Only by minimizing the permanent U.S. military presence in Arab and Islamic lands can we hope to stem anti-U.S. terrorism.
When U.S. government officials and foreign policy pundits discuss terrorism, they usually focus on the characteristics, personnel, history, tactics, targets, objectives and effects of terrorist organizations. They rarely talk about motives.
To fully understand Islamic terrorism, one needs to understand what triggers this extraordinary rage. And throughout history one factor stands out above all else: the occupation of Muslim land by non-Muslim forces.
From the time of the Crusades, the pattern has been consistent. The Soviet Union learned this difficult lesson following its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1970s. The Russians learned it again when they occupied Chechnya in the 1990s. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after the 1967 Six Day War and its military interventions in Lebanon triggered similar reactions, as did the U.S. military presence in Lebanon in the early 1980s. Indeed, it’s fair to say that Israel’s very existence — a non-Islamic state in land claimed by the Muslims — is part of the same pattern, as is the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is much the United States could do to defuse the problem, and a good place to start would be by removing land-based U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf.
Even Osama bin Laden claims he attacks the United States primarily because of its military presence in the region. Other reasons, he claims, are secondary.
Remember, bin Laden first went to war not against the United States, but against the Soviets in Afghanistan. When he returned to his Saudi Arabia homeland after fighting the Soviets, he found a large — and to him unacceptable — U.S. military presence in the desert kingdom, which remained after evicting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. It was then that the United States became a target.
During the Cold War, one could make a plausible argument for some U.S. involvement overseas to counter the expansionist Soviet superpower. When the Soviet Union collapsed, that rationale disappeared.
Even if the United States believes the global oil market will fail to deliver Persian Gulf oil to U.S. shores without U.S. military forces protecting it (a dubious proposition), the U.S. military could protect our oil lifeline from offshore, without troops stationed in Muslim countries.
The United States has done so before. In 1991, when the George H.W. Bush administration believed U.S. oil supplies were endangered by Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, U.S.-based land and air forces were sent to the Gulf to push Saddam out of Kuwait. After the job was done, those forces should have been brought home. Instead, the United States established a large military footprint in the region, which, in retrospect, was exactly the wrong move.
Now it’s time to get rid of that unneeded land presence, not to increase the ante by talking about permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
Just look at the troubles the United States has caused in Afghanistan. There, the continued U.S. occupation — which has changed its main focus from killing or capturing bin Laden to nation-building, counterinsurgency, and drug interdiction — is fueling a resurgence of the Taliban movement.
Only by minimizing the permanent U.S. military presence in Arab and Islamic lands can we hope to stem anti-U.S. terrorism. The United States should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, inform the Afghans that U.S. forces will return if any Afghan government harbors al Qaeda, and use Special Forces to hunt down al Qaeda’s leadership. This process needs to be repeated in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
This seems to be an almost sophomoric analysis of a complex issue. Taken on its face one would believe just pull the troops and all will be well in the world. Naive at best dangerous at worst.
Consider the attempts to instill Sharia law in Christian countries, bombing of night clubs in Indonesia, killing of Christians, and other atrocities and you come up with an implacible enemy wishing to bring everyone to their stone age beliefs.
Removal of troops makes sense to me as does removal of Muslims from non Muslim countries so that they can all live in solidarity within the confines of their own countries and happily kill each other.
Comment by Mickey G | July 3, 2007
This analysis completely ignores the commandment to wage jihad, which existed long before there was such a country as the United States.
I agree with Mickey G's statement that Muslims should be encouraged to move out of non-Muslim lands as well.
Comment by sedonaman | July 3, 2007
Greetings all. I think Ivan has done a good job pointing out what should be obvious to all. That actions result in certain reactions. It is true here in the USA, and it is also true on the other side of the globe.
I think Ron Paul has done a great job of bringing this idea out into the open during the recent Republican debates. I just hope people will be able to see things from other's perspectives rather than being blinded by self-righteousness.
Comment by freedom360 | July 3, 2007
If you think that these simple solutions will work you have no sense of history. Land ownership is transient. No such thing as Muslim land, or American land, etc. Land is only owned by someone willing to defend it.
The Muslim goal of world domination is missing from your simple article.
Many holes in this swiss cheese of an article.
Frank
Comment by fbaginski | July 3, 2007
Ridiculously uninformed ( or revisionist) as it relates to world history. The Crusades, for example, was the loosely formed union of several Christian nations to stifle advancement of the Ottoman (Muslim) empire. There was no such occupation of "Muslim" land by Christians. The non-Muslims were simply defending the threat to their respective faith and taking back land which had been taken from the them.
Comment by jluc | July 3, 2007
"Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after the 1967 Six Day War and its military interventions in Lebanon triggered similar reactions…"
And both times, Israel's military action was a response to hostilities from Muslims. Israel's military force didn't cause the problem, it was in response to the problem.
If you can't even get a sequence of events right, what can you possibly bring to the discussion that has any relevance?
Comment by WolvenBear | July 3, 2007
Mr. Ivan tips his hand when he states: "and a good place to start would be by removing land-based U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf."
His recognition that moving asside for terrorist who want to establish fundamentalist/radical Islam in the Middle East is just a "start" has one wondering just what phase two, three or four of his appeasement plan involves. And what if moving asside means the overthrow of a nuclear power like Pakistan?
Mr. Ivan should always strive to be young at heart, but young of brain is never recommended in adults, as it leads to childish propositions like, let's make the terrorist happy, or let's make sure the terrorist understand that we accept terrorism as a legitimate, effective means for winning our cooperation.
In short, Mr. Ivan, if you accept terrorism as a legitimate way to achieve political and ideolgical gains, by all means give it what it wants. But if you think terrorism should be discouraged, then you have an obligation to see to that is never succeeds in accomplishing anything of value.
I can hardly wait for your followup article. Will we be encouraged to convert to Islam?
Comment by nick adams | July 3, 2007
Blah blah blah. The U.S. and Israel are responsible for Islamic terrorism. Blah blah blah.
In addition to never having an original thought, it seems Mr. Eland also has to endlessly recycle the same three pre-packaged articles every couple of weeks - the facts be damned! One wonders if he actually believes he is writing something new each time?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | July 4, 2007
WolvenBear makes an interesting observation. A poster on another site wrote:
"There is a very disturbing trend in public schools and universities to study history as points of view, rather than as a series of factual events. An informal poll of local teachers in the Boston area indicates that the overwhelming majority believes that historical perspective is more important than truth."
Comment by sedonaman | July 4, 2007
Nick Adams:
Perhaps Ivan's article was satire.
Comment by sedonaman | July 4, 2007
Sedonaman,
No chance….
He writes one of these "masterpieces" every week, and the link to his "thought tank" provides equally useless thought.
On a world wide scale, this is about as stupid as telling your kid "Well, Jimmy, that mean old bully wouldn't hit you if you handed over your cool toy nicely…"
"Or if you never had a cool toy to begin with…"
Comment by WolvenBear | July 5, 2007
After fleeing the Communists regime in Czechoslovakia through mine fields, barbed wire, and check points with Soviet troops pointing guns at us, my family and I arrived in New York City. At a very early age I picked the Republican Party and have been a conservative ever since.
This comes from the same mentality of the western world in 1937. "If we keep very, very quite, they won't notice and we will be safe".
Neville Chamberlin even offered a whole country as a sacrificial lamb to Hitler and guess what? It didn't quite work out did it? The Skoda works in now Hitler's Czechoslovakia helped build the war machine that conquered Europe and North Africa. Millions of people died in concentration camps, on the battle front, and in police prisons. Millions more lives were traumatized. The world experienced the worst war ever.
This catastrophe need not have happened, had the west paid attention to what Hitler said he would do. That is conquering the world and eradicate all and create the super race. Now there are other lunatics threatening to do the same. We have other enemies helping them with their goals. France and Germany is doing everything to sabotage the fight against terror, because they make money off these maniacs and want their oil. Russia and China are longing to be top players on the world circuit, so they are also hindering our efforts. Then there is North Korea an other nation with a leader that is bent on destroying us.
How in the world can Even Enland ever be taken seriously by any one other than the supreme naive, is beyond imagination.
Comment by Vladimir Val | July 15, 2007
This article proves that idiocy can exist in every political stripe.
The root cause of militancy among Muslims is the very fact that Jews exist, and worse, they exist in Israel. The hatred of the West is really hatred of the U.S.A. for guaranteeing and supporting Israel's continued existence.
Anyway, Mr. Eland's articles go in the same bin as other IC articles that I've read like the one advocated importing all the Jews from Israel and reconstituting the nation in Wyoming, and the one that said we shouldn't try to free ourselves from foreign oil dependency through renewable energy sources because the oil in Alaska would be enough to fulfill our needs, and Doctor Phillip's current article about non-intervention as the answer to the War on Terror.
Regards,
Comment by Julian Cate | July 16, 2007
Jeez Ivan: "There is much the United States could do to defuse the problem, and a good place to start would be by removing land-based U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf".
That won't work.
Jeez Ivan: "Even Osama bin Laden claims he attacks the United States primarily because of its military presence in the region. Other reasons, he claims, are secondary".
I thought they hated "NON MUSLIMS AND WOMEN". It is the farkin oil money that Osama bin Ladass is spending right now. That money came from the ability to protect the investment in Saudi Arabia that they can't even do right now…..75 years after the development began!
Comment by Richard el Guapo | July 23, 2007