Is Ron Paul Right: Did Al Qaeda Attack Us Because of Our Policies?

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, academics, politicians and opinion-makers have waged a fierce debate. The debate has been over whether or not U.S. foreign policy has contributed, caused or in someway been responsible for terrorism against the United States and her allies. Some on the far right or far left even say there is no debate as the other extreme is not in touch with reality. Debate and dialogue are good since no one person, group or perspective has all the answers.

At almost every Republican Presidential debate, candidate and U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) says that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our policies. Candidate and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) completely disagrees (he offers a meaningless explanation as to why we were attacked that is the polar opposite of Ron Paul's.) Who is right?

Let me say up front, if U.S. policies are the 'cause' of terrorism, since we have a lot of policies, we would have a lot more terrorism. Actual terrorists and terrorist acts are rare -- but people who hate the U.S. are everywhere.

Our policies are often the cause of resentment in the Middle East towards the United States, but our policies are not the cause of terrorism.

Our Policies

A lot of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East from the end of WWII to 1991 was the result of Soviet containment. Since the dissolution of the USSR, U.S. policy has sought to maintain inexpensive oil. There is nothing wrong with either broad goal. However, some policies that the U.S. has embraced, which have resulted in resentment among the people of the Middle East, include but are not limited to:

• 1948 -- The U.S. recognized the State of Israel, which was considered anti-Muslim
• 1953 -- U.S. coup in Iran removed a democratically elected leader and installed a leader who then oppressed the people of that country until 1979
• 1967 -- The U.S. supported Israel's actions in the Six Day War, which was considered anti-Muslim
• 1973 -- The U.S. provided material support to Israel in what might have been an Arab victory
• 1980-2011 -- The U.S. supported Egyptian President Mubarak, a dictator
• 1982 -- The U.S. gets involved with a civil war in Lebanon, which was considered anti-Muslim
• 1990 -- The U.S. stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which was anti-Islam in the eyes of many
• 1993 -- The U.S. stationed troops in Somalia, which was considered anti-Muslim
• The 1990s -- U.S. sponsored sanctions on Iraq are said to cause the starvation of Iraqi children
• 2003 -- The U.S. war on Iraq based on no evidence (there was no evidence; it was only speculation of WMDs and group think)
• 1931-present -- The U.S. recognizes and supports the Saudi Monarchy, which is considered by Islamists to be weak or even non-faithful Muslims

There have been unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East through the experience of those who resent the United States, through the eyes of those who commit terrorism against the United States, and through policy analysis of unintended consequences. This premise does not mean that it agrees with the rationales of those who commit terrorism, but that there are stated reasons offered by people of the Middle East region as to why U.S. policy is resented.

Making good policy decisions is difficult. But there are always third alternatives to pursue that can lead to less resentment.

Know Thy Self (And Know Thy Enemy)

The Army conducts after action reviews. Doctors try to avoid iatrogenic artifacts. The CIA tries to avoid blowback. Social scientists (sociologists, economists, psychologists) try to avoid unintended consequences. Self reflection is not about accepting whether grievances are legitimate or not. This is not about a decision to appease terrorists or not. What we must examine is our enemy in Toto, including what they say about us; knowing all aspects of thy enemy is a good thing. But more importantly, we must not fail to examine ourselves; knowing thy self is a good thing. Nations don't grow resting on laurels; they strive to be better tomorrow than they were yesterday.

This notion that we examine our enemy and ourselves does not mean that the terrorists are right and we are wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is done in the spirit of being thorough. When working with complex foreign cultures, everything must be on the table, including self reflection.

If for a moment we consider that we have to win the hearts and minds of the people in the region, we can not embark on policies that push the people of the region away from us. For example, the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a reason for much resentment towards the U.S.; U.S. policy in Israel, another reason for much resentment; and the perceived U.S. influence in Iraqi elections.

If the U.S. is to have a good reputation in the Middle East, which is important to getting the support we need to stop terrorism, we have to be mindful of the way the U.S. is perceived in the region. We can't be received well if we are not perceived well.

Ron Paul takes his argument too far. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East didn't cause 9/11, and it won't cause terrorism in the future. Right or wrong -- policies can only cause resentment. That which causes terrorism is something entirely different and not the point of this article.

Paul Heroux lived and worked in Saudi Arabia in 2003, has a Master's in International Relations from the LSE, and is a Master's graduate of the Harvard University JFK School of Government. This article is adapted from his fourth coming book "The Aftermath of Intention: Power, Politics and the Legacy of America's Wishful Thinking in the Middle East". He can be reached at [e-mail].

 

Comments

[Djud3n]

12:09 PM on 10/06/2011

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/05/140947193/terrorists-in-love-the-psychology-of-extremism

[Audrey Burns]

05:26 PM on 09/20/2011

Sorry, but, is this really a question that needs asking?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

If this is indeed the explanation behind the September 11th attack, then Dr. Paul is spot on.

[jmunjr]

03:05 AM on 09/19/2011

You're misquoting him. He doesn't say that intervention caused the attacks by itself, but it helped motivate them. There is a big difference. Sure, if all of our policies resulted in attacks it would happen a lot, but in the case of 9/11 we were dealing with some pretty pissed off people already who are certainly less rational than than average. Are those the kinds of people you want to piss off if it isn't necessary? No they aren't. Because we never took a threat from the fundamentalists seriously enough we felt it was ok to meddle in the affairs of nations in the Middle East. Well, there were consequences of that.

I and many others have no doubts had we not been meddling int he Middle East 9/11 would not have happened. Period.

[spyker1]

09:32 PM on 09/18/2011

Of course he is. If someone came to your house punched you in the mouth are you just going to lay down and take it?

[bob denver]

05:00 AM on 09/18/2011

"Making good policy decisions is difficult. ...third alternatives...."

Yep, difficult when you're policing and empiring the world. Thank the good Lord for those "third alternatives."

"Know Thy Self (And Know Thy Enemy)"

aka empire pseudo-heady, hocus-pocus, distraction malarkey....

"We can't be received well if we are not perceived well."

But hey, if we are not perceived well...that still will not provoke an act of terrorism. We just will not be received well. No way, no how...because, "that which causes terrorism is something entirely different and not the point of this article."

Um...er...okay. Good try, but maybe another attempt. Try consulting Rumsfeld...he's good at spinning empire propaganda.

[bob denver]

05:00 AM on 09/18/2011

"Ron Paul takes his argument too far. U.S. foreign policy...didn't cause 9/11, and it won't cause terrorism...."

Thanks for the assurances Heroux.

"Right or wrong -- policies can only cause resentment."

Glad to know policies only cause resentment. Whew. Hey, they hate us for our freedom.... Right? That's why we were attacked.

"Let me say up front, if U.S. policies are the 'cause' of terrorism, since we have a lot of policies, we would have a lot more terrorism."

What? Not with Napolitano's groping...we're safe and "a lot more" terrorism has been deflected. Heroux, you did not consider the Napolitano factor.

"This premise does not mean that it agrees with the rationales of those who commit terrorism, but that there are stated reasons offered by people of the Middle East region as to why U.S. policy is resented."

Isn't this what Ron Paul said?

[Louis Nardozi]

05:07 PM on 09/17/2011

Hey, I'd just love it if you could take just a minute and click on the link below, it's where the links from the following text resolve:

http://smartdatacollective.com/timoelliott/40109/analytics-terrorism

Last year, more Americans died from dog bites and lightning strikes than terrorism. You are also generally more likely to get killed by bathtubs, vending machines, and beestings than by terrorism. For the lifetime odds of dying from various causes, see this handy chart.

To put my opinion in a better perspective, I suggest you consider the public response had the government announced the "War On Bees". After all, as more people died from beestings than from terrorism, it only makes sense that the "War On Bees" should command a commensurately larger expenditure of public funds, say maybe 2 trillion a year. Then of course, given the higher percentage killed, we should launch a 50 trillion dollar "War On Cars".
Wait a minute, stop laughing! I'm SERIOUS. I know you say a certain amount of death is inevitable and that it's the human condition. That's not the point. The POINT is that we can't get elected unless we DO SOMETHING. And the something we're electing to do is place you all in a state of eternal fear where you will never wish to be released from the comforting chains of serfdom.

Vote Vertebrate - Ron Paul 2012!

[Monte924]

09:12 PM on 09/16/2011

Resentment
a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury

So are you saying that feelings of displeasure and persistent ill will can not lead to terrorism? No, Terrorism is the natural extreme of resentment. And the more those actions continue the more resentful a person gets and the more hatred that builds up; All you need is for people to get hateful and desperate enough to resort to violence to see the cause of their resentment come to an end. I would also add for those that are resentful but don't resort to terrorism and in turn the ones first to sympathize for them or support them thus aiding in their strength and influence.

And I would not call it resentment... Our policies has lead to oppression and the deaths of countless Muslims both directly and indirectly.. You think constant attempts to control the region, interfering with their lives for OUR own benefit, and the deaths of civilians is going lead local arabs to having nothing more than "resentment"... resentment is quite the understatement for what we have put them through with our foreign policies.

[dan webster]

01:28 PM on 09/16/2011

What an extraordinary rendition of BS! Heroux concludes his sophistry with the same straw man argument Santorum uses. To phrase it more delicately in Herouxian terms, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East caused people there to resent us. So could it be the more extreme among them could express their resentment by violence? But "that's not the point of the article". Talk about splitting hairs! Let's do a statistical study, and correlate acts of American state violence with acts of retaliatory violence. We will accept correlations of 0.8 or greater. (1.0 is perfect) Until the study is complete, I will be guided by my own common sense and follow the precept "violence begets violence". I didn't need Ron Paul to tell me that, but he's the only one guided by common sense.

[Buddy Bristol]

09:34 AM on 09/16/2011

"Ron Paul takes his argument too far. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East didn't cause 9/11, and it won't cause terrorism in the future. Right or wrong -- policies can only cause resentment. That which causes terrorism is something entirely different and not the point of this article."

Well then I guess that settles it huh? Thanks for making all that experience in Congress, hearings, recognition of human nature and common sense analysis as well as CIA documents and records of prior BLOWBACK against the US disappear, I mean who really believes all that real sense stuff anyways?

Never mind you are a Harvard grad who probably buys into all that you were taught as if it is all beyond reproach and/or contestation - sad to say all a College Degree today means is you were foolish enough to sit through and test out of the books they force fed you - doesn't make you smart or wise in fact it most often destroys your intelligence and makes you less likely to be able to grasp reality.

Ron Paul is a candidate for Americans who are willing to accept the truth and live by the consequences of solutions that might cause some pain, but most importantly they are hungry for the truth and seek it out outside of the mainstream media presstitutes.

Learn your History Americans - before they write you out of the future of it.

That is all. Vote for Ron Paul!!!

[Blaine Knapp]

04:37 AM on 09/16/2011

Our foreign policy certainly does cause blowback. You can't go around the world kicking people in the mouth and expect them to lie in the fetal position forever.

[Michael DeHaven]

02:38 AM on 09/16/2011

There could be any number of reasons why we were attacked, and each one could have had a link to the terrorists. Could part of it have been America's foreign policies. Yes. We will never forget September 11th, however we should also never forget the other terrorist attacks that have continued to plague the American people, troops, embassies. We have made it our policy to invade countries controlling the flow of oil no matter what the cost. We have made it our policy to institute and support dictators, tyrants, and murderers when it benefits us. It is these policies that have cause us to lose respect. He have lost what made America great. We have lost our freedom. Only One man stands to regain the ground we have lost and preserve the America of future. Ron Paul 2012.

[garlicsmasher]

01:43 AM on 09/16/2011

I was going to right A thoughtfull comment on the obsurdity of the perspective that realizes that our policies piss people off to the foundations of there souls and then disquaifies them from humanity because they dont react in a politically correct manner. but it seems like everyone hear has done a pretty good job of exposing mr. Hearouxes idiocy. but maybe it was just a deadline thing and he had to come up with some dribble or not get paid after all dissing ron paul seems to be the safe bet nowadays, hey and with Perry and his new 50 million dollar war chest maybe there is some money in it.

[bamafanmco]

01:09 AM on 09/16/2011

"Policies can only cause resentment, not terrorism"? Alternatively what is your explanation for what causes terrorism? I read the same article you researched and wrote, yet came away with the opposite conclusion. It seems to me our policies, which you seem to list without indicating the massive number of deaths associated with these policies, would be a prime motivation for acts of violence against this country. Our policies aren't just anti-Muslim, the Japanese policy at Pearl Harbor wasn't just anti-Christian. Sometimes government policy is just anti-human life, and that will motivate almost any human to seek retribution.

[BrianThornton1]

12:18 AM on 09/16/2011

Yeah, you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you show how our policies cause resentment, then seem to suggest that there's no link between this resentment and terrorism.