Defeating Radical Islam

I am absolutely perplexed by candidates and people in general on both sides of the political divide who feel that overt military action is the cure for fighting radical Islam. These are generally the same people who think isolationism and non-interventionism are synonymous. It does not make the United States isolationist if we do not invade every country on the planet.

Do we understand that people should be free to choose their own religion?

Do we understand that the war on terror is to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans?

Do we understand that attempting to impose any beliefs by force, no matter how strongly we may believe in them, will never succeed?

The only logical conclusion to our policy is the one that radical Muslims are suggesting that the West is practicing: (a) we are out to destroy Islam and convert everyone to Christianity; (b) we are intent on permanently occupying all Muslim countries. How could Muslims perceive the case to be otherwise?

For those of you who don't remember history, here is a quick timeline showing cause and effect:

657 Islam Founded

1604-1983 No attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against Americans

1983 U.S. deploys troops to Lebanon to intervene in civil war there

1983 U.S. compound destroyed by Muslim fundamentalist suicide bomber

1984 U.S. troops withdraw 100% from Lebanon

1984-1993 No attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against Americans

1991 U.S. deploys troops permanently to Saudi Arabia and engages in repeated bombing of Iraq

1993 Attack by Muslim fundamentalists against World Trade Center

1993-2001 Numerous attacks by Muslim fundamentalists against U.S. military stationed in the Middle East

2001 2nd Attack by Muslim fundamentalists against World Trade Center; attackers are predominantly from Saudi Arabia used their real names on all documents, entered the country legally on U.S. granted visas, and planned their attacks in secret for years

2002 U.S. Attacks Afghanistan

2003 U.S. WITHDRAWS all forces from Saudi Arabia

2003 U.S. invades Iraq because [insert your reason for invasion here].

So did you notice that there were no attacks against American citizens during the time we were outside of the Middle East. Did you notice that President Bush withdrew our forces from Saudi Arabia AFTER the 9/11 attacks: the country where nearly all of the suicide bombers came from? Why are we not stationing troops there if soldiers on the ground can prevent terrorist attacks against Americans? The answer is that they don't.

Putting U.S. soldiers anywhere they are not welcome simply makes them targets for whoever doesn't want them there. The government spins this as being attacks from Al Qaeda and terrorists, but the reality is that often we have no idea if U.S. soldiers are being attacked by local warlords, organized terrorists, or just people angry at the U.S. presence. In the meantime, the next likely terrorist attack against the U.S. is being planned in secret in potentially just about every other country except Iraq.

Ron Paul on Darfur

I just started watching a clip of Ron Paul answer a question about what the U.S. should do with regard to the genocide in Darfur. I can, unfortunately, see why his answers to questions about foreign policy turn people off so quickly. I had to stop because his answers were rambling (a bit) and not answer the question and concisely as he could have. I will have to watch it again, but here is the answer I would have given which I believe is also the correct answer.

For all current and future conflicts:

The United State government should not intervene in the dispute, send troops, or encourage the U.N. to intervene. The U.S. should, at most, condemn any acts of aggression or violence, but even that, while it may make us feel better, does not accomplish anything and may actually be counter-productive in getting the conflict resolved.

What the U.S. should do is not intervene or prevent weapons from going to either side in the conflict, especially the non-aggressor. History's lesson has always been that in order to be free, people must be armed and willing to protect their home territory. History has been full of aggressive wars by countries attempting to start empires and aggressive civil wars where one part of the nation attempts to impose its will on another part based on one ideology or another. History has shown, though, that the victim of aggression has the best chance of remaining free if their civilian population is well-armed and willing to fight the aggressors.

The reason for this is simple. The aggressive army is not and can never be as motivated as the population protecting its homes and families. Napoleon lost in Russia and Spain due to civilian resistance, not any major military defeat. The French and U.S. lost in Vietnam because such a substantial portion of the population either supported or actively fought against anyone perceived as a foreign occupation army. Even recently, Serbia was forced to leave Slovenia independent because the civilians and local militias were too well armed for them to risk a fight.

If we want the people of Darfur to be free and independent of aggression, then we will let them arm themselves to the hilt to resist any hostile armies that attempt to attack the area. If they are truly being attacked unprovoked, then we are dealing with an aggressor who is a bully. Bullies do not respond to negotiations. They smirk at them. Bullies only respond when their noses get bloodied and the cost of attacking exceeds any benefit they can reap from it. If we intervene in Darfur with our own military or the U.N. military, but do not let the people of Darfur arm themselves, then it is no different that putting a wall between a snake and a mouse. A soon as we leave, the wall the lifts and the snake will eat the mouse. If we let the people of Darfur make themselves strong, they will be more likely to succeed and gaining their freedom.

As an aside, an equally valid argument for non-interference is that when the U.S. military is involved, the news reported from the front about who is right and who is wrong in a conflict is often based on who is in charge of our foreign policy. For example, we have since discovered what many suspected about our campaigns against Serbia involving Kosovo. The claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide in that location were largely fictional and our military intervention actually exacerbated tension where only a little existed before. We basically created the war. The same with Vietnam. We were told that this was part of the worldwide monolith of global Communism attempting to take yet one more country. And yet, shortly after the war, the Vietnamese were engaged in a large war with communist China and a separate war with the communist Khmer Rouge. These were nationalists first and communists second.

If we have a White House that takes neutral stances on foreign wars and especially civil wars, then we have no need for manufactured ''causus belli'' like Ft. Sumter, Ft. Brown, the Tonkin Gulf resolution, or the Zimmerman telegram. And we would definitely not see a terrorist attack by Saudi Nationals who were part of Al Qaeda as being an excuse to invade and displace an Iraqi regime hostile to Al Qaeda. Attacking the enemies of our enemy makes even less sense than assuming the enemy of our enemy is a friend.

The 2nd amendment is the basic guarantor of our freedom for foreign enemies and from domestic tyranny. Why we never want to extend to other nations in the interest of worldwide freedom is beyond me.

People today hope for a wonderful ''deus ex machina'', usually in the form of the U.S., to come in a "solve" the crisis by punishing the aggressor. Usually, though, the answer to resolving a conflict is not that easy.