Ron Paul And Sun Tzu

One of the main arguments against a non-interventionist foreign policy is that it is either defeatist, and would just give up the middle east to "the terrorists", or that it fails to recognize a grave danger from radical muslims. The argument is that certain groups of people in the middle east are an extreme danger, so we should

More practical and focused would be to reduce the threats of jihad and Shariah by banning Islamist interpretations of the Koran, as well as Islamism and Islamists. Precedents exist. A Saudi-sponsored Koran was pulled from school libraries. Preachers have gone to jail for their interpretation of the Koran. Extreme versions of Islam are criminally prosecuted. Organizations are outlawed. Politicians have called for Islamists to leave their countries.

Islam is not the enemy, but Islamism is. Tolerate moderate Islam, but eradicate its radical variant

In other words, intervene in the most sacred of pursuits, deny freedom of religion to a group of people. Imagine the reaction in the U.S. to banning certain christian sects, say the Mormons, or seventh day adventists. Putting military pressure on the muslim world will serve to strengthen and unify them. They become even more of a threat. The ultimate consequence of the strategy of confrontation is war on a scale not seen since WWII. Might it be possible to subdue the entire muslim world ? lacking that, should we simply wipe them out ? ? Anyone that respects life must reject this.

Still, it would be wrong to say no threat exists, so how might we deal with this ?

What would the greatest general, Sun Tzu Do ?

In "the Art of War" He says -

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans;
the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces;
the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field;
And the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

Well, we are essentially doing what Sun Tzu says is the worst strategy, essentially besieging walled cities, in Iraq.

We should instead be trying to balk the enemy's plans. To do this, we would need to be non-interventionist (as Ron Paul points out), and humanitarian and open towards moderate muslims, and dismissive of Bin Laden and his radicals. Initially, we should have attempted to do everything possible to eliminate bin laden, and we should continue the hunt.

Now, more importantly, we should be doing everything possible to eliminate the fear generated from his propaganda, and to factionalyse the muslim world. Pipes and others fan this flame of hate, without really much evidence, and help the muslim world to coalesce. How can the moderates in Iran gain any strength, when we keep threatening their country ? I'm sure Muslim moderates are called cowards, traitors, and defeatists and many potential moderates, driven by fear of the US, move to the extremist for security.

This division between west and east, the suspicion and confrontation towards all muslims is just what Bin Laden had in mind. Thus, we should follow Sun Tzu, and Ron Paul, and Balk the Enemies plans, and prevent the junction of his forces. A non-interventionist strategy is the only thing that will do this.