Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Tired of this argument
Probably said this before in a different context, but it bears repeating.
Listening to neocon Max Boot criticizing Ron Paul's isolationism. Boot says "we know what happened the last time we were isolationist: Pearl Harbor happened."
Dead wrong from every angle.
(1) In the '30s we had a fairly weak army and a strong Navy. We were not busy invading other countries, but we were trying to fortify as much as possible. Pearl Harbor happened because we weren't watching closely ... or possibly because we decided to stop watching for a little while in order to guarantee our entrance in WW2. There's no way an Army or Navy presence in other countries would have prevented the attack. A stronger focus on foreign intelligence (i.e. more spies and codebreakers) might have made a real difference, though. We didn't develop a strong spy service until just after WW2.
(2) The second time we were attacked in the modern era was 9/11/2001. At that time our forces had been stationed in a hundred other countries for a half-century. Those stationed forces did absolutely nothing to prevent the attack; in fact Sheikh Osama claimed our forces in Saudi were his main reason for the attack.
In short: Non-intervention didn't cause Pearl Harbor, and intervention helped to cause 9/11. Decisively disproves the neocon claim that intervention is the way to prevent attacks! ¶ 9:44 AM
Listening to neocon Max Boot criticizing Ron Paul's isolationism. Boot says "we know what happened the last time we were isolationist: Pearl Harbor happened."
Dead wrong from every angle.
(1) In the '30s we had a fairly weak army and a strong Navy. We were not busy invading other countries, but we were trying to fortify as much as possible. Pearl Harbor happened because we weren't watching closely ... or possibly because we decided to stop watching for a little while in order to guarantee our entrance in WW2. There's no way an Army or Navy presence in other countries would have prevented the attack. A stronger focus on foreign intelligence (i.e. more spies and codebreakers) might have made a real difference, though. We didn't develop a strong spy service until just after WW2.
(2) The second time we were attacked in the modern era was 9/11/2001. At that time our forces had been stationed in a hundred other countries for a half-century. Those stationed forces did absolutely nothing to prevent the attack; in fact Sheikh Osama claimed our forces in Saudi were his main reason for the attack.
In short: Non-intervention didn't cause Pearl Harbor, and intervention helped to cause 9/11. Decisively disproves the neocon claim that intervention is the way to prevent attacks! ¶ 9:44 AM
