paul was too nice in his comments. I would have said that "9-11 occurred because the USA has its collective nose 6 inches up Israel's collective butt".
Well, it's a good thing then, Richard, since you are entirely wrong about what caused 9/11. Somehow, I'd expect Ron Paul to know that, as well.
The thing that tires me is people turning Paul's argument into a "blame America first" argument. It is not that. First, our foreign policy is not run by the American people, but by several hundred politicians in D.C. Second, Paul is encouraging people to search for the real motive behind the attacks - just as a good murder investigator searches for the motive. Finding that a killer had a motive does not mean that the victim "invited" the killing, anymore than finding that the killer had a motive justifies the actions of the killer. However, if you find a man in bed with your wife, you might consider that justification for killing one or both of them. You would certainly have a motive - and certainly SOME action related to that motive would have justification... Killing both of them on the spot would be a homicide/crime of passion because it's against the law. Of course, crimes of passion generally carry lesser sentences because of the nature of the offense - the motive for the killing was a reaction to an offense against the killer. I submit that Paul is correct - our various attempts to protect our "interests" all over the world do have the effect of causing some of the world (what about those whose relatives are killed as "collateral damage") to view our government very much as a husband would view the marital bed with his wife and another man in it. Does that justify the terrorists actions on 9/11? No However. . . Are you likely to get stung if you steal honey from a bee hive? Yes ("But I was only trying to get honey for your family. . .") Are you likely to be bitten if you try to break up a fight between two dogs? Yes ("But I was only trying to protect the little dog.") Are you more likely to end up dead if you sleep with another man's wife than if you don't? Yes ("But I was in love with her. . .") Do our government's actions overseas increase the likelihood of terrorist acts against us? . . . ("But we were only trying to bring democracy to the Iraqis. . .") I leave it to you to answer the last one.
You Americans aren't aware of what your country is doing to the rest of the world. Not only to third world (muslim or otherwise) countries, but to every country on Earth. Condoleezza Rice flew to Norway to straighten up some criticism of Israel for instance. Another top ranking US official flew to Belgium, to make sure the Belgians would rewind a law that would have made it impossible for Ariel Sharon to visit Belgium without getting arrested for war crimes. And so on.
It seems that you've transformed yourself from "The land of the free" into "The land of useful idiots to jewish interests". Israel is an apartheid state and you are its servants. Poor you.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.