Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, have often duked it out in debates about the role of foreign policy in causing terror attacks. Despite Paul’s well-documented argument, other presidential candidates would have you believe that terrorists are simply irrational, barbaric and freedom-hating beasts that arbitrarily bomb things.
The CIA coined the term "blowback" after an operation to overthrow the government of Iran. It was used to reference unintended consequences of U.S. actions abroad. And since the end of the Cold War, much research has been done on the idea of blowback.
"America’s position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks," the Defense Science Board (a civilian committee appointed to advise the Department of Defense) reported in 1997.
Similar points are echoed by Ivan Eland, a senior fellow at The Independent Institute, who points out in USA Today, "Although the U.S.’s military superiority contributes to the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack by nuclear, biological or chemical means, it is the interventionist foreign policy that the military power carries out that is the real culprit."†
Richard Betts of the Council on Foreign Relations writes, "American activism to guarantee international stability is, paradoxically, the prime source of American vulnerability."
Thus, it should not be hard to fathom why experts conclude in favor of this position. When the United States intervenes abroad, its policies affect people. If those people are desperate and impoverished, they turn to asymmetrical tactics to challenge what they perceive as a foreign aggressor.†
Sept. 11 was a perfect example of blowback. It’s no coincidence that most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a country with a monarchical government that has survived because of support from the United States. In fact, every terrorist attack throughout the 20th century against U.S. interests has been traced to U.S. intervention – be it support for Israel, a dictatorial regime or a military intervention. A consistent message that terrorists send after each attack is their desire for the United States to withdrawal from whatever part of the world it happens to be occupying. Notice that every power attacked by foreign terrorism since 9/11 has been a participant in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
Some counter that terrorists simply hate freedom. If they attacked us because they hate our freedom, why has Switzerland never been touched? Why has most of the developed world hardly been threatened by the "worldwide wave of terror?"†
The only answer can be because there is something unique about U.S. foreign policy. Even if it can’t be traced directly to an intervention, as the leading world power, we make ourselves an easy target for blame of any poor and frustrated individual willing to resort to terror.
A better policy would be the one that relies on free trade and a policy of non-intervention. Free trade creates economic growth that would lift many people out of poverty, one of the root reasons some people turn to terror. Trade bridges the cultural ties that would help integrate the West with the East, ending much of the hatred that remains pervasive.†
The skeptic might ask, doesn’t the United States need to check potential global rivals? The resounding answer is no, as U.S. power projection only perpetuates international threats. It is a national reaction for North Korea and Iran to seek weapons of mass destruction as means of protection when Bush put them on the "axis of evil" with Iraq while his military invaded the country.
The same is true for other potential hot spots. American aircraft carriers in the South China Sea invite military aggression from China, while a network of U.S. bases encircling Russia ensures strained relations. These actions make conflict more likely, not less. If peace between regional powers is to be maintained in the next decade, it will not be achieved by U.S. power, but economic interdependence. The U.S. government can best protect its people by not attempting to maintain this global empire.
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected].