An Important Terrorism Question

[Throwback280s]

I've been a Ron Paul supporter since the beginning. And I agree with him on the Non-interventionist/Republic style foreign policy. However, I've formulated some serious questions that I think the campaign and its supporters need to answer and articulate. They'll definitely be thrown at us the more serious the campaign is taken.

Say we leave Iraq. We also bring home our troops and bases from around the world as well. We even clamp down on illegal immigration. We repeal the Patriot Act and restore much of the damaged civil liberties. No more wiretapping mosques, bank account monitoring, etc. What happens next?

We all know Al Quaeda uses our occupation in their lands to increase support and enthusiasm for their jihad cause. When we leave, they will most likely declare it a victory for their side...claiming that the Americans finally wised up and backed down as Osama said we did in Africa and Vietnam. They will be upset that we left but they won't want to go out of business. So they'll try to gin up support that way.

If their cause starts to crumble because of our new policy, they'll definitely want to hit us again to cause us to get involved again. Things like suicide bombings in countless US malls would be extremely easy for terrorists or terrorist sympathizers to pull off.

How does a Ron Paul platform stop these terrorist plots effectively? I'd like to see some detailed measures outlined for how we'd systematically monitor terrorist cells and smoke them out.

I've heard that Paul suggested banning immigration to and from countries deemed terrorist nations. But there's already people here, US citizens, and individuals who live in countries like Great Britain that have the same terrorist agenda.

I've heard of 2nd amendment freedom for airlines to carry weapons more freely in jets. But that's only taking care of plane situations.


And just for good measure, assume Iran does develop a nuclear weapon in the next 4 years. Sure, with Israel off its leash with our non-interventionist policy, they may not use it directly. But what if it's passed on under the table to some terrorist group in the world? How do we deal with that?

[Mr. White]

Glad to see someone else post what I've been thinking.

I'd imagine he'd use the military against them. Past that, I could only bs an answer that I'm not qualified enough to give you.

I do agree that your secnario is highly likely.

[OptionsTrader]

I believe this is flawed:

"they'll definitely want to hit us again to cause us to get involved again"

[Throwback280s]

Think about it. If Osama's power is increased by our presence, why would he just sit by and let his power slip away? He'd want to keep his campaign going. He needs propaganda feeding machines. He needs a reason to keep his jihad terrorism campaign going.

[OptionsTrader]

The only groups that have something to gain by having us involved are the people profitting from this war machine.

The notion of "Jihad terrorism" is propaganda that benefits the war machine not Muslims.

[devil21]

I believe this is flawed:

"they'll definitely want to hit us again to cause us to get involved again"

Exactly. If the blowback theory is correct then removing our occupation forces would cause less threat of another attack. Another strike by terrorists on US soil after withdrawal indicates that blowback is an inaccurate theory and would confirm the "they hate us for our freedom" junk.

[Perry]

I don't think it's all that complex. You monitor it like any other crime and if it's a nation you're dealing with like any other nation. paul wants to get rid of the CIA. So what? There are over a hundred other intelligence organizations in the U.S. gathering information from around the world. Why are you worried about terrorism? There have been a hundred thousand murders in the United States since 9/11 occurred and not one of them was from suicide terrorism. Wouldn't it be infinitely more rational to be worried about being murdered by another American? Please note; this is not to say that suicide terrorism isn't some form of danger. It is. However...I think we need to prioritize by the numbers. I think if your primary concern is suicide terrorism in the U.S.A you're probably watching too much television news.

[OptionsTrader]

If Buddhists occupied the lands that exist above 75% of oil reserves, "Buddhist terrorism" would be the propaganda term.

[Mr. White]

The only groups that have something to gain by having us involved are the people profitting from this war machine.

The notion of "Jihad terrorism" is propaganda that benefits the war machine not Muslims.

You mean clerics that garner enormous support of the average joe that despises american intervention in their lives don't have anything to gain by keeping us in the region?

It's good to be critical of your own country, but lose the tunnel vision.

[BarryDonegan]

We all know Al Quaeda uses our occupation in their lands to increase support and enthusiasm for their jihad cause. When we leave, they will most likely declare it a victory for their side...

this fear that people who oppose our policy will talk bad about us behind our back is an unavoidable fear.

we are the drunk jackass at the party who won't leave at this point. we need to go home.

as far as terrorism, they are not interested in really going to war with us, we would wipe their nations off of the map.

to be honest, if we left the middle east, stopped unconditionally supporting israel, a lot of these terrorist groups WOULD be elected leaders, and their focus would turn onto domestic policy.

how quickly we forgot that one mans terrorist is another mans...

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

[devil21]

You mean clerics that garner enormous support of the average joe that despises american intervention in their lives don't have anything to gain by keeping us in the region?

It's good to be critical of your own country, but lose the tunnel vision.

Those clerics and their followers were finding plenty of fodder well before US forces decided to set up shop on top of Holy Lands.

[OptionsTrader]

You mean clerics that garner enormous support of the average joe that despises american intervention in their lives don't have anything to gain by keeping us in the region?

It's good to be critical of your own country, but lose the tunnel vision.

They want us out of their countries just as you would want them out of yours if a foreign army occupied the USA.

[yoshimaroka]

Terrorists get support when they use the American occupation as a rallying point to attack the USA.

Neocons get support when they use 9/11 as a rallying point to attack the Middle East.

The longer the American occupation lasts in the Middle East, the more likely there will be another attack on American soil.

It's a vicious cycle that Al Quaeda and Neocons use to their advantage.

[james1844]

Whats next? Thats easy, aggressive use of policing agencies, special forces and private bounty hunters.

Most terrorist groups are two or three guys and a pipe bomb. Once Bin Ladin gets whacked, we'll can declare victory and call it good.

[Mr. White]

Jesus Christ I'm agreeing with you guys. That was posted against the guy that said that jihadist terrorism is a fabrication. It's not. Short term it would continue to take place, probably more stonrgly, long term it would die out.

[bbachtung]

It is very difficult to recruit people to attack a country that minds its own business. Osama would have a lot of trouble getting anyone to attack the U.S. if we weren't over there and supporting the Saudi monarchy and many other anti-freedom governments.

Remember the sympathy that America had just after 9/11? Most Muslims supported the U.S. in the immediate aftermath; it was only after the U.S. stopped going after bin Laden and started nation-building in Afghanistan that we really began to lose support.

As Michael Scheurer points out in his book (on RP's reading list for Giuliani), Imperial Hubris, the Pentagon had no plan to surgically strike Afghanistan and send in black ops teams (like the SEALS, Army Rangers, etc.) to take out al Qaeda and its leadership, but we had a hundred plans for invading Iraq. We knew that bin Laden was a threat, yet neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration made planning to take out bin Laden and his inner circle a priority. You don't need to invade a country to capture a bad guy, you just need intelligence sources and well-trained black ops teams.

[Kregener]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[steph3n]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222

[bbachtung]

BTW, RP has been saying the same thing about entangling alliances and the American presence in the Middle East for over 25 years (see my signature).

[devil21]

Also, Ron's desire to cease financial support to Israel will take away another incentive for terrorism motives. Stop supporting Israel and withdrawal from the Middle East will leave no motivation for attacks.

[kalami]

They'll probably start turning on their own governments. If that does happen then I doubt the average joe is going to still be as sympathetic as when they were fighting Westerners.

[FreedomLover]

I guess they'll turn their attention to Israel. It's good for us, but bad for them.

There will still be attempts to attack us too, that is a fact and it is inevitable. But it probably won't be on as large a scale as we assume. But I think we should treat these as criminal acts and not acts of war, as terrorism is an idea and almost all terrorists have no allegiance to any specific country.

The passion of the modern day jihadists will probably wane, but not completely die.

My hope is that they will turn on eachother, since they will not have the United States as the glue that holds these nutjobs together.


http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=222

This is good, I hope Ron Paul goes through these step by step in the next debates to prove to people that he's not "weak" on terror.

[jonahtrainer]

Exactly. If the blowback theory is correct then removing our occupation forces would cause less threat of another attack. Another strike by terrorists on US soil after withdrawal indicates that blowback is an inaccurate theory and would confirm the "they hate us for our freedom" junk.

The blowback I'd be worried about is from the military-industrial complex. They got a good jig going right now.

For example, he brings up bombs at US malls. How much would a mission of 10 bombs at US malls cost to execute? I suppose one could hire Blackwater (http://blackwaterusa.com/)for $25,000 per mall or $250,000. Or better yet, what if the missions were carried out by Blackwater as Marketing Expense. After such attacks there would be a greater demand for security; perhaps $50M more revenue. I wonder what the ROI on those types of attacks would be?

The bottom line is there are a lot of people who make a lot of money off death and destruction. They look at blowing up property and people as investments to increase their ROIs. The industry is perhaps the largest component of Global GDP. This industry will not go away quietly.

I think occupation plays a large role in them attacking us. Yes, we are occupying a cave full of vipers and need to back up slowly and shoot any that come aggressively towards us. But once we are out of the cave there will be other vipers. Those vipers won't be pissed at us because we are in their cave; they will bite us to make money. I am not sure which is worse ....

[steph3n]

Israel can protect itself, and even if the US Govt aid quit I promise it would be supplemented by private donors the world over, they way aid should be done.

[steph3n]

jonah, private companies may have better business under RP hunting down the head people like Bin Laden :)

[Geronimo]

Any blowback from Al Quada is a minor threat. The real terrorists are the people who run our government/media.
The only way to fight domestic terrorism is to elect Ron Paul.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Non-intervention plays a big part in this. Have you ever read about the reasons they attack us? They attack us because we've been over there! We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years! I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics. We need to look at what we do through the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us! We need a new foreign policy that says we should mind our own business, defend this country, and defend our borders! We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. We have committed the invasion of Iraq. We have every right to gather intellegence, but we have to have intellegent people interpreting this information. So I think President Paul would focus on defending this country and not go to Iraq and invade 3rd world countries for oil, which makes us less safe because it incites hatred. It's time we came home!

[pcosmar]

Do you all sit around and worry about a meteor crashing through your roof.
It's about as likely.
How about contracting a flesh eating disease.
Does fear rule your life.
There are a thousand was to die other than a terrist attack.

[Throwback280s]

The problem is is that some of the extremist radical Muslims even in some of the fundamentalist American mosques actually do believe in Osama's rhetoric of establishing a global Islamic empire. So they will continue to try to gin up support and advance their goals by attacking us. Occupation in the Middle East definitely help start this whole mess but there are other factors involved in well.

So we need to outline how we monitor and combat and stop terrorism here at home. You don't even have to believe Islamo-fascism terrorism exists. That's fine. But America does. And that's going to be a major campaign issue. And at the very least, for the sake of Ron Paul winning we need to have some strategy for public consumption.

[Nefertiti]

We all know Al Quaeda uses our occupation in their lands to increase support and enthusiasm for their jihad cause. When we leave, they will most likely declare it a victory for their side...claiming that the Americans finally wised up and backed down as Osama said we did in Africa and Vietnam. They will be upset that we left but they won't want to go out of business. So they'll try to gin up support that way.


My first thought is they will not be without a potential new enemy, if they were to choose to have one. There's always going to be China. :D

[steph3n]

No to mention terror implies that they are making us scared to terrorize us, if we have freedoms to arm ourselves, defend ourselves, and have a "strong stick"(if a country were to attack us, the military is undoubtedly going to be there to defend the country)

If we have all of the above, we don't have such reason to fear and be terrorized by their tactics.

[steph3n]

good subject, some answers:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=19

;)


My first thought is they will not be without a potential new enemy, if they were to choose to have one. There's always going to be China. :D

[BarryDonegan]

i've been considering seeing what it would take to get a citizens initiative to get a contract with blackwater for national defense in the event that the constitution gets put aside and the U.S. attempts martial law.

THATS a freakin 2nd ammendment evocation.

[devil21]

Do you all sit around and worry about a meteor crashing through your roof.
It's about as likely.
How about contracting a flesh eating disease.
Does fear rule your life.
There are a thousand was to die other than a terrist attack.

Yeah! Like brain eating amoebas in Lake Havasu.

http://img.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/0926killer-amoeba0926-ON-CP.html

[james1844]

Mercenary armies like blackwater should have ZERO role in domestic order maintainance.

[steph3n]

WHY??

If that is the case it will be before RP and they will just be the military! Its why we are to use our 2nd amendment rights.



i've been considering seeing what it would take to get a citizens initiative to get a contract with blackwater for national defense in the event that the constitution gets put aside and the U.S. attempts martial law.

THATS a freakin 2nd ammendment evocation.

[max]

al qaeda is a fictitious bogeyman....akin to Godstein and The Brotherhood from 1984..

"Terrorism" is a tool of western governments to manipulate the people...this is why it is absolutely critical to understand the truth behind 9/11

www.911truthvirus.com

[jonahtrainer]

jonah, private companies may have better business under RP hunting down the head people like Bin Laden :)

All 4-6,000 of them. Then how do they increase their sales volume? They need consumable repeat orders to have a stable and profitable business model. There is not much money in peace.

[steph3n]

they can go to France :D


All 4-6,000 of them. Then how do they increase their sales volume? They need consumable repeat orders to have a stable and profitable business model. There is not much money in peace.

[Larofeticus]

What happens when, after we leave, Bin Laden goes to plan another attack and the regular folks around him ask: "Hey man, they're gone now. We've got our homeland back. Why keep going after them?"

[pcosmar]

Nice try for a first post. Watch this please. Good stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMqN0g-cAOU

[dircha]

If their cause starts to crumble because of our new policy, they'll definitely want to hit us again to cause us to get involved again. Things like suicide bombings in countless US malls would be extremely easy for terrorists or terrorist sympathizers to pull off.

Domestic suicide bombers are an extremely challenging security concern for any foreign policy position. There is nothing that George Bush can0 do now, for all his military and domestic spying power, that can stop a domestic suicide bomber from strapping homemade explosives to his chest and detonating them in a crowded public area.

This is why we must avoid an outcome in which this occurs at all costs.

The surest way to do this is to recognize that it is our foreign policy that is provoking Islamic terrorists to target us, and to rethink our foreign policy as Ron Paul has proposed.

We have no compelling national security interests in the Middle East. Only only interest in the region is oil. But Saddam was happy to sell us oil. Saddam would have been happy to sell us Kuwait's oil. And Iran can call us the Great Satan all day long, but they will still continue to sell us oil because it is oil that keeps the Iranian regime in power.

We do not need to go to war for oil; war only destabilizes the price of oil. And we do not need to go to war to prevent terrorist attacks against our soil; war only provokes more attacks against our soil.

[Corydoras]

I'd imagine he'd use the military against them.

I think RP has too much respect for Posse Comitatus and the OLD Insurrection Act to use them... but he might.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

[steph3n]

If a country were to attack I have no doubt that if the congress voted for war RP would see to it the generals executed it to true victory as quickly as possible!


I think RP has too much respect for Posse Comitatus and the OLD Insurrection Act to use them... but he might.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

[Corydoras]

What happens when, after we leave, Bin Laden goes to plan another attack and the regular folks around him ask: "Hey man, they're gone now. We've got our homeland back. Why keep going after them?"

This is the point of the scenario at which the neocons and Dems scream "power vacuum!!!" This is why people who would normally seem anti-war are now dragging their feet.

But people thought when we left Vietnam that there would be a domino effect and the whole region would destabilize and then become communist. It didn't happen. RP believes disaster would not happen in the Middle East, either.

[ButchHowdy]

al qaeda is a fictitious bogeyman....akin to Godstein and The Brotherhood from 1984..

"Terrorism" is a tool of western governments to manipulate the people...this is why it is absolutely critical to understand the truth behind 9/11

www.911truthvirus.com

Thank You Max!

There is however a new problem on the table: Blackwater 'types' currently outnumber troops in Iraq. How does one solve the problem of 180000+ overpaid & overzealous mercinaries?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/30/the_shadow_army/

[ButchHowdy]

Boston Globe article in case they wanted you to sign up:


THE SHADOW ARMY

By Janine R. Wedel | September 30, 2007

IF THERE is a quagmire in Iraq, it was created more than a decade ago when the United States instituted a flawed system governing the use of contractors to perform governmental functions. Now, despite Iraqi fury at Blackwater USA, some of whose employees are accused of fatally shooting Iraqis, Washington is so reliant on the firm that it dare not order it from the field.

The heavy dependence on private contractors in the military is relatively recent. In the Gulf War only 9,200 contractors supported 540,000 military personnel. The estimated 180,000 US-funded contractors now in Iraq (of which about 21,000 are Americans) outnumber the 160,000 US troops.

All too often this private army has been unmanageable and unaccountable, its interests dangerously divergent from those of the US and the Iraqi governments. The troubles exposed by the Blackwater debacle provide a glimpse into a much larger, systemic problem that pervades military, intelligence, and homeland security efforts alike.

The Bush administration came into office bent on privatizing as many government functions as possible and threw billions into the mix in its Iraq venture. It was changes in the contracting system, instituted during the Clinton administration, though, that transformed the contracting rules and undercut oversight, transparency, and competition.

Through the Clinton and Bush II administrations, outsourcing steadily accelerated. In fiscal year 2006, the federal government awarded contracts valued at over $420 billion, more than double the amount awarded in 2000, according to the Federal Procurement Data System. The war in Iraq has spurred contracting to record-breaking heights. As the federal government's biggest buyer of services, the Department of Defense, in fiscal 2006 alone, obligated upwards of $151 billion in service contracts, a rise since 1996 of 78 percent. The transfer of many military functions to the private sector occurred at the same time that government oversight , has been diminished. The Defense Department is ever-more dependent on contractors to supply a host of "mission-critical services," according to the Government Accountability Office. These services include "information technology systems, interpreters, intelligence analysts, as well as weapons system maintenance and base operation support," according to the GAO.

Moreover, functions that were once the responsibility of military personnel are now essentially in private hands. For example, websites of contractors working for the Defense Department have posted announcements of job openings for analysts to perform such functions as preparing the department's budget. One contractor boasted of having written the Army Field Manuals on Contractors on the Battlefield.

Yet, while private companies are acquiring government functions and the number of contractors is on the rise, the number of Defense Department employees available to oversee them has declined. For 15 years, the GAO has included the Pentagon's contract management operation on its list of "high-risk" activities. This designation means that the department may well lack "the ability to effectively manage cost, quality, and performance in contracts," according to US Comptroller General David M. Walker, head of the GAO. When these deficiencies play out on the ground in Iraq, they can have serious consequences.

The extensive transfer of functions to the private sector raises more fundamental concerns. The overarching goal of government is supposedly the adoption of policies and practices that promote the public good. For contractors performing government services, the bottom line is profit.

Further, military personnel are governed by regulations that do not apply to contractors, such as those Blackwater employees involved in the shooting. They do not fall under the rules of war or the Geneva Convention. The records of private employees in war zones are exempt from scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act. And, unlike military personnel, contract employees on the battlefield can quit their jobs when the going gets rough.

The Iraq war has exposed the dangers of contracting out vital state functions to private actors. Such massive privatization renders government more susceptible to the influence of unelected private players with their own interests - players who are far removed from the oversight of government and the scrutiny of voters.

Inherently governmental functions, such as the direction of military and intelligence operations, ought not to be privatized. It is vital to reverse Clinton-era procurement "reforms" and to restore effective government oversight - and Bush-era extensions of them. Otherwise, the public can be more easily mislead, and America's interests, along with its moral standing, will be repeatedly undercut by a shadow army.

Janine R. Wedel is professor of public policy at George Mason University and a fellow at New America Foundation.