Last week, the American public was reminded of the destruction that religious fundamentalism poses to the Western world.
As attacks and protests spread throughout the Middle East, everyone will ask how the U.S. will respond. Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy for most of the 21st century and actions taken by the current administration point to more of the same: more military aid, more war and more military presence all over the globe.
The Middle East’s disdain for America is an obvious threat to our national security. Under the guise of security and good will, the U.S. government is the major culprit in cultivating the anti-American mentality.
While elected democrats say they want to stop military involvement around the world, they don't miss a chance to vote for more military aid and support to Middle Eastern countries. Republicans will cling onto rhetoric that attempts to reinforce national security with phrases like, “They hate us because we are free!” Unfortunately, these political actions make us less free and less secure.
In political philosophy, the term “blowback” refers to unintended consequences of political action with respect to foreign policy. It is sad to say that the U.S. has begun to see blowback on actions they took decades ago.
A good example of blowback was the Iranian coup d'etat in 1953, in which the U.S. and U.K. collaborated efforts to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister to secure oil interests. This was the direct cause for the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in 1979 and the rough diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran.
Arguably, U.S. military aid and support for the Taliban during the cold war was thought to be a good strategic move, but after the Soviet Union’s defeat, a new threat began: a strong Islamic fundamentalist organization.
These are just two examples of unintended consequences due to U.S. involvement around the globe.
The recent protests across the Middle East are the newest examples of this type of blowback. It is no secret that U.S. foreign policy has consistently advocated for more involvement in countries like Libya and Egypt, giving billions of dollars in taxpayer money and helping dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi.
It is clear that neither of the two presidential candidates is willing to give up on military involvement. The foreign aid that is meant to help the poor or build productive relationships with people in other countries often fall into the wrong hands and the U.S.’s efforts becomes counter productive.
What we need is friendly relationships tied with trade — not war. With regards to foreign policy Thomas Jefferson once said, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations … entangling alliances with none.” Entangling alliances by getting ourselves into debt or by providing military support to other countries is always detrimental because it wastes our own resources.
Trade has the exact opposite effect. The exchange that comes from trade is beneficial to both parties. Lifting taxes from businesses in countries is profitable for the U.S. and its alliances and decreases the likelihood of war.
Reach the columnist calfaro2@asu.edu or follow the columnist at @AlfaroAmericano
