21 September 2016
By Jacob G. Hornberger
It's becoming a familiar story. More U.S. killings in the Middle East,
followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, followed by more U.S.
killings in the Middle East, which then engenders more terrorist blowback,
followed by more U.S. killings in the Middle East.
As I have pointed out time and time again, as long as U.S. troops and the CIA
are killing people in the Middle East, there will be terrorist retaliation
against Americans, including right here in the United States. It's just a fact
of life, much like thunder follows lightning.
It's been like that ever since the end of the Cold War, when the U.S.
national-security establishment, having lost its longtime Cold War enemy, the
Soviet Union, went into the Middle East with its foreign policy of
interventionism, which included killing countless people, including hundreds
of thousands of (innocent) children in Iraq and many people of Muslim faith.
The result was not difficult to predict, at least for anyone who looked upon
what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing with a critical eye. When a
government goes abroad and kills people, especially large numbers of
(innocent) children, retaliation becomes a very distinct possibility.
The most recent example of this phenomenon is, of course, the bombings in New
York City and New Jersey, which left 31 people injured. When the man who has
been accused of the crime, 28-year-old Ahmad Khan Rahami, was shot and
captured, police found a notebook on him, which, according to the New York
Times, contained ''screeds against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.''
No surprise there. U.S. foreign interventionism in the Middle East has been
the motivating factor for every act of anti-American terrorism since 1993,
when terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center.
Of course, It doesn't have to be that way. As I have long pointed out, there
is another option: Bring all U.S. troops home from the Middle East
immediately. Don't let them kill one more person.
They have already killed enough people in Iraq, a country that never attacked
the United States.
They have already killed enough people in Afghanistan, a country that never
attacked the United States.
They have already killed enough people in Syria, a country that never attacked
the United States.
They have already killed enough people in Libya, a country that has never
attacked the United States.
And don't forget: They killed all those people without the congressional
declaration of war that the U.S. Constitution requires, which means that every
single of those killings was illegal — a criminal act — under our form of
constitutional government.
When is enough enough? How many people in the Middle East must the U.S.
government kill before the American people say, ''That's it. No more. Bring
them home now''?
Or another way to put it is, ''How many Americans must be wounded or killed in
anti-American terrorist blowback before the American people say, ''That's it.
No more. Bring them home now''?
According to the Pew research organization, 52 percent of the American people
now believe that the U.S. government should stop meddling in the problems of
other countries and should leave it to those countries to figure out solutions
to their problems. (See the extremely insightful op-ed by Texas A&M professor
Elizabeth Cobbs entitled ''For U.S. Foreign Policy, It's Time to Look Again to
the Founders ''Great Rule,'' which appeared in a recent issue of the Los
Angeles Times.)
52% is a remarkable number. A large number of Americans are obviously getting
the point.
Ordinarily, you would expect to see that statistic reflected in Congress,
which consists of people who have been elected by the voters.
And yet you see very little support in Congress for bringing the troops home
from the Middle East. The obsession continues to be with ISIS. If ISIS isn't
stopped, they say, it will take over Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the Middle
East, which will cause dominoes all over the world to start falling, with the
Muslim extremists finally conquering the United States, taking over the
federal government, and running the IRS, Social Security, and the Interstate
Highway System.
In other words, just like the national-security establishment used to say
about the communists if U.S. troops and CIA operatives were ever to stop
killing people in Vietnam during the Cold War.
Why is Congress so pro-interventionist? Because it's controlled by the
national-security branch of the federal government. It's that simple. Many
members of Congress have made themselves self-designated assets of the
Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Others are scared to death of losing military
largess in their district and, consequently, of being accused of being
ineffective congressmen. Most members of Congress are ever-ready to do
whatever the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA expect them to do. They consider it an act
of patriotism, much as journalists did who were serving as CIA assets during
the era of Operation Mockingbird.
And one thing that is expected of the members of Congress is to continue
supporting U.S. interventionism in the Middle East. Under no circumstances can
the U.S. killing of people in the Middle East be permitted to stop.
The reason is simple: The national-security branch knows that if the troops
were to be brought home today, anti-American terrorism would evaporate.
What would that mean? It would mean no more ''war on terrorism.'' After all,
if there is no more anti-American terrorism, then why do we need a ''war on
terrorism''? Why do we need a PATRIOT Act, an assassination program, Gitmo,
secret surveillance schemes, indefinite detention, and perpetual state of
emergency?
Indeed, Americans might even begin asking a much more fundamental question:
Why do we need a Cold War-era totalitarian-like apparatus known as the
''national security establishment'' or, as President Eisenhower referred to
it, the ''military-industrial complex,'' or as Ike initially planned to call
it, ''the military-industrial-congressional complex''?
The Pentagon, CIA, and NSA know full well that crises, emergencies, and fear
are absolutely necessary for them to retain their overwhelming power within
the federal governmental structure. They know that foreign interventionism —
whether in the Middle East or against Russia, China, or Korea — is an
absolutely necessary component of retaining that power.
The interesting question that arises, of course, is: What happens if that 52
percent number continues rising, to say 60 or 70 percent? What happens if the
vast majority of Americans say, ''Enough is enough. Bring the troops home now.
No more killing'' and the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA say, ''Nope. The troops are
going to stay right where they are and continue killing people''? Then what?
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in
economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the
University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He
also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught
law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become
director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has
advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the
country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and
he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show
Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full
Context.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments