[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed: Could Sept. 11 Have Been Prevented?

[The Ayn Rand Institute]

Dear Editor, 

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute. 

DON'T BLAME OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES--BLAME OUR UNPRINCIPLED FOREIGN POLICY

Sept. 11 could have been prevented only by having a principled foreign
policy.

By Onkar Ghate

The 900-page Congressional report criticizing the operations of the
FBI and CIA in the months prior to the September 11 attacks misses the
fundamental point. Whatever incompetence on the intelligence agencies'
part, what made September 11 possible was a failure, not by our
intelligence agencies--but by the accommodating, range-of-the-moment,
unprincipled foreign policy that has shaped our government's decisions
for decades. 

September 11 was not the first time America was attacked by Islamic
fundamentalists engaged in "holy war" against us. In 1979 theocratic
Iran--which has spearheaded the "Islamic Revolution"--stormed the U.S.
embassy in Tehran and held 54 Americans hostage for over a year. In
1983 the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group Hezbollah bombed a U.S.
marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 241 servicemen while they slept;
the explosives came from Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. In 1998
al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224
individuals. In 2000 al-Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17
sailors.

So we already knew that al-Qaeda was actively engaged in attacking
Americans. We even had evidence that agents connected to al-Qaeda had
been responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And
we knew in 1996 that bin Laden had made an overt declaration of war
against the "Satan" America. 

But how did America react? Did our government adopt a principled
approach and identify the fact that we were faced with a deadly threat
from an ideological foe? Did we launch systematic counterattacks to
wipe out such enemy organizations as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Fatah?
Did we seek to eliminate enemy states like Iran? No--our responses
were short-sighted and self-contradictory. 

For instance, we initially expelled Iranian diplomats--but later
sought an appeasing rapprochement with that ayatollah-led government.
We intermittently cut off trade with Iran--but secretly negotiated
weapons-for-hostages deals. When Israel had the courage to enter
Lebanon in 1982 to destroy the PLO, we refused to uncompromisingly
support our ally and instead brokered the killers' release. And with
respect to al-Qaeda, we dropped a perfunctory bomb or two on one of
its suspected camps, while our compliant diplomats waited for
al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks to fade from the headlines.

At home, we treated our attackers as if they were isolated criminals
rather than soldiers engaged in battle against us. In 1941 we did not
attempt to indict the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor--we
declared war on the source. Yet we spent millions trying to indict
specific terrorists--while we ignored their masters.

Despite emphatic pronouncements from Islamic leaders about a "jihad"
against America, our political leaders failed to grasp the ideology
that seeks our destruction. This left them unable to target that
enemy's armed combatants--in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi
Arabia--and the governments that assist them. Is it any wonder then
that, although our intelligence agencies prevented many planned
attacks, they could not prevent them all?

Unfortunately, little has changed since September 11. Our politicians'
actions remain hopelessly unprincipled. Despite the Bush
administration's rhetoric about ending states that sponsor terrorism,
President Bush has left the most dangerous of these--Iran--untouched.
The attack on Iraq, though justifiable, was hardly a priority in our
war against militant Islam and the countries (principally Saudi Arabia
and Iran) that promote it. Moreover, when Bush does strike at militant
Islam, he does so only haltingly. Morally unsure of his right to
protect American lives by wiping out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, Bush
feared in Afghanistan world disapproval over civilian casualties.
Consequently, he reined in the military forces (as he also did in
Iraq) and allowed numerous Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters to escape.
And Bush continues to allow their comrades-in-arms in the Mideast to
go unharmed. He pretends that the Palestinians and Islamic militants
attacking Israel--and who have attacked Americans in the past and will
try again in the future--are, somehow, different from the killers in
Afghanistan and deserving of a "peace" plan.

Instead of taking consistent, principled action to destroy our
terrorist adversaries, politicians from both parties continue to focus
on details like reshuffling government bureaucracies and haggling over
how much criticism of Saudi Arabia the 900-page Congressional report
can contain. Thus, too unprincipled to identify the enemy and wage
all-out war, but not yet completely blind to their own
ineffectualness, our leaders resignedly admit that we're in for a
"long war" and that there will be more terrorists attacks on U.S.
soil.

There is only one way to prevent a future September 11: by rooting out
the amoral, pragmatic expediency that now dominates our government's
foreign policy.
_______________________________________________________________________

Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand
Institute (www.aynrand.org). The Institute
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The
Fountainhead. Send comments to reaction at aynrand.org

Copyright © 2003 Ayn Rand® Institute

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to
media at aynrand.org with your publication's
name and the expected date of publication.

Thank you,

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute 
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: davidh at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit
reply and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.