If US changed its foreign policy, would that end terrorism?

QUOTE

[...] This gets us to the question of whether changing the foreign policy of the United States (or Israel) would end terrorism. If Al-Qaeda is like every other organization on Earth, it is irrational. That means it is relatively immune to reason, just like Republicans and Democrats and Methodists and Jews. If the U.S. stopped support for Israel and withdrew all troops from the Middle East, would it be good enough for Al-Qaeda? No. America would still support the Saudi government by buying their oil. Private citizens would still send financial support to Israel. Our intelligence services would still share intelligence with Israel. There is no practical way for the U.S. to get off the target list simply by changing its foreign policy.

Please comment.

...and from the same author

QUOTE

My thinking was that the terrorists were asking for things we’d be better off giving them anyway, for our own selfish reasons. For example, Israel is strong enough and wealthy enough to no longer need our support. And it’s unclear that our heavy footprint in the Middle East is guaranteeing us more oil and less terrorism. It seemed like a win-win scenario to give the terrorists what they were asking for, since the only impact on us is saving some money. Or at least it would save me from transferring my wealth to the pockets of U.S. military industries.

Recently I changed my opinion. While I think there was a period in the past when a different foreign policy would have brought us to a different point, we don’t have a time machine. We are where we are. And where we are is totally fucked.

The problem is with the loose cell structure of Al-Qaeda, and the fact it has become a lifestyle for its members. If we remove all the original reasons for Al-Qaeda’s existence, I believe they would find new ones. It is unlikely the members of terror cells would decide to quit and become insurance salesmen.

While the cell structure of Al-Qaeda is an excellent way to wage war, it’s a bad way to stop a war. If all the existing cells around the world made lists of their reasons for being terrorists, and compared those lists, I think they’d look very different except for the parts about hating Israel and the United States. If the leadership of Al-Qaeda told its cells to disarm, half of the cells would just splinter off and keep on terrorizing. It’s permawar.

First one has to realize that there isn’t just one terrorist organization in the world, hell not even a single organization that is annoyed at the US over something or other. While decentralized the MAK (Bin Laden’s group) would be greatly reduced by their leader coming forth and telling them that the Jihad is over and that they won. History supports this as well as after the Soviet defeat in Afghan, when the Jihad was ended, the MAK didn’t continue to carry out their attacks. Of course other groups would still function, as they arn't being 'lead' by Bin Laden anyway.

But would it completely end terrorism?

No… nothing will. Terrorism is a tactic and as long as there is someone who views themselves in a ‘powerless’ position to wage war on any government they view as ‘evil’ or just ‘wrong’ then there will be terrorism. These groups function with, as pointed out above, very different agendas. Some groups would very easily ‘melt away’ if the US pulled out of the Middle East completely, others would still function with anti-US sentiments for some time to come.

What it will do is reduce, greatly, the amount of anti-US terrorism to be seen. Without the troops and government based ‘interference’ then most of these groups wouldn’t target the US for retribution. It is the same reason they haven’t blown up Sweden, as a lot of people like pointing out. They aren’t ‘irrational’ like most people enjoy thinking, they are reactionaries. Give them nothing to react to and they go away.

At the very least it would make recruiting hell. Those that join a terrorist cell do so out of revenge, usually nothing more. Give them nothing to seek revenge over and no matter what message is being called out in the streets the people won’t rise up to it. After all if I came to you with a whispered plan to blow up… *hmmm* Lets say the Big Ben would you actually follow through with the attack?

You have no reason too, so why expect some person in the Middle East to think any differently? It is a long way to go to attack a group of people you don’t know, unless of course you have a very deep personal reason for carrying out such an attack… like the Brits dropping a bomb on your house and killing your family.

But, sadly, there would be terrorists like the one below that act without any more reason then ‘government is evil.’

The largest ever chemical weapon plot uncovered in the US was a 2 person team armed with enough cyanide to kill tens of thousands of people if not more. They where white, Christians and pissed at the federal government for being… well the federal government. For some crazy reason *Cough* white *Cough* they where not charged with any terrorism offences. One got 5 years for possessing illegal weapons while the other got 10 for conspiracy to commit murder. Don’t know about the parol part of the sentence so they might not even be in jail anymore.

Two people, a lack of any terrorist ties and so much cyanide it isn’t funny. Middle Eastern policy didn’t direct these two, but it is the action which so many reactionaries in the Middle East are triggered by. Still just because people like the above exist doesn’t mean the government should have free reign to create policies that will infuriate even more people overseas and create even more terrorists. It must show restraint.

QUOTE

It is the same reason they haven’t blown up Sweden, as a lot of people like pointing out.

Since you brought that up... that didn't stop people burning Danish embassies for some cartoons published in some newspapers...

In my opinion if you don't piss some bad people in this world it means that you don't do a good job. I wish US would piss more people in Sudan and Zimbabwe for example.

Depends on who and how you ‘piss them off.’

Annoying the average Iraqi, many of who where not in favour of Saddam, long after you have already removed him from power is definitely not a good thing. It would be the same with Zimbabwe, if you’re annoying the average citizen to the point they will attack you en-mass then you’re doing something wrong.

No, but to me it seems that a government (any) would do a bad job if they don't piss people like Al-Qaeda.

Take for example what the Lebanese do now to get rid of Fatah Islam, I'm sure that pisses the hell out of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups -- very well!

These groups aren’t interlocked; many don’t even like each other. They will operate without a care for each other at the very least and against each other at best. Think of them as gangs, even if they aren’t rivals they aren’t going to go out of each others way to actually help each other out without some massive incentives.

Survival isn’t an incentive either, not unless they can be the ‘boss’ in such a struggle. The different causes and agendas make it impossible for them to work together in any serious manor and even when the agendas over lap they still prefer working as individual groups. This is one of the weak spots of decentralized command structures.