|
19 May 2010 By Jacob
G. Hornberger Ever since 9/11,
Americans have generally fallen into two camps in
explaining why our country now faces the constant
threat of terrorist attacks. The first group is
composed of people who claim that foreigners,
particularly Muslims, hate America for its freedom and
values. Things like rock-and-roll, beauty pageants,
Lady Gaga, and intellectual and religious freedom
drive the foreigners crazy with anger and hatred,
claim the people in this group, which drives them to
commit acts of terrorism against America. The second group is
composed of those people, mostly libertarians, who
contend that the terrorist threat has nothing to do
with hatred for America’s freedom and values, but
instead is driven by extreme anger over the U.S.
government’s foreign policy, and specifically the
horrible things that the U.S. government has done to
foreigners, especially Muslims in the Middle East.
That brings us to the
alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, who is a
naturalized American citizen who was born and raised
in Pakistan. A front-page article in Sunday’s New
York Times should effectively seal the lips of
those people in group one. The article, which profiled
Shahzad’s life before the attempted Times Square
attack, leaves absolutely no doubt that his actions
were rooted in anger over U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East. Consider the following
three excerpts from the article: 1) “Everyone knows how
the Muslim country bows down to pressure from the
west. Everyone knows the kind of humiliation we are
faced with around the globe.” [from an email from
Shahzad] 2) After political
instability and sectarian violence roiled [Pakistan in
the 1990s, where Shahzad living with his parents],
many Pakistanis blamed the United States. After
propping up the Pakistani military dictator, Gen.
Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, in the 1980s, the American
government was now imposing hefty sanctions in
retaliation for Pakistan’s nuclear program. The
economy stalled as anti-Americanism spread.
3) Mr. Shahzad had long
been critical of American foreign policy. “He was
always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D.
stunt to attack Iraq and killing noncombatants such as
the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein,” said a close
relative. Mr. Shahzad had been copied on a Google
Groups e-mail message bearing photographs of
Guantanamo Bay detainees, handcuffed and crouching,
below the words “Shame on you, Bush. Shame on you.”
The following year, Igor Djuric, a real estate agent
who helped him buy his house, recalled that Mr.
Shahzad was angered by President George W. Bush and
the war in Iraq.” Suppose the U.S.
government got into a conflict with the Israeli
government in which the U.S. government imposed brutal
sanctions on Israel, which ended up contributing to
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Israeli
children. One day, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations publicly declares that the deaths of
half-a-million Israeli children from the sanctions are
“worth it.” After 11 years of sanctions, the U.S.
government invades Israel and imposes a brutal 9-year
occupation that ends up killing, maiming, torturing,
incarcerating, and exiling hundreds of thousands of
Israelis. Hundreds of Israeli resisters to the
invasion and occupation, which the U.S. government
labels as “terrorists,” are whisked off to secret
detention centers, where they are incarcerated,
tortured, sexually abused, and humiliated without any
due process of law. U.S. foreign aid continues to flow
into Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran, which
have been cheering the U.S. government’s actions
against Israel. How would American Jews
react to all that? Wouldn’t most of them be extremely
angry? Wouldn’t the anger rise to the level of rage as
each year went on? While some American Jews would
undoubtedly rally to the support of their government,
would it surprise anyone that some of them would join
up with the Israelis and engage in terrorist attacks
on the United States? Once the U.S. Empire
went on its crusade in the Middle East after the end
of the Cold War with such things as the Persian Gulf
intervention, the intentional destruction of Iraq’s
water-and-sewage facilities, the 11 years of brutal
sanctions on Iraq, U.S. Ambassador Madeleine
Albright’s infamous declaration that the deaths of
half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were
“worth it,” the stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic
holy lands, the unconditional support of the Israeli
government, the support of brutal dictators, the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the assassinations
in Pakistan, the rendition, torture, Gitmo, and all
the rest, why would it surprise anyone that people of
Muslim faith would react in the same way that people
of Jewish faith would react if it were Israel that had
suffered the heavy hand of the U.S. Empire?
It is obvious that there
is one — and only one — solution to all this:
Dismantle the U.S. Empire and the U.S. military
industrial complex. World War II is over. So are the
Korean and Vietnam Wars. Cold War too. Time to
demobilize. Bring all the troops home from overseas
and discharge them. Close all the foreign military
bases, including Guantanamo, and abandon leasehold
rights to the bases. That is what should have
been done at the end of the Cold War. It is what
should be done now. The U.S. government’s foreign
policy of empire and intervention has done enough
damage to our country, not only producing the constant
threat of terrorist retaliation, but also contributing
to the ever-growing mountain of debt that threatens
the economic future of our nation.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. |