Rand Paul has a few words about Islam.
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.”
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.
Follow the link and read it all. The comments are excellent as well.
Comments
8 responses to “A Libertarian Gets Islam”
For me the key quote from Rand Paul is:
What the United States needs now is a policy that finds a middle path.
A middle path between what, nuclear annihilation or submission? The man tries his best to sound reasonable, which is fine if you a dealing with reasonable people. The Iranian mullahs are religious fanatics. Reason doesn’t enter their equation.
I skimmed his lengthy speech after the “middle path” remark. Even if he thinks that nuclear weapons containment through sanctions will work, does this lightweight ever consider other probable weapons? Ever heard of biologicals?
Frank,
This is a tremendous change for isolationist Libertarians.
It will make it easier to pivot to a more muscular foreign policy if elected.
I don’t mind baby steps if they are in my direction.
Agreed, it is a step in the right direction.
That was my thought, too. Nice words, palatable to everyone, but they’re likely to be “inoperative” if the speaker finds himself with actual responsibility.
Not that I have a problem with that–I think Rand Paul’s position on things is probably a better starting point for any required action than the policies we’ve had up to now. Anyway, that’s as close as anyone can come right now to telling the truth to the public while retaining political viability.
@ Neil: “Anyway, that’s as close as anyone can come right now to telling the truth to the public while retaining political viability.”
I believe you are right, and that’s sad. Telling the truth should NOT be a penalty.
Kathy,
Telling the truth is ALWAYS fraught with peril, and must be undertaken with either subtlety or brazen effrontery.
[…] friend of several years from my work in electronics, Neil, had this to say about telling the truth. Telling the truth is ALWAYS fraught with peril, and must be undertaken […]
@Neil. That’s true. I was just wishing it isn’t.