Consequences of an interventionist foreign policy
Sept. 19, 2012 at 4:19 a.m.
The attack on the United States consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. Ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, either by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or by bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback.
Unfortunately, what we saw in Libya last week is nothing new.
In 1980s Afghanistan, the U.S. supported Islamic radicals in their efforts to expel the invading Soviet military. These radicals became what is known to be al-Qaeda, which turned on us most spectacularly on Sept. 11, 2001.
Iraq did not have a significant al Qaeda presence before the 2003 U.S. invasion, but our occupation of that country and attempt to remake it in our image caused a massive reaction that opened the door to al Qaeda, lead to the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers, a country destroyed and instability that shows no sign of diminishing.
In Libya we worked with, among others, the rebel Libyan Fighting Group, which included foreign elements of al-Qaeda. It has been pointed out that the al-Qaeda affiliated radicals we fought in Iraq were some of the same groups we worked with to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya. Last year, in a television interview, I predicted that the result of North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing of Libya would likely be an increased al-Qaeda presence in the country. I said at the time that we may be delivering al-Qaeda another prize.
Not long after NATO overthrew Gaddafi, the al Qaeda flag was flown over the courthouse in Benghazi. Should we be surprised, then, that less than a year later there would be an attack on our consulate in Benghazi? We have been told for at least the past 11 years that these people are the enemy who seeks to do us harm.
There is danger in the belief we can remake the world by bribing some countries and bombing others. But that is precisely what the interventionists - be they liberal or conservative - seem to believe. When the world does not conform to their image, they seem genuinely shocked. The secretary of state's reaction to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was one of confusion. "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction," she asked.
The problem is that we do not know and we cannot know enough about these societies we are seeking to remake. We never try to see through the eyes of those we seek to liberate. Libya is in utter chaos, the infrastructure has been bombed to rubble, the economy has ceased to exist, gangs and militias rule by brutal force, the government is seen as a completely illegitimate and powerless U.S. Puppet. How could anyone be shocked that the Libyans do not see our bombing their country as saving it from destruction?
Currently, the U.S. is actively supporting rebels in Syria that even our CIA tells us are affiliated with al Qaeda. Many of these radical Islamist fighters in Syria were not long ago fighting in Libya. We must learn from these mistakes and immediately cease all support for the Syrian rebels, lest history once again repeat itself. We are literally backing the same people in Syria that we are fighting in Afghanistan and that have just killed our ambassador in Libya.
We must finally abandon the interventionist impulse before it is too late.