U. S. Foreign Policy laid the foundation
for September 11th
By Blake Jones
The terrorists who perpetrated the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon did not strike out at random. They specifically chose to destroy symbols of U. S. military and economic might. In his address to Congress immediately following the September 11th attacks, President George Bush stated that the terrorists hate the U.S. for our freedom. But it is an insult to one’s intelligence when we are told that terrorists hate us solely for who we are, rather than what we do.
While nothing justifies the atrocities committed on September 11th, the roots of the terrorists' motivation is becoming clearer with the passing of time. According to Stephen Shalom & Michael Albert of Z Magazine, in the mid-1970's, the United States briefly supported, then abandoned, a Kurdish rebel movement in Iraq, allowing the Kurds to be massacred by the Iraqi army. In a meeting of the National Security Council, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained at the time, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.” In 1979, six months prior to the Soviet invasion, the United States began supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, including a certain Osama bin Laden.
Shalom and Albert also suggest that the first so-called “War on Terrorism” was declared in the 1980’s. Some of its highlights included the United States supporting both sides in the Iran-Iraq War, even being responsible for shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner, conducting numerous bombings of Libya, supporting the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, indiscriminately shelling Lebanon from the sea, and supporting Saddam Hussein even after he nerve-gassed part of his own nation’s population.
Jumping forward another ten years, Shalom and Albert state that the 1990’s American foreign policy included the targeting of the civilian infrastructure of Iraq during the Gulf War, consistent bombing throughout the ensuing decade, and the imposition of sanctions that have starved millions of Iraqi civilians. In 1998, the United States bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, knocking out half of the medical supply of an incredibly impoverished nation in the midst of a malaria epidemic. And the legacy continues with the flattening of Afghanistan.
It seems plausible, when one reviews the evidence, that these kinds of actions are what can enrage people to the point that they would sacrifice their own lives for the sake of revenge. Under such circumstances, it would seem that our “Bill of Rights” would be the last thing on their minds when they plan their strategies and actions.
According to William Blum’s book Killing Hope, one can learn a great deal about the motivations of U. S. foreign policy in the Middle East by tracing the roots of our current conflict. For example, we are constantly told that Saddam Hussein possesses chemical weapons. Well, where did he get them? According to Blum, he purchased them from the United States in the 1980s. Why did we sell them to him? Because we hoped he would use them against Iran. Why were we hostile towards Iran? Because Iran was ruled by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was bitterly anti-American. Where did Khomeini come from? Well, 25 years of brutal repression at the hands of the Shah of Iran led to the most extreme elements of the population rising and overthrowing him. Where did the Shah come from? The U. S. installed him after his democratically elected predecessor expressed the curious sentiment that the Iranian people should control Iranian oil. That is what foreign policy usually boils down to: Economics. Money.
In order to facilitate easy access to the energy reserves of the Middle East, the United States has consistently supported dictatorships that prevent the population of their country from getting in the way. But, if the dictators themselves get in the way of U.S. oil interests, then we suddenly notice what monsters they are. Thus, when Hussein attacks Iran, we oppose all U.N. attempts to condemn the invasion. But when he attacks the Kuwait oil sheiks, aggression cannot be tolerated. People in the Middle East can see the hypocrisy of these policies, and in most instances they have also suffered under these dictatorships.
Perhaps the most outrageous action of the United States towards Middle Eastern Muslims has been the stationing of U.S. soldiers in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca and Medina and is thus Islam’s holiest land. As Jim Hightower puts it in Hightower Lowdown, “Imagine if a Middle Eastern Army set up shop at the National Cathedral, Bob Jones University, or the Mormon Tabernacle. Multiply that outrage by 1000-fold and you get the anger felt by many Muslims.” It is absolutely no accident that the U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania took place on the eight-year anniversary of the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
Another grievance that is felt throughout the Arab world is the consistent U.S. support of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. When Israeli officers man a helicopter gunship and obliterate a Palestinian neighborhood, the Palestinians and the Arab world at large know who provided the weapons. It should therefore come as no surprise to us that some Palestinians were cheering in the streets on September 11th.
The U.S. sanctions on Iraq have led to the death of millions of innocent people. In an interview with reporter Leslie Stahl on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” May 12, 1996, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright was confronted with the fact that the United States’ support of the sanctions against Iraq has contributed to the death of over half a million children in Iraq since the imposition of the sanctions. Albright was asked by Stahl if such an outcome was worth the U.S. goals in the region. Albright replied that it was a hard choice, but “We think the price is worth it.”
On Al Jazeera television, Middle Easterners constantly see images of starving Iraqi children. Then, they hear a U.S. official dismiss the loss of a half a million of these children with a mere sentence on national TV in the United States. Upon such a basis for the Arab point of view, when Osama bin Laden speaks of all this, it does not seem out of line that he receives tremendous support throughout the Middle East.
Speaking during the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, British foreign correspondent Robert Fisk noted in The Progressive issued December 2001, “These people believe that bin Laden is being targeted not because of the World Trade Center and Washington…They believe he is being targeted because he tells the truth.”
According to William Blum, following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the perpetrators sent a letter to the New York Times, saying, “We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This was done in response to the American political, economical, and military support to Israel -- the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”
The treatment of the prisoners detained in Guantanamo Bay has also aroused widespread criticism. Cited by Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown, in referring to the prisoners being forced to kneel in cages, retired General Bernard Trainor displayed his arrogance when he said, “Well, they like to spend a lot of time on their knees anyway.” What do Middle Easterners think when they hear such comments on Al Jazeera television, which blankets the Middle East? Unfortunately, we already have an idea.
For instance, as reported by the Associated Press on January 30 of this year, a group of Pakistani militants announced they had kidnapped Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl, stating that they would kill him if conditions did not change for the prisoners in Cuba. When the Wall Street Journal pleaded with the group, saying that Mr. Pearl had a family, the terrorists replied, “We hope that Mr. Danny’s family will be grateful for the food packets that we send them, just as the American public expected the Afghans to be grateful for the food packets that the Air Force was dropping on them.”
Normon Solomon captured the perspective we need to put today’s world into proper context: “When terrorists attack, they’re terrorizing. When we attack, we’re retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they are terrorizing again. When we respond with further attacks, we are retaliating again.”
This game of terrorist ping-pong can only yield more anger and destruction on both sides. The only rational conclusion one can make is that if U.S. foreign policy does not undergo a massive change, the September11th attacks will not be a unique event in American history.
###
Copyright © 2002 by Blake Jones. All rights reserved.
The Magazine’s writers welcome your feedback. Please be sure to reference the specific article in your response.
Return to top Return to Issue Four contents Return to Main Page