Ron Paul on Blowback
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
von Mises Institute" -- -
reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What's
really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and
forcibly excluded from the public debate.
Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the
events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts
of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the
911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves
proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three
issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions
against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.
So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public
figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of
this truth. The explosive exchange occurred during the
Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina.
Ron was asked if he really wants the troops to come home, and
whether that is really a Republican position.
"Well," he said, "I think the party has lost its way, because
the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a
noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn't
even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the
year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy –no
nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were
elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to
end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being
anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional
position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a
non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling
alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with
them and trade with them."
He was then asked if 9-11 changed anything. He responded that
US foreign policy was a "major contributing factor. Have you
ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attacked 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. "
And then out of the blue, he was asked whether we invited the
"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 –have killed 3,400 of our men,
and I don't think it was necessary."
Then the very archetype of the State Enforcer popped up to
shout him down.
"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Rudy
Giuliani. "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
Now, this is interesting because it is obvious that Ron never
said that we invited the attacks. This was a lie. He said the US
foreign policy was a "contributing factor" in why they attacked
us, a fact which only a fool or a liar could deny. Guiliani then
went on to say that he has never "heard that before" –a
statement that testifies to the extent of the blackout on this
Ron Paul was invited to respond, and concluded as follows:
"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?"
Wow, he broke the great taboo in American political life! Why
this should be a taboo at all is unclear, but there it is. But
now that it is finally out in the open, this shocking theory
that the terrorists were not merely freedom-hating madmen but
perhaps had some actual motive for their crime, let's think a
bit more about it.
It is a normal part of human experience that if you occupy,
meddle, bully, and coerce, people who are affected by it all are
going to get angry. You don't have to be Muslim to get the
point. The problem is that most of the American people simply
have no idea what has been happening in the last ten years. Most
Americans think that America the country is much like their own
neighborhood: peaceful, happy, hard working, law abiding. So
when you tell people that the US is actually something
completely different, they are shocked.
Why would anyone hate us? The problem is that the military
wing of the US government is very different from your
neighborhood. After the Soviet Union crashed, US elites declared
themselves masters of the universe, the only "indispensable
nation" and the like. All countries must ask the US for
permission to have a nuclear program. If we don't like your
government, we can overthrow it. Meanwhile, we sought a global
empire unlike any in history: not just a sphere of interest but
the entire world.
Vance has the details but here is the bottom line: one-third
of a million deployed troops in 134 countries in 1000 locations
in foreign countries.
All during the 1990s, the US attempted to starve the
population of Iraq, with the result of hundreds of thousands of
deaths. Madelyn Albright said on national television that the
deaths of 500,000 children (the UN's number) was "worth it" in
order to achieve our aims, which were ostensibly the elimination
of non-existent, non-US built weapons of mass destruction. Yes,
that annoyed a few people. There were constant bombings in Iraq
all these years. And let us not forget how all this nonsense
began: the first war in 1991 was waged in retaliation for a
US-approved Iraqi invasion of its former province, Kuwait.
Saddam had good reason to think that the US ambassador was
telling the truth about non-interference with Kuwait relations:
Saddam was our ally all through the Iran-Iraq war and before.
Ron spoke about complications of the Middle East. One of them
is that the enemy we are now fighting, the Islamic extremists,
are the very group that we supported and subsidized all through
the 1980s in the name of fighting Communism. That's the reason
the US knows so much about their bunkers and hiding spots in
Afghanistan: US taxdollars created them.
Now, I know this is a lot for the tender ears of Americans to
take, who like to think that their government reflects their own
values of faith, freedom, and friendliness. But here is the
point that libertarians have been trying to hammer home for many
years: the US government is the enemy of the American people and
their values. It is not peaceful, it is not friendly, it is not
motivated by the Christian faith but rather power and imperial
Ron is such a wonderful person that I'm sorry that he had to
be the one to tell the truth. One could sense in the debate that
he was making an enormous sacrifice here. After Guiliani spoke,
the red-state fascists in the audience all started whooping up
the bloodlust that the politicians have been encouraging for the
last six years –a mindless display of Nazi-like nationalism that
would cause the founding fathers to shudder with fear of what
we've become. These people are frantic about terrorism and
extremism abroad, but they need to take a good hard look in the
Thank you, Ron, for doing this. We are all in your debt.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises
Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of
Speaking of Liberty. Send him
mail. Comment on the
to comment on this and other articles
Send Page To a Friend
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)