Thank you for your comments on the post. You make some very valid points and we share a similar view of how our presence in the Middle East impacts our security. I must say up front that I don’t believe that the US should consider changing our way of life, but possibly how we formulate and think about policy in the region. My belief is that right now we are losing far too many moderates and former supporters of the US. This is a dangerous trend when we really need these alliances to fight terrorism.

There will always be those who hate our lifestyle, but we should never waiver on maintaining a free, secular, and democratic society.

I believe there are three distinct groups we must address when thinking through our policy in the Middle East:
1) People and organizations that are intent on killing Americans regardless of our policies. These groups include al-Qaeda and should be targeted militarily and destroyed.
2) Financiers or ideologues of the movement. The US needs to work diplomatically with foreign governments to marginalize these groups, reduce their “voice,” and cut off all funding channels.
3) Those who empathize with the frustrations and ideology of groups 1 and 2. These individuals and groups are the swing vote in how things turn out in Iraq. We need their support to identify active terrorists and quell the violence.

I only believe that Buchanan and Paul are taking about engagement in our own policymaking. It doesn’t matter if they hate us, but why. If we can change that “why” without sacrificng our own safety or way of life, we should consider doing so when possible.

Thanks again for your comments and for reading Roguely Stated.

To be honest, I think it’s a combination: If Paul really meant that our presence there yields hatred toward us, then he’s right. If he meant that our presence there was the prime mover for 9/11, I think he’s dead wrong.

At the same time, a Western, specifically US, presence in the Middle East isn’t the only thing that has their ire up in my opinion. Osama and company routinely cite US decadence and moral decay as reasons for jihad as well as our presence in the ME.

I think that’s the tricky part. If our lifestyles invite hatred, do we alter our lifestyles or risk the hatred? If we opt to risk the hatred, do we 1) do nothing to protect ourselves from the acts of hatred, 2) diplomatically wrangle (arguably not enough of that these days), 3) use military intervention to reduce threats, or 4) use some combination of options 2 and 3?

Aside from doing nothing, all of the above options imply some sort of US presence in the Middle-East which will further exacerbate their US-decadence-inspired hatred. Talk about a vicious cycle with no pleasant answers!