Does U.S. foreign policy cause terrorism?
Kori Schake isn't impressed with Robert Pape's research that shows that suicide terrorism is closely tied to the presence of foreign military forces:
To say that attacks occur where U.S. forces are deployed is to say no more than Willy Sutton, who robbed banks because "that's where the money is." Pape's approach ignores the context in which deployment and stationing of U.S. forces occurs. We send troops to advance our interests, protect our allies, and contest the political and geographic space that groups like al Qaeda and the Taliban are operating in. Of course the attacks will stop if we cede those political objectives. But the troops are not the point, the political objectives are the point.
Nowhere does this analysis grapple with the question of whether sending troops into places like Saudi Arabia was a good idea. Schake seems to operate under the assumption that if it's American policy, it must be right. But American policy can be wrong. Stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam Hussein was, I'd argue, a costly mistake. One that, as Pape's thesis demonstrates, provoked terrorism.
And indeed, America's political objectives in the Middle East are a part of our current problem: when you support autocratic governments and those that use their oil wealth to propagate a virulent strain of Islam you shouldn't be surprised when people resent your interference or fall under the sway of radical teachings. You can argue that these are the costs we have to endure to secure our interests and you can argue that this phenomena is exacerbated by religious fundamentalism that even U.S. policy changes couldn't completely mitigate, but you can't pretend this dynamic doesn't exist.
Schake continues:
The second important context Pape glosses over is that suicide attacks do not occur wherever in the world U.S. troops are deployed. Troops stationed in Germany, Japan, or South Korea are not at risk of suicide attacks from the people of those countries. This is not just about U.S. troops, but also about the societies we are operating in. It is about a radical and violent interpretation of Islam that we are using military force to contest.
Pape is not arguing that U.S. troops provoke suicide terrorist campaigns wherever they land, but that suicide terrorist campaigns cannot be explained without the presence of foreign (not simply American) military forces operating on territory the terrorists prize. Schake argues that the difference in treatment toward the U.S. from Japan and Korea on the one hand and the Middle East on the other is "about the societies we're operating in." And that's true: Different societies, with different histories, cultures and geopolitical contexts, react differently to the presence of foreign troops on their soil. But shouldn't American policy be alert to these differences and calibrated accordingly?
