To say that I've ever been much of a fan of post-WWII US foreign policy would be, quite simply, a lie. Ever since Truman, the USA has always been a country to involve itself in every other nation on earth. The USA feels it needs to validate its vast military spending with perpetual war, with often awful results for them and their global image. In places where they don't intervene directly, they squander their money on weapons and aid for regimes that couldn't otherwise survive. Many, such as that of the Shah of Iran, couldn't survive even with the US aid.
But Ron Paul has given me some hope. The Texas Congressman, currently seeking the Republican nomination for the 2012 Presidential election, is a breath of fresh air in a party that otherwise consists of imbeciles (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann), outlandish hawks (Bush, Reagan), or characterless political opportunists (Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum). Their political ideology is often based around a set of exaggerated, 18th century values, all of which are no less demagogical than left wing rhetoric.
Ron Paul is different. In a recent debate, Paul said of US intervention in Afghanistan: "it's time to end that war that hasn't helped us and hasn't helped anybody in the Middle East."
Congressman Paul, as a proud European, I salute you. For once, a US politician tells the truth. I never thought I'd hear it out of a Republican. Ron Paul also believes in bringing troops home to improve homeland security, rather than have them scattered across the world in around 130 nations. It makes sense to me, and may even contribute to ending the military-industrial complex.
Paul's ideas make sense not only on a practicle level, but on a more symbolic level. Let us not forget that America's endless policing of the protecting the world is the thing that many hate most about it. It is what prompted Imam Khomeini to claim that "America is behind everything that's gone wrong", it's what Ahmedinejad's popular support in Iran thrives on. It is a view held by a great many civilians across the world.
But, most importantly, America's greatest enemy would be almost entirely defeated by this move. I am, of course, referring to al-Qaida, the single organisation that has inspired the most fear in the American public and government.
Many American citizens will be unaware of this fact - in the words of Hassan Nasrallah, the American public is "distant and ignorant to what is going on in the world" -, but removing troops and shutting down bases across the world would do a great deal of damage to al-Qaida.
Because, for all of its atrocious actions and barbarities, al-Qaida is an ideological organisation. Its aims are manifold, but many do not purport directly to the USA. The reason Osama Bin Laden harboured such resentment of the USA is because of its "continuous injustice and oppression practiced against our sons in Palestine and Iraq..." in his own words. In essence, the basis for al-Qaida's hatred for the USA stems from their bases in Saudi Arabia (which they consider holy), from their constant involvement in the Ummah, perceived oppression of Arabs and Muslims, and their support for Israel. Bin Laden has also referred to the Ummah as "being torn into pieces between the teeth of a wolf". In the eyes of al-Qaida, US presence and influence across the world is tantamount to occupation.
Though I do not agree with Bin Laden's ideology, I am able to make the connection between his ideas and the positive effects of Ron Paul's thinking on the Middle East situation. If America were to withdraw its bases from the Ummah, the only ideological reason to launch attacks against the USA, from al-Qaida at least, would be its support of Israel. But wait! Ron Paul has a suggestion for that too.
"They [Israel] have become too dependent on us, not only for money and have economically become dependent, they've become dependent in that they can't even work toward peace with a country we might not like them to do it. But I don't want any of this foreign aid, Pakistan or anybody else, because the principle is wrong and because it doesn't achieve anything... Israel is in charge of its sovereignty."
There we have it, folks. Ron Paul is advocating leaving Israel alone. US aid to Israel is massive, and this is something that al-Qaida, and other groups such as Hezbollah, view as US/Israeli occupation of Arab land. Cutting off all aid to Israel would take the USA out of this equation of hatred. Of course, AIPAC will be unhappy, but AIPAC are a scummy organisation of liars with little place in a democracy as far as I'm concerned.
Bringings troops home and ending foreign aid to Israel would remove all ideological reasons for al-Qaida to attack the USA. Some politicians would be afraid of losing face. But what they fail to realise is that these bases and aggressive foreign policy (which, regrettably, has changed little under Obama) only create more resentment and strengthen groups like al-Qaida, which diversified after the beginning of the War on Terror and increased their members because, not in spite of, American aggression.
The evidence of this approach working on a smaller scale can be made clear from Lebanon. Back when the US had military personnel in Lebanon, during the Israeli occupation no less, their bases came under constant and very deadly attacks from Hezbollah. Since they withdrew, Hezbollah has become a problem of the past. Al-Qaida may strike US soil directly, but their different methods are both strategies to solve domestic 'problems', and removing the ideological grounding al-Qaida has against the US in the way outlined above would almost certainly have a similar effect.
If we look at al-Qaida today, it is an organisation on the backfoot. It has failed to influence events in the Arab Spring. Bin Laden, as much an operational leader as a charismatic ideological one, is dead and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a pedantic man who is divisive in jihadist circles. I've no doubt his ability to lead al-Qaida, on the surface, will pale in comparison to Bin Laden. The only true successor, in terms of being a charismatic recruiter, is the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Like Bin Laden, he's proven a slippery snake for the US - he escaped a US drone strike just days after Bin Laden died with a clever car swap - and so it would be far easier to simply undermine his ideological mesage than spend decades bombing Yemen and hindering their development for one man. True, there are some pure thugs in al-Qaida, but their leadership are largely very ideologically motivated and, if the USA brought troops back and stopped funding Israel, it's likely al-Qaida would move on to trying to create an Islamic caliphate across the Ummah. The USA would no longer feature on its radar, and it on theirs.
Bin Laden may be dead today, but these jihadist and other terrorist organisations have proven far more difficult to eradicate than the trillions of dollars of military investment would suggest. Ten years on, Mullah Omar is alive and the British government have admitted that talks with the Taliban would be essential to a lasting peace in Afghanistan. In the name of God, has the west achieved anything there in the last decade? Blair and Bush might as well have pissed on our money and burnt it, it would've had the same effect. Military intervention left, right and centre has never really worked as a strategy.
If President Ron Paul had been in office in 2001, things would be very different in the world today. Unfortunately for the Middle East, al-Qaida would likely be very strong there, and only there, in its attempt to create its pan-Arabic caliphate. Saddam Hussein would also be in power (though the Arab Spring may change it in the future). On the other hand, the USA wouldn't have the vast deficit it does today, or be on the receiving end of the condemnation of so many in the Ummah and wider world. Israel, too, might not exist anymore, and in its place an Iranian exclave or God knows what else. For the wider world, these consequences may not be good, but the USA would be in a markedly better position than it is today and, at the end of the day, it is the job of a leader (of any nation) to put his country's interests first and foremost. Bush did it in a stupid, debt-building way. Paul would do it in a sensible, somewhat isolationist way. Personally, I prefer Paul's method.
No comments:
Post a Comment