His new allies are the folks he recently traveled with to Israel, a gaggle of born-again fundamentalists active in the American Family Association: the Mississippi-based AFA is one of the more extreme Christian Right groups, whose spokesmen have said "the jihadists on 9/11 were the agents of God’s wrath in order to get our attention as a people,” and likened gays to Nazis. --- Rand will be political history soon enough.
On Feb 8, 7:50 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Rand Paul’s War Against “Radical Islam”byJustin Raimondo, February 08, 2013 > Sen. Rand Paulwantsto be taken seriously -- as apresidential candidate, as > heir to the energetic youth-orientedmovementfounded by his father, and as a > foreign policy Deep Thinker. This last goal was supposed to have been > approached, if not reached, by his much-anticipated foreign > policyspeechdelivered at the Heritage Foundation the other day, which was > supposed to give wonkish heft to his presidential ambitions. > Barely twenty minutes long, Sen. Paul’s peroration was two thirds Glenn Beck, > and one third Robert Taft -- with a dash of George Kennan thrown in for good > measure. Right off the bat, however, he made the point he wanted to make:I am > not my father. To which one can only add:you can say that again. > "Foreign policy," averred Paul the Younger, "is uniquely an arena where we > should base decisions on the landscape of the world as it is . . . not as we > wish it to be. I see the world as it is. I am a realist, not a > neoconservative, nor an isolationist." > What is telling about his opening shot is how deftly he utilizes the language > of the War Party to define -- and restrict -- the parameters of the foreign > policy debate. As paleoconservative foreign policy analyst Daniel Larison has > tirelesslypointed out, there is no such thing as "isolationism" in American > politics: not today, not yesterday, and not ever. No one believes the US > should isolate itself from the world and turn this country -- connected to > the rest of the globe by innumerable ties of trade, sympathy, and kinship -- > into the Western equivalent of the Hermit Kingdom. "Isolationism" is > anepithetrather than a description of anyone’s real views, meant to stifle > discussion rather than advance it. > Rand Paul surely knows this. He’s heard his fatherdeny and deridethe > "isolationist" label, no doubtthousands of times, and so his choice of words > may seem distinctly odd. It is, instead, a calculated effort to banish the > looming image of the elder Paul, the nation’s leadingnon-interventionist, > from the room, and he does so right off the bat. Indeed, the entire speech -- > and, come to think of it, his entire political career since being elected to > the Senate -- could be summed up in five words:I am not my father! > This rhetorical patricide accomplished, he pressed onward -- and > downward:"When candidate John McCain argued in 2007 that we should remain in > Iraq for 100 years, I blanched and wondered what the unintended consequences > of prolonged occupation would be. But McCain’s call for a hundred year > occupation does capture some truth: that the West is in for a long, irregular > confrontation not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical > Islam."Writing about this trope inThe American Conservative, Larison > confessed he was "puzzled" by the reference to "Radical Islam," and went on > to point out in his best pedagogical manner why this glosses over the very > real differences between the goals and methods of competing jihadist groups: > it is a generalization so diffuse as to be devoid of meaning. The result, > says Larison, is "confusing." Perhaps, but I have to ask: confusing for whom? > To those relatively few Americans who understand that there are, indeed, real > differences between, say, the Sunnijihadistswho overthrew Qadaffi and took > power in Libya and Lebanon’sHezbollah, this kind of rhetorical shorthand is > indeed puzzling. If a young Rand Paul wrote a term paper around this theme he > wouldsurelyget no more than a C-minus. However, his Aqua Buddha days are > over, he’s a bigtime politician now, and he isn’t addressing an academic > audience, or even one that is moderately well-informed: he’s talking to the > folks back home in Kentucky, thesame oneswho rallied against the building of > a mosque in their midst and worry that sharia law is coming to their town. > He’stalking to Glenn Beck, on whose program he appeared shortly before his > Heritage speech. In the midst of a discussion about John Kerry and Sen. > Paul’s crusade to cast Egypt out of the circle of US allies, he > ventured:"Well, and it hasn’t been a month ago that President Morsi was at a > prayer meeting with a radical Sheik. > GLENN: I know. > RAND PAUL: Standing next to him saying death to Israel and anybody who > supports Israel. And so it’s like … > GLENN: And wait, wait. Don’t forget, and the new capital of the Caliphate > will be Jerusalem. > RAND PAUL: Yeah. > GLENN: That was at that same meeting. > RAND PAUL: Yeah. So the thing is what we’ve elected or what they’ve gotten in > Egypt is a very radical government that I think can’t be counted on not to > attack Israel and we shouldn’t be giving them weapons. Absolutely. Until > there’s some kind of stability, and even then we don’t have the money to be > doing it anyway."Aside from the wisdom ofselling F-16sto the Egyptians, this > cozy little conversation sent a clear message to Beck’s dwindling fan club, > the same one he used to broadcast tirelessly when he was at Fox News:The > Caliphate is coming!The Caliphate is coming! That has been the rallying cry > of Beck and his frothy-mouthed fans, and the theme song of theloony-tunesfar > right in the post-9/11 era. The neo-Know-Nothing Party in America, instead of > lynching Catholics, is out after them tharMooslims, who – as every one of > Beck’s devoted fans knows – are out to take over the world. > Sunni, Shi’ite, Salafist -- it’s all the same to the Beckians, and, > apparently, to theambitiousSenator. In the theology of the Republican > ultra-right -- and it is a theology, or, at least, an ideology wrapped inside > a sectarian religious canon – the rise of both Israel and Radical > Islamprefigureevents foretold in the Bible. The End-times are upon us, the > "born-again" Christian fundamentalists insist, and the Biblical clock > isticking. The emergence of a Global Caliphate is a sign of the coming of the > Anti-Christ, whose appearance augurs anattackon Israel: what’s coming next is > the battle of Armageddon, the Rapture, and the Second Coming of Christ. > That’s why it is useless to apply the lens of international relations theory > to the young Senator’s foreign policy expostulations. Better to look at it as > a political calculation – the only way to understand Rand Paul’s variouszigs > and zagsalongthe roadto 2016. > Rand Paul and his advisors have made a political decision to align themselves > with thefurthest-right fringeof the GOP. We’re not talking here about the > most radical of his father’s followers, who tend toward the secular – and > hate him forendorsingMitt Romney at the GOP’s Tampa Bay convention, just as > the elder Paul’s convention delegates were beingstolenout from under him. > His new allies are the folks he recently traveled with to Israel, a gaggle of > born-again fundamentalists active in theAmerican Family Association: the > Mississippi-based AFA is one of the more extreme Christian Right groups, > whose spokesmenhave said"the jihadists on 9/11 were the agents of God’s wrath > in order to get our attention as a people,” andlikenedgays to Nazis. > While in Israel, Sen. Paul gave hisblessingto the government’s aggressive > "settlement" program, and attacked his own government for trying to interfere > with this thinly disguised ethnic cleansing campaign. > One would think a supposed "libertarian" would be standing there right by the > Palestinian olive groves as the IDFbulldozes them, along with privately owned > Palestinian homes, defending the property rights of the dispossessed, and > speaking out against this brazen exercise of eminent domain – as hewouldif it > happened inthiscountry. > But no – because that doesn’t fit in with the theology of those who paid for > the good Senator’s trip. They believe Israel must be unconditionally > supported on the grounds that it’sGod’s Will. Israel has a special place in > their hearts because the ingathering of the Jews to their historic homeland > is seen as one more sign that we are truly living in the End Times – and war > between theForces of Lightand theForces of Darknessis imminent. > Although he never gives religious import to this foreign policy views, this > lunacy is reallythe basisof Sen. Paul’s "realism." It is the subtext ofhis > campaignto defund Egypt, Pakistan, and indeed any country "where they’re > burning our flag," while giving Israel a pass because they aren’t doing that > (yet). As he and Beck sat there exchanging data points about the rising > Anti-Christ – did you know the capital of the Caliphate is going to be in > Jerusalem? Well, ofcourseI do – the message went out to all the tithe-paying, > Israel-loving, gay-hating born-agin’ers:Rand Paul is one of us.This crowd is > looking for a leader, and Sen. Paul has applied for the job. During the Bush > years, this radical fringe grumbled on the margins: they seethed when the > Presidentmade a pointof saying the jihadists are a minority, and a tiny one > at that, reassuring American Muslims that they need not fear sufferingthe > fateof Japanese-Americans during World War II. This convinced the fringies > that the administration had itself beeninfiltratedby "Radical Islam," a > conspiracy theory taken up by professional haters like David Horowitz and > Frank Gaffney. While avoiding the more obvious excesses of this crowd, Sen. > Paul nevertheless echoes their analysis of, as he puts it, "the landscape of > the world as it is, not as we wish it to be." His brand of "realism" brushes > aside all distinctions, and sees Radical Islam – don’t forget to capitalize > it! – as the true face of the Muslim world:"As many are quick to note, the > war is not with Islam but with a radical element of Islam – the problem is > that this element is no small minority but a vibrant, often mainstream, vocal > and numerous minority. Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia, adhere to at > least certain radical concepts such as the death penalty for blasphemy, > conversion, or apostasy. A survey in Britain after the subway bombings showed > 20% of the Muslim population in Britain approved of the violence."So why do > they hate us? His father had – has – an answer to that: it’s "blowback" for > decades of intervention in their internal affairs, including not only the > Iraq and Afghan wars but the long history of American meddling throughout the > region. Rand goes out of his way to disagree:"Some libertarians argue that > western occupation fans the flames of radical Islam – I agree. But I don’t > agree that absent western occupation that radical Islam ‘goes quietly into > that good night.’ I don’t agree with FDR’s VP Henry Wallace that the Soviets > (or Radical Islam in today’s case) can be discouraged by ‘the glad hand and > the winning smile.’"According to Beck, Horowitz, Gaffney, and Sen. Paul’s > new-found friends at the American Family Association, Islam – like Marxism – > is inherently hostile to America, and its adherents are out to destroy us. > Rand has become the voice of those folks back home in Kentuckywho claim, > "Islam builds mosques at the sites of their conquests and victories." The > Senator doesn’t quite put it that way, but says instead:"Americans need to > understand that Islam has a long and perseverant memory. As Bernard Lewis > writes, ‘despite an immense investment in the teaching and writing of > history, the general level of historical knowledge in American society is > abysmally low. The Muslim peoples, like everyone else in the world, are > shaped by their history, but unlike some others, they are keenly aware of it.’ > "Radical Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. Though at times > stateless, Radical Islam is also supported by radicalized nations such as > Iran. Though often militarily weak, Radical Islam makes up for its lack of > conventional armies with unlimited zeal. > "For Americans to grasp the mindset of Radical Islam we need to understand > that they are still hopping mad about the massacre at Karbala several hundred > years ago. Meanwhile, many Americans seem to be more concerned with who is > winning ‘Dancing with the Stars.’"Here is a rhetorical jambalaya that > combines all the themes of the backwoodsborn-gain typeswith the more > sophisticated paranoia of the Israel lobby’s neoconservative intellectuals. > Never mind that it makes no sense to conflate Iran with Egypt’s Sunni > radicals: this dish, served up piping hot, is what Sen. Paul and his claque > hope will whet the appetite of far-right activists for Paul in 2016. > Sen. Paul is no Pat Robertson, however, and the media wouldn’t like it if he > was, and so it is necessary to dress up what is essentially a religious > doctrine in a secular suit-and-tie. After making vague noises about > "restraint," and pointing to his efforts to ensure that he’ll have a chance > to vote on whether we go to war with Iran, the Senator trots outGeorge > Kennanand the cold war strategy of "containment." This is meant to be the > bridge between his father’s non-interventionist loyalists and his new friends > in the "born again" milieu, but it is a rickety structure that shows signs of > collapse before it is even erected. It is, however, a necessary expedient on > his road to the White House, along which he zigs – we need a foreign policy > of "restraint" – andhe zags– "Iran does need to know all options are on the > table" – arriving, somewhat dizzy and disheveled, back where he > started:"Containment, though, should be discussed as an option with regard to > the more generalized threat from radical Islam. Radical Islam, like > communism, is an ideology with far reach and will require a firm and patient > opposition."He cites Kennan’s biographer as describing containment as "a path > between the appeasement that had failed to prevent WWII and the alternative > of a third world war." Eager – nay, desperate – to find "a middle path," as > he puts it, between his father’s movement and the larger far-right > constituency he wants to cultivate, he gloms on to Kennan, hoping that will > sufficiently impress the policy wonks atHeritagewhile also pleasing his > buddyBeck. The war against Radical Islam is just like the cold war, avers > Sen. Paul: a Long War in which the patience and perseverance of the Christian > West is to be tested against those "relentless" Mooslims still angry about > what happened in Karbala all those years ago. > Containment is not isolationism, he is quick to point out: it’s choosing your > battles and your battlefields, as Kennan advised, on the basis of drawing the > "distinction between vital and peripheral interests," and using military > force in selected situations, i.e. when "’A) [t]here is a sufficiently > powerful national interest’ and B) when ‘we have the means to conduct such > intervention successfullyandcan afford the cost." To the evangelical crowd > he’s befriended,no cost is too greatif it’s spent in defense of Israel, and > Sen. Paul hasobliged themby declaring that any attack on Israel is to be > considered an attack on the United States. Whether this means rockets from > Gaza, or an allegedly imminent threat from Iran is left to the imagination. > This leaves Senator Paul right where he wants to be when it comes to Iran – > onthe fence– while giving him the opportunity to pose as the voice of > "restraint." Adopting the cold war paradigm as the backdrop to this > essentially religious narrative also gives him credence with the Glenn Beck > crowd, while to the neocons he offers a revised version of the old > anti-communist demonology of the 1950s and 60s, populating it withradical > Islamistsrather than red devils. > The absurdity of equating a few jihadistshiding in a cavesomewhere with the > nuclearizedmightof the former Soviet Union aside for a moment, it is worth > going back in history and looking at how the cold war transformed the > conservative movement. Conservatives weren’t always carping warmongers: > theyused to beunapologetic advocates of what is now derided as > "isolationism." It was the right-wingers of the1930s and 40swho inveighed > against the folly of "collective security," and warned that we’d be drawn > into a European war at the cost of both prosperity and liberty (not to > mention countless lives). It was Sen. Robert A Taft, "Mr. Republican," > whoopposed NATO, looked askance at the Marshall Plan, andforesawthe folly of > fighting a land war in Asia. > Such views are heretical on the right today, but how did this great > transformation occur – and so quickly? The answer is that the right’s rabid > anti-communismgot the better of them: the McCarthyite fever that infected > even the best of them eventually led conservatives into advocating a global > struggle against the Kremlin. The war on commmies at home soon became a war > on commies abroad – and we can see the same evolution taking place in the > person of Senator Paul. From his father’s stance of no intervention anywhere, > unless we are directly attacked, the son now advances a new "middle way." > Already halfway down the slippery slope, the Senator opined:"I recognize that > foreign policy is complicated. It is inherently less black and white to most > people than domestic policy. I think there is room for a foreign policy that > strikes a balance. > "If for example, we imagine a foreign policy that is everything to everyone, > that is everywhere all the time that would be one polar extreme. Likewise if > we imagine a foreign policy that is nowhere any of the time and is completely > disengaged from the challenges and dangers to our security that really do > exist in the world – well, that would be the other polar extreme. > "There are times, such as existed in Afghanistan with the bin Laden terrorist > camps, that do require intervention. Maybe, we could be somewhere, some of > the time."Somewhere, some of the time. What does this mean, exactly? Well, he > doesn’t want you to know the details. Because, you see, likeRonald Reagan, he > believes in the principle of "strategic ambiguity." As he explains:"Reagan > himself wrote, ‘I have a foreign policy. I just don’t happen to think it’s > wise to tell the world what your foreign policy is." Reagan’s liberal critics > would descry a lack of sophistication but others would understand a policy in > having no stated policy, a policy of strategic ambiguity If you enumerate > your policy, if you telegraph to the Soviets that the Strategic Defense > Initiative is a ploy to get the Soviets to the bargaining table, the ploy is > then made impotent."Translation: no need to telegraph to your rivals (such as > Marco Rubio) exactly what your stance is on, say, Iran. If you get too > specific, they’ll pigeonhole you early on: better to have no stated policy, > and play it safe. > One can almost hearthe Devilwhispering in Paul the Lesser’s ear: Lure in the > rubes with Beckian rhetoric, and turn them into workhorses on behalf of your > boundless ambition. Talk about "restraint" out of one side of your mouth, > while issuing threats about "counterforce" and reminding us of that ultimate > option under the proverbial table. > A more dramatic demonstration ofmy thesisthat foreign policy is but the > expression of domestic political expediencies could hardly be imagined. > This "strategic ambiguity" is supposed to be very "smart," and one can > imagine the Senator’s advisors and close supporters congratulating themselves > on their sheer canniness. But how "smart" is this really? If all the fawning > over Israel was supposed to appease the neocons, thejeersof Jennifer Rubin – > who once found asoft spotin her heart for him – and the disdain ofJonathan > Tobinought to cure him of that delusion. As for those fundamentalist shock > troops he’s counting on to fight with him in the trenches, come 2016, there > are plenty of suitors for their favors, and Sen. Paul is likely to win over > but a small fraction, at best. Short of changing his name to Paul Rand, he’ll > never convince them he isn’t his father’s son – and that is Rand Paul’s > dilemma. > Because heishis father’s son, at least genetically, he was catapulted into > high office in spite of his callow youth and lack of political experience. > The money and human resources placed at his command were allmade possibleby > his father’s long history as the archetypal outsider in Congress, whose > principled and increasingly radical stance inspired a whole generation of > young libertarians into a frenzied bout of political activism. > That he is now frittering away this promising legacy in a futile quest to > recruit the looniest faction of the GOP into the service of a premature > presidential run is nothing short of a tragedy. Byalienating his base– his > father’s hardcore supporters – and running after the fundamentalists, the > Senator’s political promiscuity is bound to get him in trouble with both > groups. > Paul’s advisors think they’re being "practical," but there was never such an > impractical person as an opportunist with no sense of timing. Climbing on > board the Glenn Beck-"global caliphate" bandwagon at precisely the time when > Osama bin Laden has beeneliminatedand al Qaeda ison the wane, is hardly > evidence of strategic genius. Paul’s marriage of George Kennan and Pamela > Geller is likely to produce an offspring of limited attractiveness. > Yet this hardly matters. For most of Sen. Paul’s claque, it’s not about > actually winning the GOP primaries, let alone the presidency in 2016 – a > distant and I would venture impossible goal. It’s really all about the money: > the big fees they’ll be paid for advising the candidate in how to sell out, > and to whom, and the resources they expect to come pouring into the coffers > of their various organizations. They’re already writing the fundraising > letters: if you’re a libertarian reading this, expect to get one in your > inbox soon, if you haven’t already. > I have paid a lot ofattentionRand Paul in this space because, after all, we > here at Antiwar.com are unabashed libertarians, and protecting the brand is > part of my job. As a longtime supporter of his father, although never an > uncritical one, it is sad for me to see the spectacle of his son turning the > Paulian movement into the vehicle of his quest for self-actualization – and, > in the process, lining up with some of the worst elements in the Republican > party. > It is a setback for our movement, no doubt about it, but let us at least > learn something from it. Let Sen. Paul’s desperate efforts to merge > libertarianism with Glenn Beck-ism serve as an example of what it means to > throw one’s principles to the wind. Let him serve as a negative model in the > textbook of practical libertarian politics, which yet remains to be > written.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/02/07/rand-pauls-war-against-radical-islam/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
