9/11 was Preventable

opinion by John Flavin, contributor

Of course we were all infuriated by the blind pawns that carried out the suicidal mission on September 11. We donated blood, offered condolences, felt sad, helpless, and angrier still. Though we want to believe September 11 was entirely uncalled for, it was one event in a long line of exchanges between the US and the Middle East--and we could have prevented it. The terrorists selected America, and not England or France. President Bush said we were chosen by the terrorists because we are the "beacon of freedom and opportunity in the world." The terrorists have specific problems with the US, and it is not our demonstration of freedom, or else most of Europe and Australia would fear similar assaults. So why did the terrorists choose these specific targets? And why do they feel so desperately threatened by us? I propose that, like the dynamics of any abusive relationship, the US was and is part of the problem, if for no other reason, because September 11 was preventable.

Twelve years ago, the Bush (Senior) Administration knew that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was planning an attack on the tiny, oil-rich country, Kuwait. The Administration chose a passive approach to this development and allowed him to advance across the border. Previously, however, from 1980 to 1988, the US supported Saddam Hussein in every way during his eight-year war against Iran. Says Professor Barry Rubin, author of countless essays and books on US-Middle-East relations, "Washington gave Baghdad trade credits and intelligence. Large amounts of weapons and military training were provided to improve the Gulf Arab monarchies' defensive capabilities." In the end, we gave Saddam Hussein over six billion dollars worth of military aid (see www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/index.html).

We helped Iraq because Iran became too powerful. Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly still resentful; for eight years he was an ally of the US. It is apparent that people other than Saddam Hussein are also resentful of our Middle-East presence.

Since that war ended, America has implemented a different policy: instead of giving large amounts of weapons, we have a twelve-year economic sanction held against them. More than 200,000 Iraqi civilians are dead as a direct result, most of them Iraqi dissenters. The US, nonetheless, continues to import millions of barrels of oil every year. Yes, from Iraq.

America's Middle-East Policy goes like this: dismantle any country or group of people who gain in strength enough to upset the balance of power; the balance of power in the Middle East means one country becomes disproportionately commanding; or simply, all nations equally weak. Imagine watching this (and a whole lot more) go on around you for several dozen years; would you stand by and accept defeat? Seek justice by having higher expectations of our government and insist they discontinue our policy of provoked conflict, especially if the terrorists are as fanatical as we are told. And finally, demand they find new ways to secure our standard of living, because our government has succeeded in enraging a brilliant, determined, and unpredictable group of people--and that is bad policy.