journal.

Blowback is Real

I found a very good article that tries to explain the concept of “blowback,” something that Ron Paul has been trying to talk about for a while now. The article quoted an exchange between Ron Paul, Wendell Goler and Rudy Giuliani during a 2007 presidential debate. Ron Paul was asked why he opposed foreign interventionism and his response was in light of 9/11:

Paul: 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.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

Goler: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

Paul: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

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.

I never cease to be amazed by the reaction Ron Paul gets on his foreign policy. When I read Rudy Giuliani’s response I’m left virtually speechless. He honestly finds the notion that we contributed to 9/11 because we were attacking Iraq to be an extraordinary, absurd statement. What does that leave then for a sane rebuttal? That we should expect no consequences for attacking other countries? That we should be allowed to attack other countries without any repercussions? Really?

How could anyone land there and think that’s a sane argument? The only way that I can imagine is if you honestly think America is perfect; America is the good guys and the rest of the world is either the bad guys or the neutral guys; America is above reproach; America is incapable of making mistakes, or at least we shouldn’t have to pay for our mistakes; America is the reigning king of the world and is therefore allowed to conduct itself however it pleases. If you believe those things I can see how you’d find Ron Paul’s foreign policy of non-intervention, peace and trade as absurd. But really, how utterly arrogant a view to have.

Honestly, how absolutely hypocritical a stance to take as well. America should be allowed to occupy any country they want but we would be appalled if another nation did the same to us. America should be allowed to tell other countries how to run their affairs but we would be appalled if another nation did the same to us. We’re not consistent. We don’t treat others the way we would like to be treated. We’re arrogant and we believe we’re the police of the world. To think that we can conduct ourselves however we want and receive no repercussions is insanity. To think that we can attack other countries and not receive retaliation is ludicrous. To be specific, to think that we could attack Iraq and occupy their holy land through military bases and not receive retaliation in the form of the 9/11 attacks is madness. Our arrogance has blinded us. Blowback is real.

During the recent CNN debate with Gloria Borger that Ron Paul allegedly stormed off from (he didn’t) he was asked about foreign policy early on. It was cut from the version that aired but it was in the full interview released later. After laying out that he feels we shouldn’t go to war with and attack other countries unless we’re attacked first, this exchange happened:

Borger: We were attacked.

Paul: By?

Borger: Terrorists.

Paul: By? And who are they? What country are they?

Borger: From an assortment of countries.

Paul: Yeah, so you attack all the countries of the world? That’s crazy. What you do is you go after the people that caused it and I voted for this authority. To go after the people responsible. But the president, they used it as an excuse to do something he had been itching to do for years. And that is invade and take over and overthrow a government. That is what is wrong.

I’m sorry but that’s the only sane response to conflict I’ve heard. Don’t attack other countries if they haven’t attacked you, only go to war if Congress declares war, and if it’s a terrorist group and not a country then only go after the group. What is so ridiculous about that? And yet we still maintain that we need to be this enormous military might in the world, occupying virtually every country and bombing areas under the name of “protecting our national interests.” But there could never be repercussions to that, right?

The article had three analogies that try to explain the concept of blowback:

1. Stroll through a troubled neighborhood analogy
Perhaps the best way to explain blowback is to use the example of a woman strolling alone through Cincinnati’s Central Parkway/Liberty Street neighborhood alone at night. This was considered the most dangerous neighborhood in America by NeighborhoodScout.com. Consider that this woman is attacked and robbed. Was it her fault? Of course not. It was the fault of the thieves who stole her purse, and might do much worse to their next victim. But consider also that she could more easily have taken another route to her home and avoided the neighborhood altogether, but instead decided to take the longer Central Parkway route home. Obviously, her actions have some bearing on her being robbed. She was still not responsible for the robbery, but nevertheless she could have avoided the robbery (blowback) by taking the safer and shorter path home.

2. School yard fight analogy
The typical school yard fight could easily be used to explain the September 11 attacks. One boy (the United States) insults another boy (Saudi Arabia) by placing permanent bases on Islamic holy lands, and the second boy hits the first boy. The second boy is wholly responsible for starting the fight, but the first boy could have (and should have) avoided the fight altogether by not insulting the second boy and upsetting him.

3. Crime scene analogy
The third analogy that could be used to explain why blowback is important is the crime scene analogy. When a crime is committed, police always look for a motive for the culprit. The motive not only helps to prove guilt to the jury in a trial, but knowing the motive also helps police to prevent more crimes. By knowing why and how the culprit committed his crime, police can change patrol patterns to deter more crimes. For example, we might find that some after-hours thieves target jewelry stores that don’t put the semi-precious stones in the safe with the diamonds, rubies, and emeralds. The motive is to steal the less valuable gems, because they are easier to fence on the black market. Police can then put out a warning to jewelry stores to put semi-precious stones in the safe to deter the thieves from robbing in the first place.

This is similar to the September 11 attacks. The CIA had warned before September 11 that putting U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia might result in attacks against the United States. And the 9/11 Commission Report talked about blowback for that reason as well, specifically quoting the grievances of hard-line Saudi religious fundamentalists who converted Osama bin Laden from a CIA asset in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan to a man obsessed with attacking the United States.

It’s well known by our intelligence agencies — and common sense — that when the United States bombs another country, the people being bombed (and their friends and relatives) tend to get mad at this country. Blowback is real. And the more Americans who understand it, the safer this country will be. The more the United States limits its bombings to those directly linked to specific attacks against the United States, the fewer Americans will be targeted by terrorists.

I sincerely hope more people begin to understand this. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, as so many have called him. He’s simply a non-interventionist. He doesn’t want to meddle in the affairs of other countries, mainly because it’s none of our business and it creates blowback. He simply wants to relate to other countries through peace and trade. The rest of the presidential candidates want foreign intervention, bombing nations because they might have weapons that they might use against us. And yet Ron Paul is the crazy one?