Let me ask you this, can you point to any successes that can be attributed to our actions in the region or, for that matter, around the world?

There is a direct correlation between the time when al Qaeda began to target this country and our establishment of bases on the Saudi peninsula. The first Gulf War gave our country, at least some within this government with a particular agenda, a toehold in the region that quickly expanded. That act was and is viewed by many in Islam, even moderates, as an outrage against Islam and its holy places. Since that time we have expanded over the entire region and with that expansion has come more and more anger and the call for revenge for what Muslims consider an invasion. This view is not being restrained by our present policies but it is being enflamed throughout the region and around the Muslim world. In other words, our interventions within the region are only making the bulls-eye on our back that much bigger.

By planting numerous bases in the region and following policies that promotes and encourages the expansion of extremism within that region we will continue endanger this nation by providing them a reason to continue to target us. We are giving them fuel for their flames they will only continue to attack us. In other words, what you are proposing is a losing battle, such tactics by our government cannot succeed. It is an absolute impossibility that the current policy will stop the extremism that we have enflamed by our actions in that region and if we continue pursuing those policies it will only continue to blow up in our faces and the attacks will grow more horrible, more severe and more common in this country.

If you are willing to have your grandchildren and your great grandchildren fighting this same war on terror then that is the only place our current policies in the region will cause. You want to see a mirrored image of what we will face if we continue down this feckless road with this feckless policy, then look at Israel. For over 40 years they have poured massive manpower, money and technology into their security and yet they are still lack real security and they suffer under the threat of attack.

The problem is that such a policy will ultimately bankrupt the country, if we continue with this fight on this stage as it is being fought, then we will find ourselves without hearth and home. We will follow the same path as all others who have followed it and we will find ourselves far less secure then if we totally change the way we think about our role in this world. There is no rational reason to have 17 military bases in that region, bases that are only there because we have strong-armed those countries into allowing them there. Most of the people within those countries resent our presence and feel that we are invading trespassers that threaten their way of life and their religion; do you actually believe that our continued presence will sooth such feelings in those people? The only way for us to win this battle with the current mentality is to either advocate the genocide of all Muslims around the world, are you prepared for such extremist measures?

The problem is that sooner or later, some nut in Washington will do something really, really stupid in the Middle East and that will enflame even those moderate Muslims in this country, then the real trouble begins and there is nothing we will be able to do about it.

We will end up as every other “empire” in history that have tried to do the very same thing that we are now doing…collapse, and believe me the entire monetary system is now teetering on the edge and this latest intervention by our government has only hastened our day of reckoning.

And now with reports of Muslim Terrorists linking up with Mexican Drug Cartels, it’s getting even scarier.

I don’t understand why Ron Paul would favor fighting our enemies on our own Border, and not over in the Middle East? That seems crazy to me.

I wouldn’t refer to Hannity as a libertarian in any sense. He’s a neo-conservative, but is a little bit more open to some social freedoms than a guy like O’Reilly, so I don’t find him to be an egregiously bad guy.

Boortz would best be described as a “neolibertarian”, which refers to a libertarian/neoconservative mix. I think one of the early user of the term would be the guys over at the QandO blog. As such, Boortz is very similar to several of the contributors here, and is a “less-pure” libertarian than others.

At the same time, these guys are entertainers, not the leading lights of thought in their respective ideologies. I don’t look to Boortz to be an idea man, he’s the guy that makes libertarian ideas entertaining for the public.

Excellent points.

“I’ve even heard him call himself a libertarian on some issues.”

Most political ideologies have some crossover issues with others. Just because somebody might have an issue or two in common with libertarians that in itself does not make that person a libertarian. The whole of their ideology must be taken into account…and Hannity is pretty clearly (at least to me) a neoconservative who’s prone to making up stories to advance whatever it is he believes in.

Regarding Hannity’s comments, like I said, let’s see something besides a comment on a radio show to make the case. What are his sources? How reliable are they? What actual evidence do they possess of this al-Qaeda/drug cartel link? Is this position purely speculative or is it based on a substantial body of evidence? Because from what you’ve presented, this conspiracy theory isn’t much more than gossip and fear-mongering on the part of a less-than objective radio host with an agenda and I don’t really see a need to cushion my or anyone else’s criticism of it. If the harshness of that criticism bothers you (even though it wasn’t my intention to insult you personally) I’d suggest that you should either make a more substantiative defense of Hannity’s position or quit bitching when someone calls out a celebrity you happen to like for talking out of their ass. The free exchange of ideas does not require that everyone play nice and humor bad arguments.

I can’t understand why you guys here hate Boortz and Hannity so much. They both seem to be quite friendly and supportive of libertarians.

If this is the kind of libertarians represented here, than perhaps I should leave.

And Hannity is not the only one I’ve heard the story of Mexican drug cartels and Al Qaeda from. Others have reported this too.

I just read through most of this chain. Your assumption that it would be in our best interest to keep forward bases is a policy based in fear and self-righteousness. Let’s apply that principle fairly, then. China feels it would be in their best interest to have forward bases, many of them in, say, Canada and/or Mexico. Russia wants in on the military-reach idea, so they put one in Texas, maybe another in Alaska. A host of other countries catch on to this hip and trendy new fad and start placing themselves all over – in their best interests, of course. Now, what’s wrong with this picture???
There’s nothing wrong with bringing all of your resources back to the homeland to save and build strength. Yes, we would have to be attacked – people would likely die – in order for us to take action. That’s what is right. It is just and there’s no way around that. To think that keeping expanded reach to display prowess and maintain some type of control is the ultimately naive idea. Rather than result in control, it incites anger and spawns enemies. That’s when things start to get “unsafe”. That’s what you should fear: your present policy.

This “war on terror”, as it is now executed, extends throughout the Middle East, into Central Asia, Africa and into the Pacific regions. It is without focus and is only serving to prove that it cannot enforce its stated purpose and will end with even less security for this country and its people.

The claim that we are “fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here” is not only extremely naive, but borders on utter foolishness and neglects the nature of the entire situation that we have, in a very real sense, created by our own actions within the regions of the Middle East and around the world. We cannot defeat the tactic of terror without understanding the reasons behind its use against this country. We have and, it appears, continue to occupy their lands, some of which is considered extremely holy by the adherents of Islam. We are viewed as a real and deadly threat, plain and simply, to their way of life, their resources and their holy places; until we recognize that is the reason for their attacks then we will blindly continue to pursue a policy that will only contribute to our insecurity.

More and more Muslims are beginning to view our aggression as a war against Islam, not terror and this will only facilitate the extension of the use of terror against this country in the future. Probably 70% of the population of Saudi Arabia now holds the acts of bin Laden in high esteem because they now see him as the only force standing between them and what they see as the aggressive power of the United States. No matter what we seek to do militarily in the region the results will be the same: a continuation and acceleration of attacks against this country and its interests around the world. No good will come of this policy and the interventions it promotes.

Our military is stretched thin as it is; our economy is on the brink of a major and potentially disastrous dislocation in the very near future. Our current tactics will prove fruitless in the face of this threat as long as we continue to pursue the same interventionist policies in the region. Until the people of that region feel safe and secure in their own land, we will not feel safe and secure in ours. Until they no longer view us as an aggressive threat to them then they will continue to wage an increasingly aggressive war of terror against this country and its people.

The idea that we can “fight them over there so we won’t have to here” overlooks the most basic and rational foundation of the causes of this conflict and until we regain a sense of ourselves, a sense of what this country means then we will continue to pursue the same path that other failed empires have followed. If we continue with our current policy we can be assured of one thing: we will remain the biggest target in the world and we will see horrendous attacks in our cities and against our people despite all the efforts this government is currently employing.

The reason that al-Qaeda and the drug cartels’ long-term goals are incompatible is that the cartels are interested in profit and power, which necessitates the continuation of the drug trade, while al-Qaeda sees the drug trade only as a necessary evil for their struggle which should be abolished once they achieve power which works against the cartels’ interests. Thus their long-term goals are not compatible.

“So, does this mean that we wait to fight Al Qaeda on the border with Mexico?”

Why not? It’s never going to happen…just like the communists invading the U.S. from Central America never happened like in “Red Dawn”. The idea that al-Qaeda could potentially spread their ideology to the entire world is pure fantasy. Because their ideology eschews free markets and voluntary human interactions their version of radical Islam is as incapable of conquering the world as communism was.

“Sean Hannity had a report a couple weeks ago on Fox News on how Radical Muslim Terrorists are starting to link up with Mexican drug cartels. If that’s true, that means the Al Qaeda can infiltrate us through our Border States.”

I’ll point out two flaws in this argument, then tell you exactly how it can be avoided without using the military or compromising our freedoms.

A) Sean Hannity is an idiot. Hannity likes to justify his support of neoconservatism by spinning outrageous apocalyptic stories about all the evil that will happen if we don’t give our freedoms away to the government. Fear-mongering is usually a tactic employed by people who don’t have any rational arguments for the policies they’re proposing (like Bush) so any time you hear one of these rationalizations you should immediately assume that the speaker doesn’t have any clue what he’s talking about until he proves conclusively otherwise…basically let’s see his sources and a comprehensive assessment of why this will occur rather than accepting blurbs from his crap radio show at face value.

B) There may be cooperation between these groups, but they don’t have common goals. Until Islam actually becomes the major religion of Central and South America the idea that al-Qaeda is going to set up terror training sites and form gigantic evil alliances is laughable. These groups may form working relationships out of conveniences, but their long-term goals have little in common.

C) Legalize drugs and it won’t be an issue. Cartels and terrorist groups derive most of their power from the money to be made by shipping an illegal product, since the government’s restriction of supply drives the price up (narcotics is one of al-Qaeda’s primary sources of funds). If you want to end the threat from cartels and terror groups, end the War on Drugs.

In the interest of preserving liberty and general welfare, the libertarian demands a compelling argument for giving the government the power to go to war.

For a compelling case for war, you need to identify the threat, estimate the size of the threat, and lay out a plan that targets the threat.

The war in Iraq mis-identifies the threat. Iraq leaders vs. Al Qaeda.
The war in Iraq mis-identifies the size of the treat. Saddaam poses a very small threat. He was a paper tiget.
The war in Iraq doesn’t target the identified threat. It’s an offense against the entire Iraq government. It wasn’t limited to its leaders that Bush identified. The chaos that ensued was an offense against the entire Iraqi people. There was a lot of collateral damage and a lot of wasted effort.

Fighting them over there is a valid idea. That’s why we started a fight in Afghanistan, which subsequently got sidetracked into trying to reform Afghanistan into a democracy. Actually targeting Al Qaeda especially its leadership would be a grand idea.

Or, crazy as this may sound, we take some (or, heck, all) of our military might currently in Iraq and place it along our southern border.

Free trade does not require an unsecured border.

Or, crazy as this may sound, we take some (or, heck, all) of our military might and place it along our southern border.

Free trade does not require an unsecured border.

Sean Hannity had a report a couple weeks ago on Fox News on how Radical Muslim Terrorists are starting to link up with Mexican drug cartels.

If that’s true, that means the Al Qaeda can infiltrate us through our Border States.

I think it makes more sense to fight them over in the Middle East, than here at home.

And does this mean we have to build a huge fence to protect our Southern Border. That sounds more like Tancredo, and the Minutemen, not something I’d expect to hear from Open Borders libertarians.

I guess I’m with Boortz on this.