Tapsearch Com EditorRon Paul was (a little) right
May 16th 2007 22:04
Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul got into it at last night's debates. Ron Paul said:
Giuliani is right that it's absurd to link attacks on Iraq to Al Qaeda's rage, but as I pointed out in my review of Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, there is indeed a connection between U.S. action and terrorism:
This doesn't necessarily mean that the costs of intervention outweigh the benefits, but it does mean that increased terrorism is a cost of intervention. Jonah Goldberg sounds a similar note in his new column:
Of course, in terms of terrorism, there's the complication that the mob hangout is in another country. Nonetheless, Goldberg argues it's not so much military as political intervention (following D'Souza's argument to a degree):
By Robert VerBruggen
Have you ever read about the reason they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there...We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years...I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us.
Giuliani is right that it's absurd to link attacks on Iraq to Al Qaeda's rage, but as I pointed out in my review of Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, there is indeed a connection between U.S. action and terrorism:
The Defense Science Board noticed a historical link between intervention and terrorism in 1997, and the Cato Institute followed with a detailed report the next year. More recently journalist Afshin Molavi pointed out that the more a regime caters to U.S. interference, the more anti-American the regime's country becomes. Iran has one of the most pro-America populations in the Middle East.
Statistical work by Robert Pape found the same trend. In “Dying to Win,” he looked at 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003. About 95 percent were linked to political objectives, and he argued that foreign occupation was terrorism’s primary cause.
This shouldn’t shock anyone. A terrorist does not choose the U.S., halfway around the globe, by throwing darts at a map. American leaders know (or should) that wedging themselves into a country's affairs is bound to create a backlash.
Statistical work by Robert Pape found the same trend. In “Dying to Win,” he looked at 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003. About 95 percent were linked to political objectives, and he argued that foreign occupation was terrorism’s primary cause.
This shouldn’t shock anyone. A terrorist does not choose the U.S., halfway around the globe, by throwing darts at a map. American leaders know (or should) that wedging themselves into a country's affairs is bound to create a backlash.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the costs of intervention outweigh the benefits, but it does mean that increased terrorism is a cost of intervention. Jonah Goldberg sounds a similar note in his new column:
If you send cops into a mob hangout, the cops will face blowback from criminals with guns. That hardly means the cops had it coming.
Of course, in terms of terrorism, there's the complication that the mob hangout is in another country. Nonetheless, Goldberg argues it's not so much military as political intervention (following D'Souza's argument to a degree):
If you actually listen to more authentic voices than bin Laden’s — both democratic activists and Islamist bad guys — you’ll find that one of the real reasons “they hate us” is that we support their corrupt rulers and dictators (in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere).
By Robert VerBruggen
| 37 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
