Study on Foreign Policy

[BLS 314]

<DIV class=col2-2column>

http://caivn.org/art...icide-terrorism

 

Ron Paul may be right about the root cause of suicide terrorism

by Ryan JaroncykThu, Oct 21st 2010

 

Ron Paul Was Right", or so said the Atlantic's 'The Daily Dish' blog in reference to the release of an exhaustive study on the root causes of suicide terrorism. Based on a six-year study of 2,200 suicide terrorist attacks around the world, a team of researchers has argued that military occupation of foreign lands serves as a driving force for the majority of terrorist reprisals. Robert Pape, head researcher, stated:

 

"We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns,...and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign."

 

While Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, does not advocate a "cut-and-run" withdrawal from Afghanistan, he does advise a two to three year drawdown of troop levels in order to reduce the volume of suicide attacks.

 

The major study, partially funded by the Defense Department's Threat Reduction Agency, does appear to vindicate Dr. Ron Paul's foreign policy views, views which have been especially unpopular in the Republican Party and in hawkish Democratic circles. According to Paul, radical terrorist attacks directed against American troops and civilians have escalated due to excessive, long-term U.S. intervention and occupation in the Middle East and South Asia, not because "they hate us for our freedoms". While Paul's controversial views have often been characterized as a "blame America" mentality, this latest in-depth, independent study seems to corroborate the intellectual credibility of his position.

 

And if this position is backed by solid statistical evidence and cogent, independent-minded analysis, then perhaps the time has come for America to reconsider its current foreign policy, a policy that may be proving too costly and counter-productive in terms of blood, treasure, and strategy.

 

 

[drobeski 3,061]

He left out the 72 virgins

[MDC 7,407]

I read this article a while back. One thing I wondered about:

 

Ron Paul Was Right", or so said the Atlantic's 'The Daily Dish' blog in reference to the release of an exhaustive study on the root causes of suicide terrorism. Based on a six-year study of 2,200 suicide terrorist attacks around the world, a team of researchers has argued that military occupation of foreign lands serves as a driving force for the majority of terrorist reprisals. Robert Pape, head researcher, stated:

 

"We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns,...and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign."

 

Does the terrorist campaign go away because the easy targets (US soldiers) are gone? Or because the lack of a military presence takes away the incentive and motivation? I agree with the basic point but think the stats are a little misleading.

 

That said, our own military has been telling us for years that the war in Iraq in particular created more terrorists than it stopped, so this is no surprise.

[BLS 314]

I read this article a while back. One thing I wondered about:

 

 

 

Does the terrorist campaign go away because the easy targets (US soldiers) are gone? Or because the lack of a military presence takes away the incentive and motivation? I agree with the basic point but think the stats are a little misleading.

 

That said, our own military has been telling us for years that the war in Iraq in particular created more terrorists than it stopped, so this is no surprise.

 

 

Fair, objective question but I think you're on the right track.

Reverse the roles and you can see how simple it is to understand. If Iraq sanctioned and bombed us for a decade and then invaded us and killed over 200,000 civilians I'd be a 'terrorist' as well.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

In summation, they are violent, they are plentiful, they will attack anyone who is within range and the only way to stop them from attacking you is to get out of range (so these people think). Some 6 year study.

[MedStudent 56]

<DIV class=col2-2column>

http://caivn.org/art...icide-terrorism

 

Ron Paul may be right about the root cause of suicide terrorism

by Ryan JaroncykThu, Oct 21st 2010

 

Ron Paul Was Right", or so said the Atlantic's 'The Daily Dish' blog in reference to the release of an exhaustive study on the root causes of suicide terrorism. Based on a six-year study of 2,200 suicide terrorist attacks around the world, a team of researchers has argued that military occupation of foreign lands serves as a driving force for the majority of terrorist reprisals. Robert Pape, head researcher, stated:

 

"We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns,...and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign."

 

While Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, does not advocate a "cut-and-run" withdrawal from Afghanistan, he does advise a two to three year drawdown of troop levels in order to reduce the volume of suicide attacks.

 

The major study, partially funded by the Defense Department's Threat Reduction Agency, does appear to vindicate Dr. Ron Paul's foreign policy views, views which have been especially unpopular in the Republican Party and in hawkish Democratic circles. According to Paul, radical terrorist attacks directed against American troops and civilians have escalated due to excessive, long-term U.S. intervention and occupation in the Middle East and South Asia, not because "they hate us for our freedoms". While Paul's controversial views have often been characterized as a "blame America" mentality, this latest in-depth, independent study seems to corroborate the intellectual credibility of his position.

 

And if this position is backed by solid statistical evidence and cogent, independent-minded analysis, then perhaps the time has come for America to reconsider its current foreign policy, a policy that may be proving too costly and counter-productive in terms of blood, treasure, and strategy.

 

 

 

 

I totally agree with Ron on this one. I'm not opposed to having a large covert CIA presence in these countries but having a large military presence for any reason other than fighting a war with a clear objective is just plain dumb. They are just sitting ducks and their presence just pisses people off. Just like how the British military presence in Northern Ireland pissed the catholics off. They just become a target.

[gocolts 300]

Yeah, but is he tanking his fantasy football season to get an early pick next year???

[IMMensaMind 462]

I totally agree with Ron on this one. I'm not opposed to having a large covert CIA presence in these countries but having a large military presence for any reason other than fighting a war with a clear objective is just plain dumb. They are just sitting ducks and their presence just pisses people off. Just like how the British military presence in Northern Ireland pissed the catholics off. They just become a target.

 

Interesting take. You'll have to impress upon me how having a "large, covert CIA presence" will actually result in something different. You think that these terrorists will never get wind of such an effort?

[itsbigmoni 1]

Interesting take. You'll have to impress upon me how having a "large, covert CIA presence" will actually result in something different. You think that these terrorists will never get wind of such an effort?

 

I think its easier to rile the masses when you can point at a base and say, look, theres the occupation. The smart terrorist will always know there is a CIA presence, but they're not the ones doing the suicide attacks. They get the dumb people to do it. Not saying its fact, but i think it would be easier to crank up the fear/hatred if you can say look at the bases they have in baghdad, fallujah, kut, etc.

[MDC 7,407]

I think its easier to rile the masses when you can point at a base and say, look, theres the occupation. The smart terrorist will always know there is a CIA presence, but they're not the ones doing the suicide attacks. They get the dumb people to do it. Not saying its fact, but i think it would be easier to crank up the fear/hatred if you can say look at the bases they have in baghdad, fallujah, kut, etc.

 

A large, visible occupying force also makes for easier targets than covert ops.

[IMMensaMind 462]

A large, visible occupying force also makes for easier targets than covert ops.

 

True - but these forces also carry arms with which to defend themselves, and move in defensive groups. Covert agents are at great risk - and the fact is that these groups are considered "meddlers" by those enemies we need to defeat.

 

I see no reason to believe that the actions against us would be any different.

[itsbigmoni 1]

True - but these forces also carry arms with which to defend themselves, and move in defensive groups. Covert agents are at great risk - and the fact is that these groups are considered "meddlers" by those enemies we need to defeat.

 

I see no reason to believe that the actions against us would be any different.

 

The study disagrees with you.

[Me_2006 14]

 

I see no reason to believe that the actions against us would be any different.

 

It's in this thread.

[GettnHuge 2]

When Russia and Qba invaded us, we didn't strap explosives to our bodies and suicide it.

So this theory just blows up in his face

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

When Russia and Qba invaded us, we didn't strap explosives to our bodies and suicide it.

So this theory just blows up in his face

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!

[MedStudent 56]

Interesting take. You'll have to impress upon me how having a "large, covert CIA presence" will actually result in something different. You think that these terrorists will never get wind of such an effort?

 

The terrorists will know there is a cia presence but the average citizen will not feel like their country is occupied. Also, its pretty easy to spot an American soldier driving down the street. They make a nice target. Covert agents are harder to spot and harder to blow up.

[itsbigmoni 1]

The terrorists will know there is a cia presence but the average citizen will not feel like their country is occupied. Also, its pretty easy to spot an American soldier driving down the street. They make a nice target. Covert agents are harder to spot and harder to blow up.

 

Yup. A suicide bomber can't drive up to a checkpoint where traffic is bottlenecked and blow up his car, killing a few soldiers, injuring dozens more, while also killing and injuring innocent bystanders.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Yup. A suicide bomber can't drive up to a checkpoint where traffic is bottlenecked and blow up his car, killing a few soldiers, injuring dozens more, while also killing and injuring innocent bystanders.

 

There is no doubt that suicide bombers target military personnel. They also though target civilians. A lot of civilians, in fact. I don't know if data has been collected regarding the number of military targets, or civilian targets hit by suicide bombers, but a look at the stories begins to skew the number towards civilians.

 

I would love to know how much confirmation bias went into that report.

[itsbigmoni 1]

There is no doubt that suicide bombers target military personnel. They also though target civilians. A lot of civilians, in fact. I don't know if data has been collected regarding the number of military targets, or civilian targets hit by suicide bombers, but a look at the stories begins to skew the number towards civilians.

 

I would love to know how much confirmation bias went into that report.

 

You're right. Who cares about innocent civilians who die because of our presence. As long as our military isn't getting hurt.

 

Dude, the point of the study was there are less attacks if we don't have a base there. Who cares if the people dying are military personnel or innocent lives.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Who cares if the people dying are military personnel or innocent lives.

 

I do.

 

I would much rather they blow up their own than our Soldiers........but that's just me.

[Voltaire 5,315]

I loves me some Ron Paul and would walk barefoot over a mile of broken glass to vote for him.

[GettnHuge 2]

I loves me some Ron Paul and would walk barefoot over a mile of broken glass to vote for him.

 

I'd think if Paul were on the Prez ticket you'd still vote Dem.

[Me_2006 14]

I do.

 

I would much rather they blow up their own than our Soldiers........but that's just me.

Innocent people are innocent people.

[IMMensaMind 462]

You're right. Who cares about innocent civilians who die because of our presence. As long as our military isn't getting hurt.

 

Dude, the point of the study was there are less attacks if we don't have a base there. Who cares if the people dying are military personnel or innocent lives.

 

What? I'm trying to point out that suicide bombers target all sorts of places that have nothing to do with the military.

 

Or did you forget the attack in Spain?

 

This is about squashing the focking rodents who do this, even if it requires killing them one at a time for a millenia. They want to try to kill innocent civilians; they'll pay the price.

 

Your ideology towards terrorism is far too soft for my taste, and utterly naive, IMO. This has been going on for a very long time, and - in fact - the Islamist terrorists were targeting the US during the time of Jefferson.

 

Those were the Barbary Pirates. Any nonsense about the US being the cause of the hatred in the ME is utter bullsh!t.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I loves me some Ron Paul and would walk barefoot over a mile of broken glass to vote for him.

 

I love Ron Paul on all domestic issues. On foreign policy, he is irretrievably batsh!t.

[itsbigmoni 1]

What? I'm trying to point out that suicide bombers target all sorts of places that have nothing to do with the military.

 

Or did you forget the attack in Spain?

 

This is about squashing the focking rodents who do this, even if it requires killing them one at a time for a millenia. They want to try to kill innocent civilians; they'll pay the price.

 

Your ideology towards terrorism is far too soft for my taste, and utterly naive, IMO. This has been going on for a very long time, and - in fact - the Islamist terrorists were targeting the US during the time of Jefferson.

 

Those were the Barbary Pirates. Any nonsense about the US being the cause of the hatred in the ME is utter bullsh!t.

 

Yes, terrorist attacks happen in places like spain, new york, london, etc. But did you read the study? The less bases we have, the less attacks there are.

[MDC 7,407]

I love Ron Paul on all domestic issues. On foreign policy, he is irretrievably batsh!t.

 

So you agree with Paul's small government beliefs except when it comes to our military. Then you're all for expensive, big-government nation-building ... paid for on the federal credit card.

[Voltaire 5,315]

I'd think if Paul were on the Prez ticket you'd still vote Dem.

You would be very wrong. I'd be very excited to vote for him as he's the only politician with the balls to get off our addictions to both the welfare state and the industrial-military complex.

 

I've never been happy with the Dems. They're the ones that gave us the mooch handouts and government employee gravy train among countless other sins. They just suck far, far less than the Republicans.*

 

*National GOP and Dem Party only. This observation null and void at the state level.

[GettnHuge 2]

You would be very wrong. I'd be very excited to vote for him as he's the only politician with the balls to get off our addictions to both the welfare state and the industrial-military complex.

 

I've never been happy with the Dems. They're the ones that gave us the mooch handouts and government employee gravy train among countless other sins. They just suck far, far less than the Republicans.*

 

*National GOP and Dem Party only. This observation null and void at the state level.

 

Nah, you'd vote dem, you're too far gone already. I mean look at what you've done. I'd say we're both very similar in our conservative

beliefs, and both of us are pissed when our party loses its way. But I still support it with the hope that, like this year, the party is put

back on track by new blood.

 

How about I put it this way. We both eat at a nice restaurant, but the quality of the food goes downhill. I stop tipping and complain

to the management. You on the other hand go to McDs. You keep saying you'll come back, but it won't happen.

[MDC 7,407]

Nah, you'd vote dem, you're too far gone already. I mean look at what you've done. I'd say we're both very similar in our conservative

beliefs, and both of us are pissed when our party loses its way. But I still support it with the hope that, like this year, the party is put

back on track by new blood.

 

How about I put it this way. We both eat at a nice restaurant, but the quality of the food goes downhill. I stop tipping and complain

to the management. You on the other hand go to McDs. You keep saying you'll come back, but it won't happen.

 

The difference between Voltaire and you is that Voltaire is a conservative and you are a partisan Republican.

 

Voltaire's belief in limited government and personal liberty doesn't change like the wind depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office. He was ripping Bush for his runaway spending and failed foreign policies for the past ten years. You, on the other hand, totally cowtowed to an administration that stood for everything you claim to oppose because the President was a Republican. And the second that President left office, you began criticizing the new guy for continuing the same bad policies you voted for (twice). That's because you have no core principles whatsoever and are basically a shill for the GOP.

 

In your example above, you and Voltaire both go to a restaurant. The waiter serves you both a sh1t sandwich. Voltaire says "This is disgusting!" and goes to the restaurant next door, which he doesn't particularly like but damned if he's going to eat a sh1t sandwich! You, on the other hand, take a big juicy bite out of the sh1t sandwich and talk about how great it tastes and how much better this restaurant is to the restaurant next door.

 

[GettnHuge 2]

The difference between Voltaire and you is that Voltaire is a conservative and you are a partisan Republican.

 

Voltaire's belief in limited government and personal liberty doesn't change like the wind depending on whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office. He was ripping Bush for his runaway spending and failed foreign policies for the past ten years. You, on the other hand, totally cowtowed to an administration that stood for everything you claim to oppose because the President was a Republican. And the second that President left office, you began criticizing the new guy for continuing the same bad policies you voted for (twice). That's because you have no core principles whatsoever and are basically a shill for the GOP.

 

 

 

While I'd like to shred this apart with things Ive said, like in 06, that the Repubs deserve to lose, I'd rather you just waste all your time being incorrect. have at it

[IMMensaMind 462]

So you agree with Paul's small government beliefs except when it comes to our military. Then you're all for expensive, big-government nation-building ... paid for on the federal credit card.

 

Since you are clearly into simple answers...yes.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Yes, terrorist attacks happen in places like spain, new york, london, etc. But did you read the study? The less bases we have, the less attacks there are.

 

This is a theory, and a theory only. The unfortunate thing about this study - which makes it propaganda - is that the left believes - as it always does - that if we simply don't provoke the bad guys, they will suddenly become good guys, or at least less bad. I see no reason to believe that, considering their attack on the Twin Towers in '93 took place without a military presence in the ME.

 

This is about trying to add to political pressure to leave the area, even though it is vitally important that the largest beacon of freedom and justice in this world - the US, the only force capable of squashing such radical militism, remains in the area, to suppress radicalism spinning out of control.

 

Just like it always has.

 

We had our chance to choose to leave the ME alone. The Shah of Iran was largely pro-US, and had control of the region. Carter destroyed that tenuous balance, and with the removal of the Shah, our attempts to balance the region were reduced to giving arms to Iran and Iraq interchangeably, so that the balance of power was such that a stalemate existed.

 

When Saddam became volatile, even that strategy proved impossible.

 

The "nation-building" that is so sophomorically mentioned is in reality an attempt to establish democracies where dictatorships/autocracies exist. Democracies do not pose the military threat on the world stage that tyrannies do - and the natural state of a human is to be free. Tyrannies attempt to coagulate power; Democracies share the power with the people, and as such allow liberty and prosperity to flourish.

 

That is the best chance of beating terrorism long term. Many terrorist recruits simply live in desperate economic situations, and are also severely oppressed by their country's leadership. Inculcating democracies is the long term strategy envisioned by the invasion of Iraq, for instance.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Umm, did you read the report? They have proof bro. I know its not as simple as leave and we wont have problems. They can still point to things like mickey d's and coke and ssay westernization is a problem. But, its not some theory that a think tank thought of without any real world basis.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Umm, did you read the report? They have proof bro. I know its not as simple as leave and we wont have problems. They can still point to things like mickey d's and coke and ssay westernization is a problem. But, its not some theory that a think tank thought of without any real world basis.

 

I've read the report. The proof is that "if you don't go after the beehive, you won't be stung (as much)". I don't know why you find that news so incredible. Any dunderhead knows that there will be less death if you do not confront the problem. It simply lingers, and festers. You have decided to defend the ideology of allowing such a thing. I disagree.

 

The problem is that the leftists are willing to be stung a bit - without really knowing how big the problem will become (just as they believed pre-WWII).

 

The Conservatives are not (just as we believed pre-WWII - as voiced by Churchill).

 

In WWII, Neville Chamberlain finally admitted that his ideology was wrong - but only after 300,000 Poles died when Hitler invaded Poland.

[Voltaire 5,315]

On government welfare state programs, crime, education policy, and affirmative action I side with the conservatives. Generally I prefer judges from the right over ones from the left. I'm pro-free trade. Immigration, gun rights, and abortion, are all pretty much rat's ass but all three I'd go conservative on as well.

 

It's really only on foreign policy, church/state, and environment that I side with the liberals. But those are all really big issues for me.

 

 

Since my biggest issue is the deficit, and neither party take it seriously, I get pretty fed up. But I still far and away blame the GOP for focking up the balanced budget of the 90s, using phony math, and not taking budgeting seriously.

 

The GOP has a golden opportunity to get me back if the Tea party actually succeeds in cutting spending/deficits. What I expect to happen is the holdovers from the Bush years that are still running the leadership of Congress to take the new Republicans under their wings and turn them into irresponsible borrow-and-spend taxcutaholic zombies. Hopefully what we'll see is another wave of Tea Partiers flushing out more incumbent GOP in primaries for the 2012 election. The Republican Party still needs another enema or two to get rid of more and more sh*t.

[IMMensaMind 462]

On government welfare state programs, crime, education policy, and affirmative action I side with the conservatives. Generally I prefer judges from the right over ones from the left. I'm pro-free trade. Immigration, gun rights, and abortion, are all pretty much rat's ass but all three I'd go conservative on as well.

 

It's really only on foreign policy, church/state, and environment that I side with the liberals. But those are all really big issues for me.

 

 

Since my biggest issue is the deficit, and neither party take it seriously, I get pretty fed up. But I still far and away blame the GOP for focking up the balanced budget of the 90s, using phony math, and not taking budgeting seriously.

 

The GOP has a golden opportunity to get me back if the Tea party actually succeeds in cutting spending/deficits. What I expect to happen is the holdovers from the Bush years that are still running the leadership of Congress to take the new Republicans under their wings and turn them into irresponsible borrow-and-spend taxcutaholic zombies. Hopefully what we'll see is another wave of Tea Partiers flushing out more incumbent GOP in primaries for the 2012 election. The Republican Party still needs another enema or two to get rid of more and more sh*t.

 

Though I disagree with you on that which you side with the liberals, I think that has to be put aside right now as a country - our fiscal position is that critical right now. I think you're exactly right on the mismanagement aspect of the budget, though I blame both parties equally.

 

I think those newly minted Congressmen and Senators have to be strong, and unimpeachable in principle. They need to stay attached to the public when they are sworn in, and publicly announce when attempts to corrupt them are made - by members of either party. There is no way to move forward until the "Bob Dole/Lindsay Graham" types of the Republican Party are so soundly defeated that the only voice left is one of fiscal discipline and an outside the Beltway mentality. There are going to be tricks galore to keep it business as usual.

 

These new politicians are going to have to ruthlessly expose these attempts, while simultaneously continuing a strategy of education of the public regarding just why certain tax policies (ie: dropping the mantra of "taxing the rich", because they can afford it and because it's the right thing to do - it isn't; it's extremely harmful to our economy) have to be corrected.

 

I believe this can be successful.

[GettnHuge 2]

 

 

 

Since my biggest issue is the deficit, and neither party take it seriously,

 

well thats nice and all but going by your support, you're one of the many who are partially responsible for this 1.3trillion yearly deficit.

k thanks