An interesting thing came up in the debate between Republican candidates for President Tuesday night: blowback.

I found something very interesting in the film I watched the other day on that very subject. I wish I could express myself more clearly tonight, but this is something that I think is very important and it's something that I have always suspected since the very first few days after 9/11. Chalmers Johnson, a CIA expert, had some very interesting things to say about "blowback" in the documentary Why We Fight (which have been conveniently posted on this blog for you to see for yourself):

There is a direct connection between events that happened more than 50 years ago and the War in Iraq today. In 1953, the prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq became extremely irritated the British were ripping off his country's national resources, he wanted a greater share in it. The British came to the new president, Eisenhower, and asked for help on this. Eisenhower very conveniently declared Mossadeq to be communist and we then set the CIA to overthrow him.

The result was we brought the shah to power and he created an extremely repressive regime that within 20 years had led to a revolution against him. The Ayatollah Khomeini creates a government that is violently anti-American.

In the after-action report by the CIA on what they had done in Iran in 1953, they said "we're going to get some 'blowback' from this."

We then made a puppet out of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who was a friend of ours. He was an asset in the CIA's computers. We did so because he was anti-Iranian. He was very fearful that the revolution in Iran would spread into his county. He therefore went to war with Iran. The war was extremely bloody, went on throughout the 1980's. Unfortunatly for Saddamm Hussein, he began to lose the war.

At that point, in comes the United States in the form of Donald Rumsfled sent to Saddam Hussein by President Reagan to tell him, "We will provide you with intelligence, we will supply you with the weapons you may need thorough covert means." It is why cynics in Washington say "We know Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We have the receipts."

This is what we mean by blowback. He remained a friend of ours right up to his invasion in the summer of 1990 of Kuwait. We became alarmed when he invaded Kuwait that he could also go on and invade Saudi Arabia itself, the largest reserves of oil on Earth. We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. It was a mistake in every sense of the term.

Remember, Osama bin Laden had said, "I resent the government of Saudi Arabia for using Americans to defend Saudi Arabia against Iraq." At that point we began to fear we were going to lose our position in Saudi Arabia. Well the second largest source of proven reserves on earth are in Iraq. This leads us now to demonize our previous ally and to prepare the American public for the thought that we must take him out.

Presidential candidate and Texas Representative Ron Paul brought up the issue of "blowback" in the debate last night and has since been blasted by conservatives for daring to suggest 9/11 was in any way our fault. I believe he handled himself very well in harsh light day on Hannity and Colmes last night (hat tip to Crooks and Liars).

I never understood why it was so outrageous to think that the terrorists who attacked us on that horrible day had some defensible vendetta against the United States. I for one do not believe we should lump "terrorists" into convenient categories such as "evil-doers." I certainly don't think they have a legitimate excuse to attack Americans, I'm just saying their reasons, given their unique, individual experiences with U.S. foreign policy seem to explain why a certain group of people in this world hate us.

They don't hate us because women can vote. They don't despise us because we have the right to speak freely. They have simply experienced the day-to-day hell that has been inflicted, either directly or indirectly, by our government's actions in the world. Look at what happens in Iraq day in and day out and tell me you can't understand why someone would take arms against our country (or dare to attack us on our own soil). Again, not to say I defend their reasons...I simply acknowledge that they have a position.

I think what Ron Paul said last night at the debate is what Americans need to hear in this national contest: honest, frank conversation that seeks to uncover the root of the problems that our forces are facing today. Maybe if we considered things like "blowback" when we decide to unilaterally impose our will on another country, things like 9/11 would not happen. Again, wrongs made by elements of the military-industrial complex and not everyday Americans who somehow invited tragedy on that fateful day.

I find this incredibly entralling and it would be even more interesting to see more of this in our national debate.