George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
In his post below Matthew Gilley reproduces a quotation from Ron Paul in which Rep. Paul excuses the behavior of the Islamist terrorists who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11.
Ten years ago this month, just a few weeks after the attacks, I gave an interview with former Secretary of State George Shultz. During the interview, I asked George Shultz what he made of the terrorists' motivations. What was it they wanted to communicate? His response to that question is very much something Rep. Paul needs to hear.
George P. Shultz: I think it's irrelevant what they want. The worst thing that we can do in circumstances like this is to say, well if we're going to deal with this effectively, we have to find out what these people want and give it to them. That is the route to nowhere. That's the route to defeat because there are endless grievances in the world and if you say, in order to stop terrorism, we've got to satisfy every grievances, it's impossible. It's not even desirable to try it that way. You have to say that this kind of behavior is outside the bounds of anything civilization can handle. And it is totally not acceptable and there are no reasons that can be given that we're interested in at all. I heard a man in San Francisco at a big meeting say, well, what do you expect? We didn't attend the Conference on Racism in South Africa and we have questioned severely the Kyoto Treaty. So that's a good reason why something like this should happen. It's a--it--it's outrageous. It's inconceivable. So don't start down the line of asking me if there is a good explanation for this or wouldn't it be nice if we knew--know what these people wanted…It's an irrelevancy.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
I very much object to your characterization of Ron Paul's statement as excusing the behavior of terrorists.
Congressman Paul was simply making a common-sense observation about the motivations of some Islamic terrorists.
To say that we should blithely ignore the motivations and the thinking of our enemy is to deny the wisdom of Sun Tzu. One need not sympathize with one's enemy, but to turn a blind eye to his thinking is not only futile, but fatal. Had we better comprehended the motivations of the Nazis and the Japanese in the 1930's, we'd have been better prepared to deal with their threats.
Jul '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
'When You attack the U.S.., You attack the world..."
I'll have more later. "Diversity" being the subject...
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Data from studies conducted by the University of Chicago suggest Rep. Paul is right. This is also the same conclusion the 9/11 Commission came up with: namely, that occupation was the underlying motivation for the attacks on 9/11, and the underlying motivation for most suicide bombings in the Middle East.
From a U of C press release:
This raises a greater question. What is the risk of foreign intervention? We give money to the Mujahideen and later they become our enemy in the Taliban. We provide support to Saddam Hussein and later we overthrow his regime . We support a Pakistani tyrant in Musharraf, now exiled from his own country.
What has this gotten us?
9/11 was a tragedy; a tragedy we are not diminishing by asking how it could have happened.
Edited on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:30pmOct '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Perhaps the issue of Rinse, Lather, Repeat with regard to policy may have had its day.Who is to rewrite the book ?
Apologies for being blunt, seems a new approach is needed. Any suggestions ?
Edited on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:40pmJan '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
It's inherent in the nature of conflict that both sides think they're right. And, under normal circumstances, we take perspectives into account when we engage opponents in diplomacy.
But once you murder nearly 3,000 civilians, it isn't diplomacy anymore. It's war. They chose war, and they got war in return.
Jul '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Jimmy Carter: 'When You attack the U.S.., You attack the world..."
I'll have more later. "Diversity" being the subject...
Jimmy, think of your blood pressure.
Oct '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
KC Mulville: It's inherent in the nature of conflict that both sides think they're right. And, under normal circumstances, we take perspectives into account when we engage opponents in diplomacy.
But once you murder nearly 3,000 civilians, it isn't diplomacy anymore. It's war. They chose war, and they got war in return. · Sep 11 at 9:38pm
The casualties at Pearl Harbor measured at 2,400, and the enemies were more identifiable and the conflict short in context.
The Rules of Engagement have changed in away appears to admit this is an unwinnable war. Making war on an ideology is a terrible and bloody thing and involves more than most have the stomach for. Which leads to diplomacy or rather a policy of appeasement.
To quote Churchill, Appeasement is to feed the crocodile in hopes it will eat you last.
Something in there about a having a nice pair of crocodile boots in a metaphorical way.
Jul '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
I'm not seeing where our softer approach to Teheran, beginning with Carter, has bought us anything.
Under the Islamist rules, you can surrender, you can have state mandated Sharia, you can install their puppets if you haven't already, and have every citizen in abject submission (that is what islam means) and some joker from two sects over will fly a 747 into your office building, because your sect doesn't recognize the teachings of Muhammad's nephew Fred.
You cannot win, you cannot break even, and you cannot leave the game. At least under the multiculti ruleset. We Americans like to think of ourselves as the good guys, and anti-colonialists. But under every nation building exercise there is some colonialism.
This is a problem that we must be prepared to be the republic of very scary people to win. That's how the Wahhabi have kept the Sauds in power, how all of these tin pot dictators being Arab Springed do it. We have to be scary in our own way, not the Mubarak way or the Assad way or the Ghadaffy way.
But in a way that scare the heck out of Pakistan and Iran.
Mar '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Nico Perrino: Data from studies conducted by the University of Chicago suggest Rep. Paul is right. This is also the same conclusion the 9/11 Commission came up with: namely, that occupation was the underlying motivation for the attacks on 9/11, and the underlying motivation for most suicide bombings in the Middle East.
Edited on Sep 11 at 09:30 pm
WHAT "occupation"? Good lord, what is it with Paulians and their aping of leftist talking points???
Aug '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Douglas
Nico Perrino: Data from studies conducted by the University of Chicago suggest Rep. Paul is right. This is also the same conclusion the 9/11 Commission came up with: namely, that occupation was the underlying motivation for the attacks on 9/11, and the underlying motivation for most suicide bombings in the Middle East.
Edited on Sep 11 at 09:30 pm
WHAT "occupation"? Good lord, what is it with Paulians and their aping of leftist talking points??? · Sep 11 at 10:31pm
You may not see Afghanistan and Iraq as occupations, but the denizens of those countries surely do.
Dec '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Nico Perrino:
...
9/11 was a tragedy; a tragedy we are not diminishing by asking how it could have happened. · Sep 11 at 9:28pm
Edited on Sep 11 at 09:30 pm
That's absolutely ridiculous, what happened on 9/11 was an attack, not a tragedy. Two Boeing 747s colliding while taking off at Tenerif Airport is a tragedy. Airliners purposefully flown into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon killing almost 3000 people is an attack.
Sep '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
“Rep Paul excuses the behavior of the Islamists terrorists” Not being a professional word smith such as yourself perhaps you could explain to me why when one says we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our religion, way of life, principles etc. one is explaining their mind set. But when one says the terrorists attack us because we have troops stationed in the middle east and this makes them made as h…., it “excuses their behavior". Is it because one group supports the establishments view of an expansionist foreign policy and the other opposes it or is there a cogent reason behind it?
Feb '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Understanding what motivates the enemy can have use other than to locate the road to appeasement. Knowing what the enemy wants seems to me to be good sense. It may even help avoid the road to appeasement.
Apr '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
When someone is trying to kill you, you have two options....die, or kill them. I don't much like the first option. Since I am choosing the second option their reason is an irrelevant piece of information.
Dec '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
The left violently reacted to the setting up of Pershing tactical nukes in the middle of Germany. At the time, the location was a border communists had unilaterally established as a perimeter to contain a collection of erstwhile sovereign states under the Politburo’s dictatorial rule from the Kremlin.
POTUS 40 leveraged our occupation of Germany, consistent with their surrender, to deter an expansion of communist aggression against all of the free world. Soon thereafter, the Soviet regime imploded.
In the Middle East, subsequent to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of his southern neighbor—following 9 years of war with his eastern one, and a half a million Arab and Persian deaths—POTUS 43 leveraged our occupation of Irak, consistent with its armistice, to liberate the Iraqis from the violent, torturous Hussein regime.
Pursuant to the mutual consent of the countries involved, i.e. instruments of surrender, armistice agreements, and ordinary diplomatic protocols, the rule of law controls all American military installations in Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else.
Rep. Paul uses a histrionic and revisionist reformulation of libertarian ideals to discredit the record of our military as a force for peace no other period in world history has seen before.
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
jetstream
Nico Perrino:
...
9/11 was a tragedy; a tragedy we are not diminishing by asking how it could have happened. · Sep 11 at 9:28pm
Edited on Sep 11 at 09:30 pm
That's absolutely ridiculous, what happened on 9/11 was an attack, not a tragedy. Two Boeing 747s colliding while taking off at Tenerif Airport is a tragedy. Airliners purposefully flown into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon killing almost 3000 people is an attack. · Sep 11 at 11:35pm
Yes, but is it unfair to speculate as to their motivation for attacking us? I have a hard time believing the terrorist woke up one day and randomly decided they wanted to attack America. To truly understand your enemy, you must first understand their motivations.
Mar '11
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Tom Paine
You may not see Afghanistan and Iraq as occupations, but the denizens of those countries surely do. · Sep 11 at 10:37pm
What was their excuse before those two wars?
Jun '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
And we see two militaristic nations motivated to conquer their neighbors because they think themselves culturally and racially superior. A few people, like Winston Churchill, did understand. The problem is that you can't compromise with this position (or appease it). You prove the ideas wrong by defeating them militarily.
The same goes for Islam. A gang of radical reactionaries decide that Islam must dominate the world based on a 7th century text. Can anyone suggest a compromise with this position? Didn't think so. Let's move on to step two. Any exegesis offered by the enemy is just a distraction anyway.
Oct '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
The problems with the course of the comments back and forth is the basic position and information relied upon. The 9/11 Commission Report was a Whitewash. To seriously rely on its content and even the minority content is a mistake. The problem most people have is they refuse to believe that the radical Islamists that attacked us believe in what they believe in.
"It has to be something else because that makes no sense to me and I am brilliant." We then get the nonsnense from the 9/11 Commission.
The problem is not occupation but that Islam is a way of life and those that have beliefs that are fundamentalist believe the entire secular nature of the West is repugnant and wrong. Looking for wrongs to right like an Alderman in Chicago or a Congressman from Texas is being a prisoner of your own mindset.
The communists during the Cold War did not want to die. The True Believers and the adherents of the way of life of fundamental Isalm do not view death and fear it as do those in the West. There is nothing in common to negotiate.
September 11, 2001 was an Attack by transnationalists.
Dec '10
Re: George P. Shultz on the War on Terrorism
Jefferson expended considerable effort in attempting to understand the Barbary pirates, including reading the Koran. Then he sent in the marines.
Learning about your adversaries is not merely mapping the road to appeasement.