Defending other nations: the risk to America's homeland

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Sept, 1998 by Ivan Eland

Intervening in foreign countries' affairs could trigger terrorist attacks within the U.S. similar to the August bombings of American embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Several government reports have emphasized the need for increased national attention to the defense of the American homeland. That mission has not been prominent since the 1950s, but the proliferation of technology for creating weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, or nuclear--has reawakened interest in protecting the homeland.

According to a study completed for the Department of Defense, historical data show a strong correlation between American involvement in international situations and terrorist attacks against the U.S. Once regarded as pinpricks by great powers, attacks by terrorist groups could be catastrophic for the American homeland. Terrorists can obtain the technology for weapons of mass destruction and will have fewer qualms about using them to cause massive casualties. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Deborah Lee maintains that such events are almost certain to occur. It will be extremely difficult to deter, prevent, detect, or mitigate such actions.

As a result, there has been a dramatic change in the strategic environment for the U.S. Even the weakest terrorist group can cause massive destruction in the homeland of a superpower. Yet, the U.S. continues to threaten to intervene or actually intervene militarily in foreign conflicts all over the globe that are irrelevant to American vital interests--for example, in the ongoing crisis with Iraq over weapons inspections. Such an interventionist foreign policy provokes hostility from certain factions or groups within the affected countries.

To satisfy what should be the first priority of any security policy--protecting the homeland and its people--the U.S. should adopt a policy of military restraint. That would entail intervening only as a last resort when truly vital interests are at stake. To paraphrase Anthony Zinni, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, the U.S. should avoid making enemies, but should not be kind to those that arise.

According to a statement made by Secretary of Defense William Cohen in the Department of Defense's November, 1997, report, Proliferation: Threat and Response: "With advanced technology and a smaller world of porous borders, the ability to unleash mass sickness, death, and destruction today has reached a far greater order of magnitude. A lone madman or nest of fanatics with a bottle of chemicals, a batch of plague inducing bacteria, or a crude nuclear bomb can threaten or kill tens of thousands of people in a single act of malevolence.

"These are not far-off or far-fetched scenarios. They are real--here and now. Weapons of mass destruction already have spread into new hands. As the new millennium approaches, the United States faces a heightened prospect that regional aggressors, third-rate armies, terrorist cells, and even religious cults will wield disproportionate power by using--or even threatening to use--nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons against our troops in the field and our people at home.

"America's military superiority cannot shield us completely from this threat. Indeed, a paradox of the new strategic environment is that American military superiority actually increases the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical attack against us by creating incentives for adversaries to challenge us asymmetrically. These weapons may be used as tools of terrorism against the American people."

Although the U.S.'s military superiority contributes to the increased likelihood of a terrorist attack by nuclear, biological, or chemical means, it is the interventionist foreign policy that the military power carries out that is the real culprit. That point was acknowledged by the Defense Science Board study for Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Jacques S. Gansler, DoD's Responses to Transnational Threats: "As part of its global superpower position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international causes and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."

Lee put it even more strongly: "Counterterrorism specialists define the problem not as a question of if, but of when and where such attacks will take place." Biological and chemical weapons can be produced easily and inexpensively employing commercially available raw materials and technologies in comparatively small facilities used for developing mundane commercial products. There are many such facilities capable of making chemical and biological weapons in the world. Nuclear material is harder to get than biological or chemical precursors, but it is becoming more available because of the deteriorating conditions in the nations of the former Soviet Union.