9/11
As a Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan reflecting on my time in service, I’m not sure why the United States continues to fight the War on Terror.
The horrible terrorist acts on 9/11 were not because of religion as many continue to claim, but the fact that violent occupations lead to violent responses. In 1998 and 2002, Osama bin Laden declared that the US policy of supporting corrupt regimes in the Middle East and killing scores of civilians in Iraq through sanctions was the reason he would attack America.
Americans would not tolerate foreigners creating pain and suffering on our people, so why should we expect others to tolerate American foreign policy which has caused so many problems abroad? Robert Pape, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, showed that 95% of all suicide bombings are not motivated by religion or ethnicity but to repel a foreign occupation.
American foreign intervention has historically led to numerous negative unintended consequences around the world. In 1953, the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed a pro-US dictator for the benefit of Western oil countries. By 1979, the people of Iran had enough and overthrew the Shah but another government was installed which repressed the people even more. Christopher Coyne, professor of Economics at George Mason University, found an overwhelming majority of countries where the US intervened in the past century haven’t even become as “free” as Iran is now.
Iran isn’t the only failure of note. The prime minister of “free” Iraq routinely arrests political opponents. Afghanistan is more unsafe than ever, where drug lords (supported by the US government) run the country, the government itself is incompetent and lacking legitimacy among the people, and the US-backed government has been a major point of contention between longtime nuclear weapon armed rivals India and Pakistan. The drone bombing campaign in Pakistan indiscriminately kills civilians. The US government worked closely with the Gadaffi regime to rendition terror suspects in Libya among other types of aid, before working with the rebels (many of whom fought and killed Americans in Iraq).
These interventions have been far too costly in blood and treasure. 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, and another 5,500 have died “fighting for freedom” overseas. Thousands of Americans suffer from mental trauma or have become amputees because of these wars without end. More than 100,000 Iraqis and tens of thousands of Afghans have died. There is no way to know how much these wars will cost in the long run, but economist Joseph Stiglitz thinks it will be far beyond $3 trillion.
Ultimately, we have become less free because of the War on Terror. The PATRIOT Act has allowed the US government to spy on citizens. Americans sacrifice privacy at the airport, despite the TSA is mostly incapable of securing airports or detecting threats. The FBI created a massive network of agents provocateur to justify draconian anti-terrorist laws. Veterans are murdered during no-knock SWAT raids absent any evidence of wrongdoing. Food cooperatives are being raided by government agents for the Very Serious Crime of selling raw milk.
The motivations for the War on Terror are nebulous at best. Many say this War on Terror is a war for oil and other natural resources. Others claim the War on Terror is simply to perpetuate the defense industry. Some contend it “spreads democracy” and keeps America safe. Whatever the purpose, the War on Terror has clearly been negative for millions here and abroad, and now is simply time to end it. The freedom Americans believe is being defended by troops overseas is being destroyed at home by their own government.
Update: this post was re-published in the University of Iowa student newspaper, The Daily Iowan.
When you architect a scenario where a number of key interests (the military and the department of homeland security) receive significant sums of money for their efforts in that scenario (a war on terrorism), then it behooves them to continue that scenario at all costs. They do not want to lose their significant lifeline of funds, due to a curtailing of their purpose.
Bin Laden is dead. A major blow has been dealt to Al Qaeda that has the organization “in shambles.” When do we stop? At what point can we confirm that Al Qaeda no longer exists? No, what the military intelligence will report is that it has moved inside the Taliban. And then we must focus our energies on them. This war will probably never end because it has an AMBIGUOUS foundation.
On the home front, we have infused enormous sums of money into a protection network that incurs significant resources to operate. It does have an effective research and analysis department, but the majority of the organization has a “cover everything” agenda. So much data is collected and examined for possible links to terrorism. The percentage of what they actually find having any link at all to possible terrorism is less than 1%. Homeland Security is extremely inefficient. They will justify the expense as being “necessary for safety”. How can you measure that? The threat is, “if we pull back, cut budgets and another attack sneaks through, do you want that on your hands?” I wouldn’t be surprised if in the absence of tangible threats, some are manufactured in order to continue justification of these organizations. Their costs are truly enormous.
When Bush ordered our troops diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, I was baffled and amazed at how little resistance he encountered. The “evidence” of Hussein possessing WMD’s or even having all the materials to make WMD’s was flimsy at best, and later proven to be false. But even as this sinister deception was unveiled, the Bush administration’s defense was “we’re already there, why we went there is irrelevant now–we must deal with what is in front of us.” No. The false reason calls a credibility issue into focus. But, there was too much resistance and diversion to even address that. Rumsfeld had the audacity to declare that the Iraqis will greet us as liberators and peace will finally be achieved. A small contingent of Iraqis did greet us as liberators, but the effect rapidly waned. Before long there was utter chaos. This administration was warned that this would happen, but they waved off such warnings with arrogant confidence.
We need our own watchdog association, one that will persistently scrutinize the “real threat” of terrorism. We will never go back to how things were in the 1990′s, and that’s fine because our security was a bit too lax then. However, we need to control the spending on our new protection systems. They must become extremely efficient while remaining mostly effective. Let’s not forget that many other nations have had to deal with terrorism and have done so effectively. We can learn from them on what works best and what doesn’t, keeping costs under control. And maybe, just maybe we’ll have enough funds left over to help the struggling 3rd world achieve stability in ways that works best for them, whether it be democratically based or otherwise. STABILITY is what we want for them, not FORCED DEMOCRACY.