Conflicted Libertarian

Glenn Greenwald is raising a brave and patriotic theme about accountability and liberty in his blog.  I admire him very much.  (I’m not sure I agree with him all the time but he’s saying something that ought to be said.)

Greenwald starts out with an assertion on January 7 that I do not fully agree with:  That Israel behavior is one cause for radicalization in the Arab world – specifically the attack in Gaza.  I strongly support Israel and its right to exist in peace.  I further am aware that Christians in the past have been unnecessarily mean to Jewish people and that must be repudiated.  The Jewish people are special to God.  Hence I strongly support Israel.  But Greenwald updates his entries (I was inspired by that in how I update my entires).  In  Update II and III, I find these words:

UPDATE II:  The Yemeni government today warned that any direct U.S. military action in that country “could bolster the popularity of Islamic militants” and “would strengthen Al Qaeda.”  For reasons that should be obvious, that’s how it works:  not only in Yemen, but generally.

UPDATE III:  Time reports that Balawi (the Jordanian doctor) had been a genuine intelligence asset for the U.S., working to help the U.S. find and bomb Al Qaeda sites, but was completely transformed at some point into an Al Qaeda sympathizer and ultimately a suicide bomber who killed 7 CIA agents.  Part of the reason for the conversion?  Because of “his outrage at the high number of civilian casualties inflicted in the resulting strikes”; he “had become enraged at the Americans for killing a high number of civilians in their hunt for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.”  Relatedly, Spencer Ackerman notes that Balawi’s Internet writings reflect a growing commitment to violence due to American and Israeli attacks on Muslims (“They have not left any excuse for any Muslim with a hint of honor to remain hesitant and accept the shame of staying away from the honor of participating in jihad”).

Just contemplate how many Balawis there are in the world:  Muslims who begin with sympathy towards the U.S. and hostility towards Al Qaeda who are completely transformed into the opposite as a result of the constant civilian death we and Israel bring (regardless of intent) to that part of the world.

Let’s now go to the exchange between Mayor Giuliani and Cong. Paul in Columbia, South Carolina (again courtesy of the CFR).  I set the stage with this exchange between Wendell Goler and Paul:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

This brought an angry retort from Mayor Giuliani:

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

Of course Paul didn’t back down at all:

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

I do think Paul states the issue much better in The Revolution: A Manifesto at 15:

“Looking for motive is not the same thing as making excuses; detectives always look for the motive behind crime, but no one things they are looking to excuse murder.”

Nor did Cong. Paul seek to excuse 9/11.  He in fact voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan and also wanted to authorize the use of letters of marque and reprisal against bin Laden.  It was first ridiculed but now Paul’s ideas are getting more respect.  Paul called for  letters against the Somali pirates:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Thanks to Politico!

Paying a billion dollars to get bin Laden and bring him to justice (yes, in a CIVILIAN court with ALL the rights of ANY criminal suspect!) is cheaper than the Iraq war or the Afghanistan incursion. 

The wisdom of non-intervention is manifest.  Non-intervention is best; it’s what the Founders called for; it is not isolationism but respect and trade with all nations rather shows the best of the United States and its people.

Tags: 9/11, Afghanistan, bin-Laden, blowback, CFR, Founders, Giuliani, Glenn-Greenwald, isolationism, Israel, marque-and-reprisal, non-interventionist, politico, Ron Paul, The-Revolution:-A-Manifesto, Wendell-Goler