Crossposted from Flopping Aces

After Giuliani embarrassed Ron Paul in the 2nd Republican Presidential Debate last month, The RP damage control team has attempted to patch up Ron Paul’s campaign by "educating Rudy". Basically, it is their argument that Rudy Giuliani, by evoking President Bush’s "they hate us for our freedom" line of thought, is being simplistic. Ron Paul recommends a reading list to Rudy, that includes

"Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

Paul said it was irresponsible of Giuliani and other leaders to not examine the motivations of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. Well, what are their motives? Ron Paul says we should listen to their own words; what they tell us. It’s true that Islamists will cite their perception of American foreign policy as an ingredient to their drive toward violence as well as our presence on "their" soil, and support for governments in the Middle East that they don’t approve of. But what is the underlying, root cause? After all, as Ryan Mauro so excellently puts it,

Many people point to the sources of anti-Americanism as the cause of terrorism, but anti-Americanism does not translate into an acceptance of, and willingness to participate in, suicide bombings. It is not fair to blame anti-Americanism (and thus American policy causing anti-Americanism) as the cause of the sickness, because hatred of one country’s policy does not lead most people to justify killing innocents. After all, most of Western Europe and Latin America is anti-American, but they aren’t participating in terrorism. The deliberate massacring of civilians, although conducted by many groups over history, is currently unique to the Islamic world, specifically the Middle East and North Africa.

What Ron Paul fails to acknowledge, is the threats of radical Islam. That is the fuel that fires the violent "jihadist" mentality.

These Islamist fundamentalists oppose U.S. support of Middle Eastern governments, because these governments are not Islamic enough for them. They consider any secular government an aberration and an offense to God, because it is created by man’s arrogance to supplant Sharia Law. The salafists and wahabbists prey upon the feelings of injustice and oppression by the governments upon their people to sell them the snake oil of Islamic fundamentalism as the cure to their ailments.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have made it clear that their endgame plan is to create a a pan-Islamic Super-State.

 Ephraim Karsh:

Yet it was not America’s perceived weakness that brought about the September 11 attacks, as Mr. Lewis argues, but rather its undeniable prowess. This is because Mr. bin Laden and other Islamists’ war is not against America per se but is rather the most recent manifestation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire, the umma.

As the preeminent world power for quite some time, and the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet empire, America blocks the final realization of this goal and hence is a natural target for aggression. In this sense, the House of Islam’s war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.

The creation of a new Islamic Caliphate as a launching pad for a final showdown against all infidels isn’t the dream of just al-Qaeda Qtubists; the Shia-branch of militant Islam in Iran awaits the coming of the 12th imam. Ron Paul’s foreign policy does not take into account Ahmadinejad’s claim that he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”, who endorses a violent path to conquering the world.

 It is the radical, violent ideology of the Islamists that drives Osama bin Laden; not "we’re over there. That’s why they attacked us".

Any perceived trespasses by American foreign policy is just slant-sided propaganda, pushed for the purposes of recruiting more anti-American hirabists and sympathizers to rally around their cause. Apparently, it’s also been effective in swaying the opinions of American politicians and world opinion against us. This is why the anti-Americanism that is preached by the Ward Churchills and the Howard Zinns and the Noam Chomskys is so dangerous at the university level. Young people looking for something to believe in, an idealistic cause to take up arms over, are vulnerable to being influenced by radicals.

When blame-America-firsters rail against American foreign policy as a root cause of anti-Americanism, what they fail to note that it is a perception issue. After all, American foreign policy is also what has us pumping financial aid to so many countries, as well as coming to the rescue of so many people, including Muslims.

Ryan Mauro further writes,

While American policy surely causes anti-Americanism, and policy should be fixed to reduce that, there are limits. For example, Islamists may condemn our culture, but does that mean we eliminate our freedoms to sooth their anger? Islamists, and the governments that promote them, deliberately manipulate the feelings of the population. Their hatred comes from half-truths. One only needs to take a quick glance at American foreign policy to see that terrorism does not emanate from an objective critique of our actions.

For example, while Islamists condemn our support for Israel and presence in Saudi Arabia, they make no mention of what we have done for Muslims. During the Cold War, we staunchly opposed any Soviet interference in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the mujahideen in Afghanistan were backed by America to defeat the Soviets. In 1990, the U.S. freed Kuwait from the Iraqis, and defended Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holy land, from his probable scheme to invade. In 1995 and 1999, we fought on the side of the Muslims to protect them against the Serbs and Croatians, who were Christians! In 1999, the US hurt relations with Russia by criticizing their action in Chechnya. And it was American pressure that caused Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, forcing Jewish families from their homes, so the Palestinians could make it a homogenous area for themselves. While the U.S. does sell arms to Israel, we do the same for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and its Arab enemies. Just like the radical Muslims manipulate the interpretation of the Quran for evil ends, they also manipulate the interpretation of American policy for evil ends.

Likewise, while anti-Semitic feeling is real in the Islamic world, Israel is also a scapegoat in many cases. Few people know that Israel actually treats the Palestinians better than any Arab country does. The entire Palestinian problem was created by Arab nations refusing to allow the Palestinians into their country, and even today, Palestinians are denied citizenship and rights in the Arab world. There are religious disputes, of course, but we must question why this translates into violence and a demand that one side simply not exist. Israel allows Muslims to visit their Holy Sites and even lets them vote in municipal elections (Bard, 221-223). This isn’t to say Israel is perfect or their positions are correct, but one must ask why Israel, which is the least oppressive in the region (even towards Muslims), is the target.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former Al-Qaeda terrorist and associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, also disagrees that American policy is what caused 9/11. In his book, he describes how he was taught not to think, how all misery was blamed on the infidels, and how 72 virgins awaited him in heaven, which was a treasure because sex before marriage, masturbation, and even looking at a woman in certain ways were strictly forbidden. Dr. Hamid describes how verses of the Koran are used to teach their students to kill the infidel, arguing that these verses are what cause terrorism, not current events. He also describes the history of violent political Islam, highlighting how it goes back to before the establishment of either the state of Israel or the United States. Hamid’s thesis is that all Islamic terrorism emanates from “purists” who forcefully took control of the Arabian Peninsula, thus controlling the heart of Islam (and able to shape it to their mold), and then during the 20th century, they exported this form of Islam using the oil wealth. He also notes that more Muslims have been killed by Islamic terrorism than Americans or Israelis, so the idea that the Israel issue is the primary motivator is false.

Muslim upon Muslim violence is not America’s fault. It is the fault of the radicalization gene inherent within the Koran. (No, I am not saying that all Muslims are evil- I believe that most are not). American foreign policy is the scapegoat.

After the first debate in which Rudy Giuliani called Ron Paul out on his comment, Ron Paul brought in Michael Scheuer as his back up.

Michael Scheuer is held up by the Paulistas as the go-to expert to give validity to Ron Paul’s foreign policy opinion.

Why?

Why is he the expert? Because he was the CIA’s senior intelligence analyst who created the bin Laden unit for the purposes of tracking and hunting the al-Qaeda leader down (we know how that worked out, right?)? Howard Zinn is supposedly the "expert" on American history. Does this make him "right"? The CIA are experts in their field; yet how often have they been failing us and getting things "wrong"? As well as injecting their political partisanship into the equation?

Interestingly, Scheuer’s memory lapse here, has me wondering if personal political feelings is getting in the way of professional, detached observation and analysis.

The fact is (in my entitled opinion of course), Michael Scheuer is indeed an expert, is intelligent, and is extremely knowledgeable. But his judgment is flawed, and his interpretation of the known data wrong. He, too, fails to acknowledge the radical ideology of fundamental Islam as a driving force. As the critical factor in the equation.

So….who educated who? Did Ron educate Rudy? Or did Rudy take Ron to school?

Michael Medved:

Many supporters of the so-called peace movement suggest that some dramatic shift in US policy might bring a quick end to the jihadist ferocity that claims innocent victims every day in some tortured Muslim corner of the globe. According to this logic, the brutality of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other fanatical groups represents a predictable response to American meddling in Islamic affairs. These terror apologists (or at least terror explainers) forcefully reject the now common conservative formulation that “they hate us not for what we do, but for who we are.”

My recommended reading list for Ron Paul and his followers? Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower. In there, you will find that the source of Osama bin Laden’s hirabah against the West and against America in particular, isn’t American foreign policy, but the radical, Qutbist ideology of a hateful, intolerant fundamentalist practice of Islam. It is the writings of Sayyid Qutb, among others, that is the source of al-Qaeda ideology; one which excuses violence against innocents. And yes, it’s because that ideology hates America for its freedoms. Because of America’s "decadence", "corruption", and because it is not governed by strict, Islamic Law. Not because of our "entangling alliances" and interactions with foreign nations.  Salafists and Wahabbists find modernity a threat to their practice of Islam.

Do you know what "blowback is"? Al-Qaeda does.  Blowback is what happened to al-Qaeda when they waged violence against the U.S. Payback’s a bitch when you’re huddled up in a cave, hiding from further blowback, isn’t it?

*UPDATE*  2007/09/08 18:30  I’d like to add Max Boot’s "The Savage Wars of Peace  Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" to my reading list recommendation for Ron Paul and his minion.  In particular, Ch 15 on Pax Americana, Small Wars in the 21st century.  Maybe another Ron Paul post is in order?  It’s like it’s Ron Paul bashing Weekend at FA’s.