In America, the public, some politicians, and even President Obama have a vague awareness that U.S. government policies affect the recruitment of terrorists by radical groups. However, going too far with such self-awareness leads to excessively unsettling conclusions that would demand radical changes in U.S. foreign policy. Thus, as a nation, we generally avoid going down that road at all costs. It is to our peril.
Some politicians, both Democratic and Republican, have criticized Republican presidential candidate Donald Trumps advocacy of preventing Muslims from entering the United States, which had the odor of fascism. Now that a news clip of Trumps proposal has been used as a recruiting video for the radical Islamist group al-Shabab in Somalia, he is getting further criticism on the campaign trail. Not only does Trumps proposal probably violate the Constitutions First Amendment protection of freedom of religion and at least the spirit of the 14th Amendments stipulation of equal protection for all under the lawit is bad policy. The reason that the United States has had fewer problems than Europe does with radicalized Islamists within its borders is that American Muslims are prosperous and more integrated into their host society than in Europe. As a result, the overwhelmingly peaceful American Muslim population is U.S. law enforcements greatest source of intelligence on any radical activities by a tiny minority. Trumps proposal singling out Muslims for discrimination, even if never enacted, is likely to begin undermining that integration by breeding Muslim fears that even more draconian measures could be taken in the future.
So if at least some American politicians and a significant portion of the public can see that Trumps proposal, which affects only Muslims trying to visit or do business in the United States, can be used to recruit terrorists, why cant they see that the U.S. governments post-9/11 attacks on or invasions of at least seven Muslim countriesSomalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraqis far worse than Trumps proposal in generating anti-U.S. blowback terrorism?
Historically, going back centuries, one of the things that inflames radical Islamic jihadistsand Muslims in generalis non-Muslim attacks on or occupation of Muslim soil. This encroachment triggers violence quite oftenfor example in the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli occupations of the West Bank and Gaza, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Chechen resistance against Russian pacification. In the last case, Chechnya has the mild Sufi form of Islam, yet has fielded fierce fighters against the Russians. Moreover, the long-term lingering of U.S. troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, despite President George H. W. Bushs initial promise to the king of Saudi Arabia that American forces would leave after the war was over, triggered Osama bin Laden to launch a terrorist war on U.S. targets, including the tragic attacks on 9/11.
Therefore, any U.S. military action required in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks should have been done surgically and in the shadows, rather than conducting a high profile U.S. invasion and occupation of the country and then using 9/11 as an excuse for invading and occupying another unrelated Islamic countryIraq. Bin Laden was ecstatic about George W. Bushs invasion of Iraq, because he had been trying to provoke a U.S. overreaction in order to recruit more fighters and cash, and Bush took the bait beyond his wildest dreams. And of course, the U.S. quagmire in Iraq generated opposing jihadists by the truckloadal Qaeda in Iraq, a more malignant version of the main group, and eventually the follow-on ISIS, an even more brutal group.
But doesnt the U.S. military really need to be in the Middle East to guard oil supplies to the United States? Isnt that why the United States supports the despotic Saudi Arabian monarchy, which fosters the spread of the radial Wahhabi Islam around the world by funding schools teaching it and has an atrocious human rights record, including the recent execution of a cleric who was advocating equal treatment for a minority sect within the Saudi kingdom. In my book, No War for Oil: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East, I debunk the need for the United States to spend $110 billion per year defending only $20 billion in annual oil imports from the Persian Gulf. The worldwide market for oil will bring plentiful supplies of oil and the lowest price to the United States without U.S. military power needlessly stirring up blowback from anti-U.S. terrorists. In the Middle East, even apparently resounding U.S. military victories often turn out to be pyrrhic.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.