I'm poised at my keyboard, quickly typing this missive because I want you, my dear reader, to know there's a war on for the American mind, concerning Islamism. Perhaps I overstate: there's a clueless and morally bankrupt idea going around, one I am astonished to see so many of my would-be allies adopt so easily. An idea which rests upon moral confusion, ignorance of our emeny, and ignorance of history.

Set-Up

Recently, Ron Paul made waves with the following statement concerning 9/11:

The U.S. 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 bombing Iraq for 10 years. Right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent American bases. What would we say if China were doing this in our country?

When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was a blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists. And if we ignore that we ignore it 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 back and attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

In essence, the primary responsibility for what's gone wrong in the mideast is the US itself, and our foreign policy. And if we simply stopped meddling in the world -- i.e. exerting any influence -- these things most likely never would have happened. Am I overstating Paul's position? I am not. Paul himself says it: Our policy was a major contributing factor. Unless we're being funny with words, this means that our absence likely would have prevented the outcome of which he speaks.

Dr. Paul is hardly alone on this. In addition to being in company with MoveOn.org, Cindy Sheehan, Socialists, and other elements of the extreme left (shouldn't it cause one to question a bit, finding one's self in such company?) there are a few others on the "right" who agree. Lew Rockwell, for example:

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 lust.

Takedown

Sadly, from my vantage point, it seems Ron Paul is, on this particular point, a clueless idiot, and Lew Rockwell is similarly confused.

Regular readers (both of you) know I do not deploy the words "clueless idiot" with any frequency. (To the contrary, it appears I almost never call people "idiot".) So why I am so annoyed? Because I can't tolerate any criticism of my country, as Mr. Rockwell insists? Please: you don't know me very well -- and haven't heard many of my rants -- if you think that. No: my issue is that I expect this kind of narrative from the left (and have regularly received it, thank you) but I am somewhat unnerved by people who ought to know better having swallowed what is fundamentally leftist rhetoric.

So let me move from hurling invective, and make the case which I suspect will probably lead you to a similar conclusion.

Problem #1: Dr. Paul is wrong about the Iranian revolutionaries.

Dr. Paul insists that his listeners should "listen to" our enemies who hate us. The core of Dr. Paul's argument, as stated, is that the hostage-takers of the Carter era were, in fact, motivated (angered!) by the removal of one Mohammad Mossadeq, Prime Minister of Iran circa early 1950s.

Yet had Dr. Paul showed a bit of interest in Iranian history, and taken his own advice, he would have discovered that the Mullahs who took power in the 1979 revolution were Shia Islamists who hated Mossadeq.

To quote Amir Taheri, an Iranian:

One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”

Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky [an exile and enemy of the USSR].

(Does it tell us something that Taheri wrote this to correct President Clinton? -- and that this is now a staple among certain fringe elements of the right?)

Mohammad Mohaddesin provides more background material:

An associate of Kashani, Khomeini was heavily involved in the fanatic mullahs' conspiracies against Mossadeq's government. After seizing power in 1979, Khomeini recalled: "In those same years in the 1950s, I told the Aqa [Kashani] that Mossadeq would be slapped in the face. And it did not take long before he was slapped. Had he survived, he would have slapped Islam."

After the 1979 revolution, Hassan Ayat, one of Khomeini's close confidants and a founder of the now defunct Islamic Republic Party, wrote a book, entitled The True Visage of Mossadeq ol-Saltaneh, in which he said: "History attests that in contemporary Iranian history, the clergy and Islam were never so insulted as during Mossadeq's rule. One is ashamed to repeat such insults."

Problem #2: A wrong view of Mossadeq.

The previous error is utterly fatal to the argument Paul offers (and those on the left he parrots): if the Mullahs hated Mossadeq as much as the Shah, there goes the whole "blowback" motive for the Iranian Revolution of '79, built, as Paul has it, on anger towards our alleged removal of Mossadeq, their hero.

But perhaps we can repair the argument a bit by ignoring Dr. Paul's blunder and asserting that Mossadeq was at least an elected pro-Western democrat, and it was a bad thing for us to overthrow the Iranian Constitution, intervene (so the narrative goes) and remove him from office.

But again, another few moments of historical review tears this narrative to shreds. It's true Mossadeq was elected to Parliament -- at one point in his career. But by 1952, he had been appointed Prime Minister (by the Shah), and was supported by extremist Islamist and Communist (Tudeh) parties. He had nationalized oil production, seized farms and instituted centralized agricultural planning, had dissolved the elected Parliament (!) and had unconstitutionally seized control of the military (!!). [1]

I know there are some who view Mossadeq's seizure of farms and oil assets as a Good and Noble thing, but I'm in the camp who sees it as theft and a precursor to despotic rule. (And twice as much towards those who dissolve Parliaments and seize control of the military!)

(Side note: Do you think if George Bush had dissolved Congress and seized control of the military (and farms) we'd be calling him an "elected" "legimate" and "democratic" leader? So it's absurd that people like the left and Dr. Paul (a supposed libertarian!) confer these attributes to Mossadegh!)

And people who imagine Mossadeq to have been warm, cuddly, and pro-Western (and think anti-Western sentiments are something new to the mideast, caused by "CIA blowback") are similarly mistaken. To quote a 1951 Time magazine article:

There were millions inside and outside of Iran whom Mossadegh symbolised and spoke for, and whose fanatical state of mind he had helped to create. They would rather see their own nations fall apart than continue their present relations with the West....

Mossadegh does not promise his country a way out of this nearly hopeless situation. He would rather see the ruin of Iran than give in to the British, who, in his opinion, corrupted and exploited his country. He is not in any sense pro-Russian, but he intends to stick to his policies even though he knows they might lead to control of Iran by the Kremlin.

To add a bit of context, the Soviet Army had actually invaded Iran, and was massively supporting the Iranian Tudeh (Communist) party. Britain, in contrast, was leading an oil embargo. So either Time or Mossadeq (it's hard to tell which) clearly thought the USSR was the lesser of the two evils.

I doubt very much that such a man, had he stayed in power, would have been Our Dear Friend, a Democrat, or exerted any other positive influence. If he wouldn't have used brutal measures to hold onto power (similar to those used by the Shah), he most likely would have been overtaken by either his Islamist or Communist allies -- so perhaps we could have had the Mullahs in charge of Iran 25 years earlier! (Or seen Iran become a Soviet satellite!)

The core failure of leftism is a chronic inability to ask: "Then what?" But I am increasingly observing that libertarians, also, can fall under the spell of shortsighted ideas: "If just this one thing were changed, then all would be wonderful..."

Error #3: Dr. Paul is wrong about US and CIA involvement.

Like the FBI, the CIA was at one time trying to build a case for why the US needed yet another Federal bureaucracy of its sort. And, might I add, the CIA hasn't always been known as for its longstanding reputation for honesty about its own actions and effectivness. So I find it a bit odd that Ron Paul -- as one who supposedly distrusts such agencies -- is among those who apparently trust its testimony implicitly -- at least in this case.

But there are others who think the CIA was prone to (no!) exaggerate at times, and, having learned about the economic conditions (think for a moment what centralized planning does to agriculture, and what a loss of all oil revenue would do to the Iranian economy) -- and sheer volume of people involved in Mossadeq's removal, I find myself among them in this case.

And apparently, I'm in pretty good company:

More than 100 books, by Iranian and American scholars, give the lie to the CIA operatives ''self-congratulatory'' account.

Barry Rubin writes “It cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah… Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.”

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Amir Taheri writes “What happened was not a successful conclusion of a (CIA) conspiracy but a genuine uprising provoked by economic hardship, political fear and religious prejudice.”

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

Even Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose ''secret report'' has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.

Wilbert writes:'' headquarters spent a day featured by depression and despair… The message sent to Tehran on the night of August 18 said that the operation has been tried and failed and that contrary operations against Mussadeq should be discontinued.'' [3]

Another problem with this narrative is that it gets the legal arguments wrong. Mossadeq is depicted as "elected", and the Shah, "installed" -- when, in fact it was it was Mossadeq himself who had violated the Iranian Constitution, and his removal, by the Shah, was entirely legal.

Referring to Dr. Paul's apparent history advisor, President Clinton, Taheri again corrects the record:

Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. [4]

Also, there's this:

Mossadegh was overthrown on 19 August when hundreds of thousands to Tehranis poured into the streets to demand his departure and the return of the Shah. This was not a military ''coup d’etat'' since there was no change in the constitution or any of the structures of the Iranian state. Nor was the Shah’s position as head of state affected. Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers. He simply exercised that power by dismissing Mossadegh and nominating Zahedi in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner… Mussadeq tried to resist his dismissal but was swept away...

And here is a first-hand account by the son of Mossadeq's chief opponent which also flatly contradicts the CIA's claims.

Compare this with this self-aggrandizing snippet from Kermit Roosevelt, who claimed he had orchestrated the whole thing (on a mere $75,000?!?):

"'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army and to you!' By 'you' he [the shah] meant me and the two countries-Great Britain and the United States-I was representing. We were all heroes." [5]

Sadly (as anyone who has read what the left puts out can observe), this bit of CIA propaganda has been helpful in stimulating anti-US sentiment. But it's sad to see a so-called conservative -- who should be cautious, not gullible -- endorsing and propagating a self-serving story which originated in the CIA itself.

Error #4: Ron Paul doesn't remember the 1970s.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a President who followed Ron Paul's suggestions? One who stopped supporting certain bad dictators, and withdrew US aid from them?

Of course, we did have such a president, who pursued the policies Ron Paul advocates. His name was James Earl Carter, and the result of his withdrawl of support in Iran was ...

The Iranian Revolution of 1979!

This is, among other reasons, why I call Ron Paul an idiot. It's one thing to say, in a principled manner, that perhaps we ought not support bad people like the Shah (who was the lesser of three evils, but certainly was no angel) -- and accept whatever follows. At times, I'm tempted to embrace the same view.

But it's quite another thing to suggest that the Revolution of '79 was primarily a result of American involvement in Iran. Indeed, the lesson should be the opposite: from the 1940s onward (and probably before), extremist Shia Ayatollahs have been chomping at the bit to impose their vision upon Iran. They simply took the first opportunity they had -- provided by the very policy Dr. Paul recommends.

It's nice to view the world as a giant curio cabinet -- everything is where it is because we put it there, or accidentally knocked it over. But the world isn't like that: it's more like a huge chessboard with many players. When we stop playing, when we withdraw, things don't magically get better -- instead, other forces, often worse than our government (for some, such as Ron Paul and the left, it is hard to imagine anything worse!) move in instead.

I'm NOT a huge fan of our present foreign policy. There are countries we support which, if I were in charge, I would withdraw from (South Korea, if they didn't vote us in by a large majority, and no MFN for China.) And there are causes we don't support which I would. (Ask me how quickly I'd install troops along our own border -- and in Southern Sudan.)

But there's a difference between disagreeing over foreign policy, and living in a fantasy world. Ron Paul and the left live in a fantasy world -- where the US is apparently the worst force on the planet, and if we just left the world alone, it would leave us alone. (Go back and study Asia, Europe, and Russia during the 20th century, please -- you've utterly failed to learn anything from it.)

Error #5: Ron Paul doesn't understand radical Islam.

Ron Paul insists that we should listen to radical Islamists to learn what motivates them. But somehow, as someone who's at least put a modicum of effort in that direction, I can't help but suspect he hasn't taken his own advice.

Does the understand what the Umma is? What sharia is? What geopolitical goals Islamists seek? It's true -- as he says -- that they hate the fact we can exert influence abroad. But that's only half the story: the other half is that they believe it is they who should be exerting that same influence. Not that such influence is inherantly bad, but that it inherantly belongs to them, alone.

To quote one of the 9/11 hijackers -- who Ron Paul claims to understand:

Moussaoui told jurors that Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower as he flipped through a copy of the Koran searching for verses to support his assertions. One he cited requires non-Muslim nations to pay a tribute to Muslim countries. "We have to be the superpower. You have to be subdued. We have to be above you," Moussaoui said. [6]

Ron Paul often likes to say that the founding fathers didn't believe in sending our military abroad. In fact, President Jefferson had to send the Marines to Tripoli because Americans were being attacked and sold into slavery by Islamic Pirates who demanded, even back then, that we, as non-Muslims, pay tribute to them -- just as Moussaoui says today. (I'm sure there's a blame-America-first justification for the Barbary Pirates, too, but I'm not biting.)

Regarding Osama bin Laden, it is true, as Ron Paul has said elsewhere, that he was offended by non-Muslims even setting foot on the Arab Peninsula. (Nevermind that they were invited by the Saudis, who rightly feared an attack from Saddam.)

But why should Ron Paul stop there? Let's keep reading shall we?

... the iniquitous Crusaders movement under the leadership of the USA, who fears that they, the scholars and callers of Islam, will instigate the Ummah [that is, global domination] of Islam... therefore, the Zionist/Crusader alliance resorted to killing and arresting the truthful Ulama and the working Da'ees... They killed the Mujahid Sheikh Abdullah Azzaam, and they arrested the Mujahid Sheikh Ahmad Yaseen and the Mujahid Sheikh Omar Abd ur-Rahman (in America)....

Do you recognize those names? Osama is complaining that militant Islamist terrorist were arrested or killed, including in the USA! Following his logic, should we have abstained from these activities also, since they also apparently led to the "blowback" of 9/11?

(Indeed, Sheik Omar is the man who planned the first world-trade center bombing in 1993. So it turns out one of our offenses which caused 9/11 was arresting those who planned the first such attack! One wonders what "blowback" Dr. Paul would cite to explain why we had it coming in 1993...)

In this manifesto, OBL also complains that the Saudi government arrested supporters of terrorism (excuse me, Jihad) at the request of the US, and complains that non-Muslims live around Jerusalem. Should we not ask Saudis to arrest terrorists, and withdraw all support from Israel? Just asking.

In this document OBL also gloats he was able to make the US withdraw when we were attacked:

... your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where, after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post-cold war leadership of the new world order, you moved tens of thousands of international forces, including twenty-eight thousand American solders, into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area in disappointment, humiliation, and defeat, carrying your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You had been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.

And it was, in fact, this withdrawl which formed the heart of OBLs pro-jihad videos. But I don't think Ron Paul noticed that either -- it isn't one of the "root caues" he'd like to cite, I suspect.

And, of course, the primary goal is not simply the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia, but a global Jihad which will not end until all is Umma:

Since the sons of the land of the two Holy Places know and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world is absolutely essential, then they would be even more enthusiastic, more powerful, and even larger in number upon fighting in their own land.... I say to you, William (Defence Secretary), that: These youths love death as you love life.... They are most delivering and steadfast at war. They inherit these values from their ancestors... These values were approved and completed by the arrival of Islam, as stated by the messenger of Allah....

Those youths know that the reward in fighting you, the USA, is double than the reward in fighting someone not from the People of the Book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. [emph added]

Want to look for "root causes"? Removal of the Kuffir from the mideast is only step #1. The plan doesn't end there. They're not simply incensed that the Saudis asked us to protect them against Iraq. The "root cause" here is that they're not ruling the world. This is not a new problem, brought about the recent US policy (though I'm frankly quite glad if we can take credit for some of their difficulties toward that end, of which they complained).

This brings me to my final problem...

Problem #5: Ron Paul displays very poor moral reasoning.

If a woman is attacked in a parking lot, late at night, do we say she "deserved it" by being there? It's true, we might say that she should have exercised more caution, or that she took a foolish risk by not asking for help. But do we say she had moral culpability for her attack?

No, we do not. Not when she was attacked by another human being. We hold her attacker responsible, however foolish we may think her.

But what if the criminal is sitting at the edge of the parking lot, and plans to move into her house and office when he gets the chance? Do we start saying she should do whatever he wants? If he asks for the edges of the parking lot first, do we give it to him -- because he'll attack us if we don't? Then what?

Is that how we think about the situation?

It's how Ron Paul thinks about the situation.

If Ron Paul wants to say we shouldn't be involved in any other countries, ever, then he simply needs to say so, in so many words. But this business of arguing where we should be involved based on it's ultimate effect to us (as dictated by a group of criminals who admit they "love death") is unhelpful to say the least, and morally problematic.

First, you state your principle, then you apply it, regardless of outcome. Is it wrong to supply troops to an ally that asks for protection? Then simply say that. Or is it only wrong when they have extremists in their country who might attack us if we support them? Then, by all means Dr. Paul, please come out and say that too.

I think we should support Taiwan. And you know what? China might hate and even attack us for it. "Blowback"? If you want, you can call it that. I call it principle -- the principle that it's better to support a democracy than a totalitarian state -- and that we should do so when possible. The world certainly won't love us for it -- but then again, I think it's immoral to seek such "love", lavished, as it so often is, upon the very worst examples of humanity. (Che Guevera, Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Hugo Chavez, etc. Sudan sits on the UN Human Rights committee, for heaven's sake!)

Another example: I think a reasonable argument could be made for not putting troops in Saudi Arabia -- perhaps based on the fact they're not a democracy, and that a majority didn't vote to support our presence there.

But that isn't the sort of argument Dr. Paul made: It was essentially that "blowback" -- the actions of criminals -- proves we did the wrong thing. And where, precisely, will he draw the line? Which complaint of theirs are valid? Just the ones that support his favored policies? Oh please: that's fallacious, not sound logic.

I expect that from the left. But I'm writing because I'm seeing it on the right, and that truly bothers me.

Odds and Ends

There are a few other problems worth answering. Displaying his moral idocy in full plumage, Ron Paul asks:

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

Again, I'd refer Ron Paul to various Islamist manifestos regarding whether being "free" might be an issue for some, or even the Qu'ran:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. (9:29)

"Nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited" -- that why they fight us. (Which part of this is so hard for Dr. Paul to understand?)

And concerning the second question, if I were living in America under a despot like Saddam, and, say, Denmark came over here and killed him, and was busy trying to make sure his followers -- and the French -- didn't gain power... why yes, Ron Paul, I would appreciate that.

Is he saying he'd rather live under a home-grown dictator? Why yes, I do believe he's saying precisely that. Moral. Idiocy.

And here's another prime example:

The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad... Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad....

(Actually, I can, and it encourages me -- if we're making good choices. The entire Rwandan massacre could have been stopped by a few thousand dollars, and a few dozen bodyguards for the legitimately-elected moderate members of government who were slaughtered first.)

It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections "promoting democracy." How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?

No, but that's because it's China, you idiot. If I lived in Iran (or Burma), and heard that the US were supporting my local Democracy Party, I'd hope I'd be grateful for the support. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the Poles weren't unhappy about Reagan's support for Lech Walesa.

(And Ron Paul dares to claim Reagan's legacy?)

And Lew Rockwell, while defending Ron Paul, gives the game away entirely, as he inadvertantly displays his non-biblical (and quite un-American) view of government:

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.

The Roman government was, I think we could agree, quite a bit worse than the US government. (I mean, after all, Bush hasn't installed his horse as a Senator, as Caligula did.) Yet the Apostle Paul still believed that government was appointed by God as a servant of the people. Government was good, Paul taught, when it kept the peace and made bad people afraid. And of course it could be illegitimate also, too -- but that isn't what Rockwell is saying. He's not that nuanced.

It is true that big government is ungodly. And that the US government is large. But it doesn't follow that every single function it carries out is therefore harmful or at odds with American values. And foreign policy -- Ron Paul's ignorance of the Constitution aside -- is indeed one of the legitimate domains of our national government.

There are worse things out there than the US government. As as long as the North Korean government, the President of Iran, the General Assembly of the UN, German Greens, and radical Islamists hate and fear us (particularly those of us in "red" states), I figure something is still going right. But for Ron, Lew, and the left, it's the opposite: OBL's hatred of us must be, of course, be justified. OBL's moral judgement must be legimate.

Back to Lew:

[The US government] is not peaceful, it is not friendly, it is not motivated by the Christian faith but rather power and imperial lust.

Really? What imperial lust? What are we getting, currently, from Iraq? What did we get from, say, Vietnam? Where was the profit in defending Korea? (We can drive Kias now???) Why did we support Poland against the USSR? Why did we risk our lives in Mogadishu? What "lust" did we go into Kosovo for?

And how is Lew Rockwell's narrative, here, distinguishable from, say, Noam Chomsky's?

(I'd love to have those questions answered.)

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 mirror. [7]

Yep, Lew Rockwell's found his Nazis and his real opponents: Red-state Christians.

Amen Lew, Amen.