DATE=10/7/1999
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=TERRORISM AGAINST THE U-S
NUMBER=5-44444
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: Terrorism, especially involving weapons of
mass destruction, is the greatest danger facing the
United States in the opinion of many analysts. The
nation is more vulnerable than ever to fanatics
determined to strike the only remaining super-power.
Is terrorism a response to U.S. intervention around
the world? V-O-A's Ed Warner reports that at least
one Washington scholar thinks so.
TEXT: Old habits die hard, says Ivan Eland, Director
of Defense Policy Studies at Washington's Cato
Institute. During the Cold War, the United States felt
compelled to react to Soviet provocations just about
anywhere in the world. There was a concrete target
for U.S. military intervention.
Now that enemy is gone, says Mr. Eland, but the United
States continues to intervene. The reasons are varied
and often obscure, but he believes it is a futile and
endless effort to combat instability.
/// ELAND ACT ///
The total world environment has shifted, but we
are still seeing that we need to be anywhere
because instability will sweep the world if we
do not respond to the slightest problem in the
most remote part of the world. There has been
instability in the world for centuries, and
there is going to continue to be, and most of it
does not really affect the security of the
United States.
/// END ACT ///
Mr. Eland says chronic intervention results in
resentment and occasional terrorism against the United
States. In a report for the Cato Institute, he writes
that about 40 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide
have been directed against U-S targets - this at a
time when the country has friendly neighbors and no
ostensible enemies.
Mr. Eland says most of the conflicts since the end of
the Cold War have been within nations, in which the
United States has chosen to intervene on one side or
the other, often under murky conditions. He lists
over 50 terrorist attacks in reaction to this kind of
U-S intervention.
In Mr. Eland's view, the United States must be much
more prudent in its use of its military overseas if it
wants to avoid terrorism. It should delegate policing
chores to other regional powers and stick to defending
its own vital national interests.
Neil Livingstone has written books on terrorism and is
chairman of Global Options, a crisis management and
security company in Washington. He agrees there have
been unwise U-S interventions that could encourage
terrorism. But he says the country has international
obligations and cannot always avoid the line of fire.
That goes with superpower status.
In Mr. Livingstone's opinion, there may be no rational
explanation for some terrorist acts. They can emerge
from rage or despair unrelated to any particular
cause:
/// LIVINGSTONE ACT ///
There will always be people that are beyond the
pale of society, people that you cannot reason
with, people you cannot find a legitimate
compromise with. Those people are haters with
absolute passion, and it would be morally wrong
to compromise with them.
/// END ACT ///
Mr. Livingstone says U-S intervention should be more
creative and try to solve problems before military
force is required. (Signed)
NEB/EW/TVM/gm
07-Oct-1999 20:09 PM EDT (08-Oct-1999 0009 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
