Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The "Blowback" Theory

Rate this topic


DarkWaters

Recommended Posts

I have created this topic to facilitate further exploration on the "blowback" theory and to discuss if it offers any valid points. I currently do not approve of this theory but I wish to have an honest discussion on it to hopefully advance understanding of the underlying ideas.

What is the "Blowback" Theory?

To my understanding, the blowback theory asserts that all terrorist attacks and violent uprisings are largely caused by previous misdeeds by an "unwelcome" foreign presence in a perceived homeland. I think that the blowback theory asserts that such responses should be expected and often (but not always) morally justified. Furthermore, the attacks should be delayed from the initial "aggravating" action of the foreign force. Thus, the Iraqi insurgency aimed at the United States troops would not really be considered blowback, while the September 11th attacks, the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998 or the London subway bombings would be considered blowback.

Robert Pape is a prominent intellectual advancer of the blowback theory. I have not read this book.

Anyway, I do not wish to discuss a strawman, so please correct me if you perceive that I have not represented the blowback theory accurately.

Some Questions:

First question:

What are the specific claims of leading blowback theorists, as it applies to the United States and Islamic Fundamentalism. For example, did previous U.S. misdeeds:

a.) Both create the Militant Islam movement and incurred its wrath?

b.) Not create the Militant Islam movement but has caused it to focus its hatred on the United States? In other words, Islamic terrorist attacks would still be happening, but they would not be directed at the United States had we had no significant involvement in the Middle East.

Second question:

Of all of the significant actions which allegedly lead to blowback, which ones are morally justified? Which ones are morally unjustified? Clearly, being the hero in a crowd who stands up to an aggressor with a gun will almost surely ensure that the aggressor will focus his hostility on the hero. It behooves us to discuss the morality of the actions which are supposedly the cause of this blowback.

My present reaction to the blowback theory:

I think this theory fails to both:

1.) Account for the morality on the actions which supposedly cause the blowback. For example, removing a brutal dictator such as Saddam Hussein from power is morally justified but if done improperly then surely there would be loyalists who seek retaliation. Again, I could be mistaken in what the blowback theory is, perhaps it is just meant to be a descriptive claim and not a normative claim.

2.) Focus on how ideas drive history. Instead, it seems to assume that violent attacks are motivated by a laundry list of specific grievances and not an underlying malevolent philosophy.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my understanding, the blowback theory asserts that all terrorist attacks and violent uprisings are largely caused by previous misdeeds by an "unwelcome" foreign presence in a perceived homeland.

This is far far too strong a statement, and borders on turning an interesting topic into a strawman.

Any proponent of "blowback" would really make the weaker claim that some terrorist events can be ascribed to "blowback" (you can't rule out the possibility of a genuine psychopath).

They would also claim that a resonable foreign policy by any nation should take into account the possibility of blowback, and the likely costs associated with it (i.e. there might be perfectly good reasons to throw rocks at a hornets' nest, but you have to account for the possibility of getting stung in the process).

Essentially this all becomes the geopolitical equivalent of risk management so common in business and finance.

The criticism is that governments have tended to plan as though blowback would never happen, and so engage in policies which seem unreasonable when a reasonable calculation of blowback and its cost are factored in.

Once a government starts assuming blowback never happens, and then it suddenly does, it has to find itself trying to explain away blowback as the actions of lone psychopaths who couldn't be planned for.

In effect any "theory" of blowback is simply stating two things:

1. Events/actions have precedents (i.e. if something happens there is probably a reason for it, so if terrorists blow something up, they probably are acting based on past events)

2. Events/actions of consequences (i.e. if you do something things will happen whether you like them or not, and if your nation follows certain policies, then terrorism might follow suit)

Edited by punk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any proponent of "blowback" would really make the weaker claim that some terrorist events can be ascribed to "blowback" (you can't rule out the possibility of a genuine psychopath).

However, acts of Islamic terrorism are not executed by lone psychopaths but splinter cells of large terrorism networks. Does this mean, according to this idea, that acts of Islamic terrorism can largely be explained by blowback? If not, then what is the explanation?

In effect any "theory" of blowback is simply stating two things:

1. Events/actions have precedents (i.e. if something happens there is probably a reason for it, so if terrorists blow something up, they probably are acting based on past events)

2. Events/actions of consequences (i.e. if you do something things will happen whether you like them or not, and if your nation follows certain policies, then terrorism might follow suit)

This seems to amount to the beliefs that foreign policies have causes and effects. This characterization does not distinguish this theory from essentially any other descriptive theory on foreign policy. This could mean that there is not really a "theory" in itself.

If it is a school of thought, then could you please provide some real-world examples that are probably "blowback" and some examples that are probably not. In addition, can you please provide some names of adherents to this theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turns out that "blowback" is the official position of the BBC. On their "kids" website, discussing 9/11, they have a page titled "Why did they do it?" It says:

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks. In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do.

When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.

HT: DrudgeReport

On their "How did Al-Queda start?" page, they talk about the Afghanistan war, without any mention of all the help from the U.S. If they did, at least a young kid would at least understand that bin-Laden is not a trustworthy guy.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, acts of Islamic terrorism are not executed by lone psychopaths but splinter cells of large terrorism networks. Does this mean, according to this idea, that acts of Islamic terrorism can largely be explained by blowback? If not, then what is the explanation?

Yes, the idea is that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to Western foreign policies.

This seems to amount to the beliefs that foreign policies have causes and effects. This characterization does not distinguish this theory from essentially any other descriptive theory on foreign policy. This could mean that there is not really a "theory" in itself.

I've never heard it referred to as a "theory" before you called it that. "Blowback" is originally the term people in the intelligence community to refer to attacks on the US coming as retribution for US policies elsewhere.

If it is a school of thought, then could you please provide some real-world examples that are probably "blowback" and some examples that are probably not. In addition, can you please provide some names of adherents to this theory?

Again, its not really a school of thought as a label for something no reasonable person can deny happens:

Sometimes people do violent things as a reaction to something you did to them, which (furthermore) they would not have done otherwise.

Edited by punk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoftwareNerd,

I don't think that anyone - not the BBC, not Ron Paul, not the CIA, not even Hillary Clinton - is denying that bin Laden isn't trustworthy. In fact, the only people who have ever done so are the upper echelons of the the Republican party. That someone who is the 17th scion of an intimate business partner of the House of Saud would be considered trustworthy is beyond me, but Reagan and Bush 41 thought so. I guess James Bath, BCCI, and Arbusto Oil had alot to do with it.

My opinion of bin Laden is probably identical to yours, the only difference being that I don't really care if he's trustworthy or not and it never would have mattered. He would be just another impoverished nut case living in a tent and stealing his neighbor's camels. I would have never made a deal with him or anyone connected to him. Not financially, not diplomatically, and certainly not militarily.

Edit: Changed word "thought" to word "done" in 2nd sentence.

Edited by stephenmallory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the idea is that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to Western foreign policies.

I can see some legitimacy to the argument that the United States has become more of a target of Islamic terrorism because of its involvement in the Middle East. However, I again see this as analogous to how the authority who confronts an aggressor usually incurs the hatred of that aggressor. Standing up to Islamic Totalitarianism will make them vindictive towards the United States, but the actions of challenging Islamic terror are nevertheless just.

As for the particular origins of Islamic terrorism, I think to blame the rise of totalitarian Islam on the United States is to ignore intellectual history. For example, consider the highly influential writings of radical Islamic thinker Sayyid Qutb. While he was in jail (he was sent to prison by the Arab Nationalist government of Nasser), Qutb wrote countless volumes on radical Qu'ranic interpretations. Many of his works are highly influential today. He is essentially the father of the modern radical Islam movement and his writings are considered highly inspirational to infamous terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden. Some of the ideas that Qutb advanced included:

  • Any Muslim who is not actively demanding that his nation impose Sharia Law is an apostate. (Apostasy warrants death in the eyes of many Muslim fundamentalists.)
  • Jihad is not a personal concept or a struggle to defend Islam but an offensive war to impose Islam.
  • Economic inequality is a sign of corruption. Any sign of income inequality is surely indicative of a morally bankrupt society. (Hence the modern hatred towards Capitalism.)

So who did Sayyid Qutb direct his angry against? The United States? The British? Actually, most of his hostility was directed towards the Nasser regime in Egypt. The very same regime who ousted the British-backed, monarchist government that was in Egypt at the time.

While they might cause the U.S. to become the focus of Islamic terror, previous misdeeds in United States foreign policy are certainly not to blame for the existence of radical Islam.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark Waters,

I agree with every thing you wrote. You're correct to state that Radical Islam would hate us regardless of our involvement in the Middle-East and that that involvement didn't create it. My only possible disagreement with you would be with how to deal with it.

Just as Qutb's wrath was directed at the Egyptian Government, bin Laden's goals, if you listen to his speeches, are the destruction of the Saudi Government and Israel. He is only attacking America because he sees the US as the main factor enabling these two entities to exist. And you know what, he's right. If it weren't for massive amount of oil wealth given to the Saudi Royal Family - who, being tyrants, don't deserve it merely because they demand it - they wouldn't have the means to "defile the holy Arabian Peninsula" with their Westernized indulgences and their hosting of American troops. If it weren't for the $3 billion that Washington gives Israel annually, it would have been overrun by it's neighbors long ago. I certainly support Israel and I would do whatever I could help it voluntarily, but not at the price of New York City.

The point is that yes, bin Laden and various Islamic fanatics all over the Muslim world would hate the West, on a philosophical/religious level, just as much as they do now if a Western foot had never set down on their shores, but that it simply wouldn't matter. They wouldn't have the political capital to point to - the occupations, the support of Israel, the financing of brutal, secular regimes - to rally their otherwise less-dedicated, less philosophically-sophisticated underlings who actually do the martyring. And, as I mentioned before, if it weren't for the likes of Arbusto Oil, Haliburton, and others treating tyrants like business partners, even if they were able to whip 99% of the world's Muslims into a radical jihadist frenzy, they wouldn't have the actual capital to realize it.

The best they can come up with is terrorism. And even that only occurs because the same egalitarian approach used by the Neoconservatives who refuse to differentiate between a business concern and a tyrannical government is also used by the liberals at home to refuse to use differnt amounts of discretion for a Saudi Arabian, as opposed to a Candian, who is applying for a student visa.

Edited by stephenmallory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see some legitimacy to the argument that the United States has become more of a target of Islamic terrorism because of its involvement in the Middle East. However, I again see this as analogous to how the authority who confronts an aggressor usually incurs the hatred of that aggressor. Standing up to Islamic Totalitarianism will make them vindictive towards the United States, but the actions of challenging Islamic terror are nevertheless just.

The left is certainly wrong in painting all US policies as evil, but it is just as wrong to paint all US policies as good.

We should at least entertain the notion that people in the Middle East might have a couple legitimate grievances against the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left is certainly wrong in painting all US policies as evil, but it is just as wrong to paint all US policies as good.

We should at least entertain the notion that people in the Middle East might have a couple legitimate grievances against the US.

I think you "load" this in a particular way. If by "paint" you mean unthinkingly support the idea that all US policies are good, then you are correct. When you say "at least entertain" you imply that someone give some thougthful consideration to the idea. It very well may be that some people have "entertained" the notion that they have legitimate grievances and come to the conclusion that it is hogwash. So it would be proper then to say, "One should entertain the possibility that all US policies are good" rather than imply that one is "painting" a false picture when they actually may have thoughtfully come to a positive conclusion about all US policies.

So regardless of what the subject is, "painting" is typically a bad thing whereas "entertaining" is a good thing. The way you appear to load these statements implies that the later (some policies may be bad) should be a foregone conclusion. With that in mind, do you think anyone here (in this forum) is "painting"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with every thing you wrote. You're correct to state that Radical Islam would hate us regardless of our involvement in the Middle-East and that that involvement didn't create it. My only possible disagreement with you would be with how to deal with it.

Just as Qutb's wrath was directed at the Egyptian Government, bin Laden's goals, if you listen to his speeches, are the destruction of the Saudi Government and Israel. He is only attacking America because he sees the US as the main factor enabling these two entities to exist. And you know what, he's right. If it weren't for massive amount of oil wealth given to the Saudi Royal Family - who, being tyrants, don't deserve it merely because they demand it - they wouldn't have the means to "defile the holy Arabian Peninsula" with their Westernized indulgences and their hosting of American troops. If it weren't for the $3 billion that Washington gives Israel annually, it would have been overrun by it's neighbors long ago. I certainly support Israel and I would do whatever I could help it voluntarily, but not at the price of New York City.

I do not think there is a dichotomy between supporting Israel and being able to properly defend the United States homeland. If somehow the United States stopped doing business with the Middle East (this will never happen) as well as ceased to support Israel in all forms, we would still be threatened by radical Islam. The Islamic militants would probably first focus on pillaging Israel and gaining a stranglehold on the governments of Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria and the like. After they are done enslaving their own people under Sharia Law, they would turn their attention to enslaving rest of the world. Europe would probably be ravaged next. Eventually militant Islam will reach America in frightening numbers. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away; it will just allow the movement to accumulate momentum before it poisons North America.

With regards to supporting Israel, Israel is our greatest ally in the struggle against radical Islam and has a right to exist. I believe it is in the rational self-interest of the United States to support them.

I think the real problem is that the United States government still fails to recognize that radical Islam has declared war on the western world. Thus, instead of militarily and ideologically fighting this war, we are just trying to rebuild Iraq, eradicating opium fields in Afghanistan and continuing to give passive support to Israel.

Engaging and winning in the war on radical Islam will preserve New York City and our way of life. Withdrawing support from Israel will not.

The left is certainly wrong in painting all US policies as evil, but it is just as wrong to paint all US policies as good.

We should at least entertain the notion that people in the Middle East might have a couple legitimate grievances against the US.

The United States government has made plenty of mistakes in foreign policy, but this does not legitimize the Islamic Totalitarian movement. When discussing what a foreign policy of rational self-interest should be, I do not see the need to fixate on past mistakes. If you wish to discuss some specific blunders, that is fine so long as you do not present the history as one where a rational individual cannot discern which side is morally superior. Morally speaking, the United States is unquestionably superior to radical Islamic groups.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you "load" this in a particular way. If by "paint" you mean unthinkingly support the idea that all US policies are good, then you are correct. When you say "at least entertain" you imply that someone give some thougthful consideration to the idea. It very well may be that some people have "entertained" the notion that they have legitimate grievances and come to the conclusion that it is hogwash. So it would be proper then to say, "One should entertain the possibility that all US policies are good" rather than imply that one is "painting" a false picture when they actually may have thoughtfully come to a positive conclusion about all US policies.

So regardless of what the subject is, "painting" is typically a bad thing whereas "entertaining" is a good thing. The way you appear to load these statements implies that the later (some policies may be bad) should be a foregone conclusion. With that in mind, do you think anyone here (in this forum) is "painting"?

The portion of the post I quoted looked (at least to me) as if it was a foregone conclusion that this all started with "Islamic aggression" and the US is simply responding to it.

That is like the US was standing on a street corner minding its own business and some stranger it had never met before punched it in the face.

I was simply saying that it could well be that the Islamic aggression might have been partly motivated by some legitimate grievances with the US.

That is like the US was standing on a street corner minding its own business and someone it knows that it had some bad dealings with in the past punched it in the face.

The punch in the face might be out of proportion to the past issues, but it wasn't totally out of the blue either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think there is a dichotomy between supporting Israel and being able to properly defend the United States homeland. If somehow the United States stopped doing business with the Middle East (this will never happen) as well as ceased to support Israel in all forms, we would still be threatened by radical Islam. The Islamic militants would probably first focus on pillaging Israel and gaining a stranglehold on the governments of Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Algeria and the like. After they are done enslaving their own people under Sharia Law, they would turn their attention to enslaving rest of the world. Europe would probably be ravaged next. Eventually militant Islam will reach America in frightening numbers. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away; it will just allow the movement to accumulate momentum before it poisons North America.

I agree with your assessment DW. It's no accident that the Islamists refer to America and not Israel as the "Great Satan". We are the primary beacon of reason and hope in the world and so we are also the ultimate target of Islamist aggression. The Europeans should be standing with us in this fight, yet some of those countries seem to have already surrendered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is just as wrong to paint all US policies as good.

We should at least entertain the notion that people in the Middle East might have a couple legitimate grievances against the US.

Most US policies are awful. There is one and only one nation in the Middle East that may have legitimate grievances against the US: Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darkwaters,

You're right, Israel is our greatest ally in our struggle against Radical Islam. Without them, we wouldn't be in a struggle against Radical Islamic. I think it would be more accurate to say that America is Israel's greatest ally in their struggle against Radical Islam. After all, they're they only non-Muslim country that is located in an area that Muslims think belong to them. If the jews of Europe, after all WWII, were so deperate to have a homeland, they should have done what their less fervently religious, less tribal brothers in faith did and come to America. If anyone in the history of the world had a legitimate claim to political asylum, if was Europe's jews. Geographically, Utah looks alot like Israel. I'm sure the Mormons wouldn't mind; they're probably quite understanding of people wanting to create insulated religious colonies in the desert.

There are small minorities of people (usually individuals) in every corner of the world who desire a culture of reason and are surrounded by irrationality. What makes the jews so special - especially when alot of the jews living in Israel are not rational? Many of them are pinko liberals or religious wackos

Before the 30-40 year old wave of terrorism we're experiencing now, aside from Spain and the Balkans during the Middle-Ages when they possesed technological superiority over The West, when had Islam ever attacked the West outside of it's own borders? Your "Islamic domino-theory" is even more flawed than the "Communist Domino Theory" of the past. Communism, as an organized political/military force collaped under it's own weight - despite receiving massive economic and military support from the West and being far less adverse to material progress than Islam.

I agree that Radical Islam has declared war on the Western World, and given our 100 years of economic and military blundering, the prudent thing to do would be to destroy this generation's means and will to conduct jihad swiftly and decisively. I'm simply saying that as a long term policy the only way to protect America, let alone to reshape the rest of the world, is to mind our own business. The only dealings that Americans should have with the rest of the world is through trade - which necessitates that they have created the political environment to do so as well as something worth trading for. The decreasingly communist nations of Vietnam and China speak loud and clear to this lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The portion of the post I quoted looked (at least to me) as if it was a foregone conclusion that this all started with "Islamic aggression" and the US is simply responding to it.

That is like the US was standing on a street corner minding its own business and some stranger it had never met before punched it in the face.

I was simply saying that it could well be that the Islamic aggression might have been partly motivated by some legitimate grievances with the US.

That is like the US was standing on a street corner minding its own business and someone it knows that it had some bad dealings with in the past punched it in the face.

The punch in the face might be out of proportion to the past issues, but it wasn't totally out of the blue either.

I think your distinction is valid but it does not address the fundamental issue. With regards to your hypothetical example, the important question is not if the assailant had motivation for committing assault; the important question is if the assailant was morally justified. In the case of Islamic terror, there is no justification.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your distinction is valid but it does not address the fundamental issue. With regards to your hypothetical example, the important question is not if the assailant had motivation for committing assault; the important question is if the assailant was morally justified. In the case of Islamic terror, there is no justification.

Well moral justification doesn't change reality.

If the US engages in policies that are likely to provoke terrorism, then it should at least take that into account in planning and make a good risk assessment.

If I see a rabid dog on the street and walk up to it and it bites me, sure it had no business biting me. But what was I doing walking up to it in the first place?

When you build a building you don't deny gravity, it is just a fact of nature.

When you formulate a policy you should anticipate things like terrorism, it is a fact of the way the world works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well moral justification doesn't change reality.

If the US engages in policies that are likely to provoke terrorism, then it should at least take that into account in planning and make a good risk assessment.

If I see a rabid dog on the street and walk up to it and it bites me, sure it had no business biting me. But what was I doing walking up to it in the first place?

Well, the only way the US could refrain from "provoking terrorism" would be to convert to Islam en masse. Are you suggesting that had the US should never have gotten involved in the Middle East?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The portion of the post I quoted looked (at least to me) as if it was a foregone conclusion that this all started with "Islamic aggression" and the US is simply responding to it.

The portion you quoted does not contain enough information whatsoever to indicate how much thought, research, time and consideration that Dark Waters has put into his conclusion. It may appear to be somewhat of a generic response, but that is no indicator of how the conclusion was derived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without [israel], we wouldn't be in a struggle against Radical [islam].

So even if the state of Israel never existed, you believe that radical Islamists would not be hostile towards the West? You even mentioned earlier of the Islamist disgust with the United States for its prodigious economic ties to the Saudia Royal Family.

Let us also leave all discussion aside how even before the Balfour Declaration the land that became Israel was inhabited by many jews who offended many Islamic Fundamentalists by occupying the Holy Land.

What makes the jews so special - especially when alot of the jews living in Israel are not rational?

There is nothing special about the Jews. Objective reason is impartial to ethnicity. To quote the Ayn Rand Institute:

Israel and those who attack it are not moral equals. Israel is, like the United States, a "mixed economy," which retains a significant respect for individual rights. Its citizens, whatever their race or religion, enjoy many freedoms, including freedom of thought and speech, and the right to own property. The purpose of Israel's military is only self-defense: to protect its citizens from aggressors. Consequently, Israel has a moral right to exist.

Anyway, at this juncture, I think there are two important questions. Please voice your perception you think I have not characterized the discussion appropriately.

1.) Will the United States be safe from Islamic Fundamentalism if it ceases supporting Israel?

2.) Is Islamic Fundamentalism virulent enough where it must be subdued? (i.e. as opposed to mere Isolationism.)

The first question is partly addressed by my first response in this post. If you are interested, I also recommend checking out ARI's website for Morally Supporting Israel for more information. Needless to say, I think it is pretty clear that the U.S. will not be. Furthermore, I think comprehensively addressing the second question will essentially answer this question, so let it be our focus.

The second question arises from your comparison of fear of the rise of militant Islam to the fear of the spread of Communism back during the Cold War era. My assessment is that the threat is clearly deadly and warrants immediate counteraction. Nevertheless, I think you are being intellectually honest enough where we might as well explore this issue in greater depth.

To argue that smashing Islamic Totalitarianism is not only in the self-interest of the United States but in the entire civilized world, I think it would be helpful to examine instances of threats posed by radical Islam in the various parts of the world, including:

  • Threats posed to various countries in the Middle East such as Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan and Egypt.
  • Incidents of Islamic terror in the South Pacific.
  • Evidence of a significant rise of radical political Islam in Europe.
  • Instances of radical Islam surfacing in the United States.
  • Examples of radical Islam in South America.

Unfortunately, I have to defer this interesting exploration for a future post as I have a number of other things that are presently keeping me preoccupied. Please understand.

Before the 30-40 year old wave of terrorism we're experiencing now, aside from Spain and the Balkans during the Middle-Ages when they possesed technological superiority over The West, when had Islam ever attacked the West outside of it's own borders?

I do not think this is even worth getting into. Islamism evolved into something very different since the Iranian Revolution (actually, since the Koranic interpretations of Sayyid Qutb in the 1960s.) Before Qutb, it is my understanding that the political Islamic ideologies (which was largely the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; most other Middle Eastern movements were of the Nationalist variety) were more a bunch of spirited idealists whose hearts were captivated by Islam; not a mob of violent extremists. This zeitgeist was embodied by Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well moral justification doesn't change reality.

Of course not. Moral justification is obtained from reality.

If I see a rabid dog on the street and walk up to it and it bites me, sure it had no business biting me. But what was I doing walking up to it in the first place?

Well, it depends. Was the rabid dog blocking your path to your house? Was the rabid dog endangering you, your family or your property? Was the rabid dog an obstacle for you to pursue a business venture? Did you even realize that the dog was rabid?

Of course, a rabid dog is entirely different from a person, as there is absolutely no expectation that a feral animal will behave rationally and respect your rights. Furthermore, the dog has no rights. If the rabid dog is preventing you from pursuing an economic interest, you have every right to slay it.

When you formulate a policy you should anticipate things like terrorism, it is a fact of the way the world works.

The emphasis is mine. It is very dangerous to accept Islamic Terrorism is metaphysically given, or to paraphrase you "a fact of reality." Islamic terrorism includes massacres of an enormous scale that are methodically conceived, planned, executed, financed and sanctioned by highly educated individuals who are perfectly capable of functioning in a rational society. Islamic terrorism does not need to exist. The law of gravity is metaphysically given. Although it exists, terrorism is not an immutable property of the universe.

Sure, we should account for Islamic Terrorists when choosing our level of involvement in the Middle East. However, this does not mean that they should be respected, ignored or left alone. If Islamic Fundamentalists are initiating force against honest United Statesmen for engaging in a moral business pursuit with rights-respecting entrepreneurs in the Middle East, then it is moral to neutralize those Fundamentalists as a threat. Just like how it is moral to neutralize the rabid dog to pursue an economic interest. Of course, as you have said, sometimes the cost of eliminating the threat outweighs the promise of the venture.

*Edited to correct an initial poor choice of words.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkWaters,

You addressed one of the two motivations for Muslim enmity towards the US that I cited. I responded in kind. Of course I don't believe that simply removing financial and military support from Israel would defray the focused hatred that Radical Muslims have towards the US. It has to be done in conjunction with a number of other changes to our foreign policy. Most immediately would probably be an economic isolation and draining of the Saudi Royal family so that America's most immediate enemy, Al Quaeda, burns less brightly with hatred (and with money) towards us.

I have studied the Objectivist position on Israel thoroughly and I by and large agree with it. I certainly agree with their description of Israel as a nation essentially of individual rights and free enterprise. It is for this reason that just as I don't believe that draining the Saudis could (or should) occur at the drop of a hat, neither do I believe that the US should just turn it's back on Israel tomorrow. We have assumed a moral obligation to help them by doing so throughout their entire existence, and until the US can be reasonably sure that Irael has secured itself (which probably means expending their nuclear arsenal) the status quo should continue.

As for your observation about the Balfour Agreement, your history is certainly correct, but I wish to take issue with the statment you made "...jews who offended many Islamic Fundamentalists by occupying the Holy Land." I ask you to keep this statement in mind as I will revisit it later on in this post.

Now, as I said in one of my previous posts, I believe that the current threat of groups like Al Queda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and the entire Iranian Government are very real and very deadly threats to the United States. Our involvement in the Middle-East has given these groups the rationale and - albeit indirectly - the means to inflict significant harm upon this country and need to have their wills and their means to destroy us eliminated immediately and decisivly. This is in the same vein of prudence in which I advocate the gradual distancing of America's ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia discussed above. However, this does not change the fact that I see no such threat from the further, very limited (in the grand scheme of things) spread of Radical Islam in places like South-East Asia, South America, or even Europe. Those places aren't America either and are no more entitled to our assistance than the good people of Israel, or Iraq, or Afghanistan are. As for radicals in or coming to America, that is a domestic issue that deserves a thread of it's own.

The analogy I would like to draw between your concern with the Radicalization of these regions of the world is with the concern expressed during the Cold War about the "Sovietization" of places such as South Korea, South Vietnam, and the Eastern Block nations of Europe. I think that this comparison is valid. These nations were, compared to the Soviet Union, bastions of freedom and despite being threatened by or succumbing entirely to Soviet aggression were ultimately spared as a result of the implosion of that empire - for reasons which I have already discussed.

And by the way, why did the US defend South Korea in 1950 but not Hungary in 1956? It seems rather arbitrary to help some "allies" (read: victims of one's ideological enemy) and not the others. Perhaps the US should support, or assume responsibility for, South East Asia, South America, and Europe militarily just as it does Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

As to the sentence of yours which I quoted earlier, it has to do with my examples of Muslim aggression towards the West during the Middle-Ages. You don't believe that these Islam crusaders were not deadly radicals? I wish you could explain that to the Spaniards and the Slavs who fought them, but unfortunately they were killed by these allegedly less-dedicated Muslims. Also, and this is the relevant part, you might explain it to elderly Israelis, the first Zionists, who were the victims of guerilla attacks on their homesteads in much the same brutal way that the early settlers of the American West had their homes burned and their scalps removed. Now, this does not mean that I am categorically opposed to imposing upon the turf of savages, but unlike the Indians of early America, there are 1.2 billion Muslims who much better armed, both materially and ideologically, to oppose any attempts to bring them the enlightenment.

Edited by stephenmallory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...