Conclusion
All of the examples of terrorist attacks on the United
States can be explained as retaliation for U.S. intervention
abroad. Empirically validating the connection between an
interventionist foreign policy and such attacks is more
critical than ever now that terrorists can more readily
obtain weapons of mass destruction and seem to be more
willing to use them. The extensive number of incidents of
terrorism linked to U.S. foreign policy implies that the
United States could substantially reduce the chance of
catastrophic terrorist attacks if it lowered its military
profile overseas.16 The United States needs to adopt a new
policy that would use military force only as a last resort
in the defense of truly vital national interests.
The Cold War has ended, yet the United States continues
to use its worldwide military dominance to intervene anywhere
and everywhere in an effort to maintain its defense
perimeter far forward. In a changed strategic environment
in which ostensibly weak terrorist groups might acquire
weapons of mass destruction, such an extended defense perimeter
may actually increase the catastrophic threat to the
American homeland. Even the U.S. Department of Defense
admits the problem:
Indeed, a paradox of the new strategic environment
is that American military superiority actually
increases the threat of nuclear, biological, and
chemical attack against us by creating incentives
for adversaries to challenge us asymmetrically.
These weapons may be used as tools of terrorism
against the American people.17
But proponents of America's current interventionist
foreign policy, such as the National Review, ignore the new
strategic realities and criticize the proposed policy of
military restraint as "preemptively capitulating to the
terrorists."18 Adopting a restrained foreign policy has
nothing to do with appeasing terrorists. Terrorist acts are
morally outrageous and should be punished whenever possible.
Reducing the motive for terrorists to attack the United
States with weapons of mass destruction is not the only
reason to adopt a policy of military restraint overseas,
although it is a sensible one. In the more benign environment
of a post-Cold War world, promiscuous military intervention
by the United States--which can result in lost
lives, high financial costs, and open-ended commitments--is
no longer needed. It is common sense, rather than appeasement,
for the United States to adapt its activist Cold War
foreign policy to the new strategic environment that requires
more restraint overseas.
Reply With Quote
