STORIES

In the News

Information Technology

Calendar of Events

Achievements

Exhibitions

Credits

Archives

Roots of Terrorism: The history of American foreign policy

The political, military, and rhetorical responses to the Sept. 11 attacks reflect the history of American foreign policy, a policy conducted to support specific economic, political, or military interests. This was the central theme of the third Roots of Terrorism forum, “Foreign Policy,” explored by Beau Grosscup, Political Science; Jeff Livingston, History; and Bill Stewart, Political Science.

Grosscup discussed the rhetorical nature of the war on terrorism—a rhetoric that divides the world into good and evil. This view of the world defines terrorism as an evil perpetuated by others who understand only force.

This view of terrorism is problematic, said Grosscup, for not only is there “a tremendous amount of evidence to demonstrate that the United States has consistently involved itself in the use of terrorism,” but the United States often has allies, such as the Northern Alliance, who are themselves terrorists. Grosscup emphasized that this imagery of terrorism allows the administration to sustain wars that the American people would not otherwise support. He believes the current war is driven by three forces: revenge for the events of Sept. 11, U.S. geopolitical interests in filling the power vacuum left in Central Asia by the demise of the Soviet Union, and the gas and oil industry’s interest in building a pipeline through Afghanistan. “This war on terrorism is really being used as a cover for long-established, well-laid, well-placed plans by the U.S. security establishment,” he concluded.

Livingston was struck by the similarity of the response to Sept. 11 and the response to the alleged shelling of U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf in August 1964. When President Johnson went to Congress with this fabricated news, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which gave Johnson the power to wage war without Congress having declared war.

Livingston noted the very similar resolution Bush requested and got in the wake of Sept. 11. Section 2 authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, organized, or committed terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11 or harbor such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” Livingston asked: “What is ‘all necessary and appropriate force’? … Who exactly is the enemy? Who exactly are we going after? … How do we know when we have won the war on terrorism?” He believes these are questions we need to ask our leaders, but “I don’t think they’ve been very forthcoming with answers to those particular questions.”

Stewart observed that television news tells of America’s actions under the label “America Strikes Back,” but America doesn’t do anything; identifiable members of the political, military, and economic elite make decisions. “These are not faceless people,” Stewart said. “You are not one of them. Most people here have never killed anybody. Most people here have not been involved with American foreign policy.”

The Bush administration says, “They hate us for who we are, not for anything we’ve done,” yet the history of U.S. policy runs from the early days of genocide through the neocolonialism of the 20th century that supported the supply of cheap labor for the business elite in the United States, Stewart said. Under this system, the United States supported or set up client militaries and governments, such as the aid to Colombia as part of a war on drugs. Stewart believes this aid is “an extension of our war against anyone who would do much of anything against the businessmen, the political leaders, or the military leaders of the United States.”

The belief that we are hated for who we are serves the interests of the economic, political, and military elite, according to Stewart, because it
discourages critical examination of U.S. history. “It’s a very comforting message, but it’s not one you want to spend much time believing,” Stewart concluded.

Barbara Alderson