interesting analisys on U.S. foreign policy

[menetopali]

a good read if you're into political analisys. please note that this is a commentary and filled with both observation and opinion, not a news piece:

Mar. 31, 2004

Diverting the Blame for 9/11

Sept. 11 could have been prevented only by having a principled foreign policy

By Onkar Ghate

The squabbling and finger-pointing surrounding the 9/11 commission only serve to obscure the fundamental lesson of that horrific day. Whatever errors or incompetence on the part of a particular individual or intelligence agency, what made September 11 possible was a failure of policy. Our government, whether controlled by Democrat or Republican, had for decades conducted an accommodating, range-of-the-moment, unprincipled foreign policy.

September 11 was not the first time America was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists engaged in "holy war" against us. In 1979 theocratic Iran—which has spearheaded the "Islamic Revolution"—stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In 1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept; the explosives came from Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 sailors.

So we already knew that al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacking Americans. We even had evidence that agents connected to al-Qaeda had been responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And we knew in 1996 that bin Laden had made an overt declaration of war against the "Satan" America.

But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah? Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No—our responses were shortsighted and self-contradictory.

To cite only a few of depressingly many examples: we initially expelled Iranian diplomats—but later sought an appeasing rapprochement with that ayatollah-led government. We intermittently cut off trade with Iran—but secretly negotiated weapons-for-hostages deals. When Israel had the courage to enter Lebanon in 1982 to destroy the PLO, we refused to uncompromisingly support our ally and instead brokered the killers' release. And with respect to al-Qaeda, we dropped a perfunctory bomb or two on one of its suspected camps, while our compliant diplomats waited for al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks to fade from the headlines.

At home we treated our attackers as if they were isolated criminals rather than soldiers engaged in battle against us. In 1941 we did not attempt to indict the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor—we declared war on the source. Yet we spent millions trying to indict specific terrorists—while we ignored their masters.

Despite emphatic pronouncements from Islamic leaders about a "jihad" against America, our political leaders failed to grasp the ideology that seeks our destruction. This left them unable to target that enemy's armed combatants—in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia—and the governments that assist them.

Is it any wonder then that, although our intelligence agencies prevented many planned attacks, they could not prevent them all?

Tragically, little has changed since September 11. Our government's actions remain hopelessly unprincipled. Despite the Bush administration's rhetoric about ending states that sponsor terrorism, President Bush has left the most dangerous of these—Iran—untouched, while his officials periodically seek "rapprochement" and work with Iranian officials to foster "religious values" at U.N. conferences. The attack on Iraq, though capable of justification, was hardly a priority in our war against militant Islam. And because the war was waged with no view to the long term, Iraq is in danger of slipping into the hands of Shiite clerics and other militant Islamic leaders—and thus of becoming even more of a threat than it was.

Moreover, when Bush does strike at a militant Islamic regime, he does so only haltingly. He stresses that the conflict is not ideological and, morally unsure of his right to protect American lives by force, cowers before any sign of world disapproval over civilian casualties. The result was that he reined in the military forces in Afghanistan and allowed numerous Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters to escape.

Elsewhere in the Mideast, Bush continues to play by a double standard. His administration scolds Israel for killing its own bin Laden, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, while Bush pretends that the Palestinians and Islamic militants attacking Israel—and who have attacked Americans in the past and will no doubt try again in the future—are, somehow, different from al-Qaeda and deserving of a "peace" plan.

And now, both Republicans and Democrats wage a domestic war, senselessly and desperately trying to find a fall guy for September 11. Thus, too unprincipled to identify the enemy and wage all-out war, but not yet completely blind to their own ineffectualness, leaders from both parties resignedly admit that we're in for a "long war" and that there will be more terrorists attacks on U.S. soil.

The lesson to learn from September 11 is this. We must root out the amoral, pragmatic expediency that dominates our government's foreign policy and replace it with the principles of self-interest.

Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

let me know what you all think

[Mkue]

I would have to disagree with the opinion that "nothing has changed since 9/11". I believe alot has changed for the better, although not perfect I'm sure.

Since 9/11 and in thanks partly to the Patriot Act our government agencies are better able to share counterterrorism information, this was not done well in the past, if at all. We now have a Homeland Security Department, which did not exist prior to 9/11. Although some poke fun at the level colors of alert it is much better than what we had before 9/11 which was essentially "nothing".

Also President Bush finally declared war on terrorists which had not done in the prior administration, even though we had been attacked many times and war had been declared on us by Bin Ladin.

How we should handle the "war on Terror" is disputed by many. Some believe we should take the passive approach and wait for terrorists to attack us. Others feel that going after them and being pro-active is a better approach.

After 9/11 Al qaeda assets were frozen, Afghanistan was bombed, trying to flush out Al qaeda. Many operatives have been captured since 9/11. I think much has been done since 9/11 but we must continue to be "on guard" and aware that no system is 100% effective.

We also need a Leader who will continue to focus on keeping America safe.

I do agree that Democrats and Republicans are not focusing on the "real enemy" while they continually focus on attacking each other they are setting us up for more attacks and we are more vulnerable.

[NsgTiger]

I agree with mkue...well stated.

[NurseHardee]

>

WHAT a bunch of idiocy. This analysis accuses Bush of opposing Sharon precisely at the moment that Bush has given Sharon 1000% support on his program of total terrorism against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories! It sure shows that Ayn Rand Thought can sure cause a lot of brain damage when taken seriously. Especially when melded together with Zionism. Egad.

Nurse Hardee

[menetopali]

bush has scolded Sharon in the past. Acting as though the U.S. has given "1000% support" to Sharon is both factually inaccurate and statistical nonsense. the claim that Isreal conducts "total terrorism against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories" is also factually inaccurate. the Isrealis have exercised a great deal of restraint in their actions against terrorists and their supporters.

the claim the Ayn Rand philosophy "can sure cause alot of brain damage when taken seriously" is a classic response with an ad homenen attack when somebody is presented with a view that they disagree with but are unable, or unwilling, to counter with a reasoned response. i don't see any reference to zionism in the piece or any other posts on this thread so i must conclude that the reference is an attempt to discredit the author by claiming an association with a philosophy that evokes a negative image of the existence of Isreal.

[donmurray]

"If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck..."

Amoral pragmatic expediency. So what's different?