|
|
What the United States Can Do to Stop State-Sponsored Terrorism
| Article
# : |
11630 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
9 / 1986 |
3,067 Words |
| Author
: |
Avigdor Haselkorn
|
The current letup in terrorist attacks may deceive the United States into thinking that its attack on Libya has ended the radical nations' efforts to expel America 's global presence and influence. This is most definitely not the case, and the United States needs to work for the containment and defeat of the Radical Entente systematically, not just in the aftermath of some shocking terrorist outrage.
In his February 6, 1986, message to Congress, President Reagan reiterated his determination to wage war on terrorism. Specifically he noted that the United States "will increase [its] readiness to strike back at terrorists where they have been identified and their responsibility for actions against Americans has been determined."
The president added: "Those countries that support and direct terrorists should know there is no refuge, there is no hiding place, there is no sanctuary that will keep them safe forever.”
Reagan's statement came on the heels of the interception by U.S. fighter planes of an Egyptair Boeing-727 carrying the hijackers of the Italian liner Achille Lauro. The new approach was also demonstrated by the April 15, 1986, air raid on Libyan military and terrorist targets, after the United States had intercepted coded message indicating direct Libyan involvement in the bombing of a West Berlin disco. Two American soldiers and a Turkish woman died and scores were injured as a result of this explosion.
The new anti-terrorism posture is undoubtedly an improvement over the prolonged period of American inaction in the face of a growing radical assault on the U.S. presence and interests overseas. Aside from enhancing America 's credibility, the new assertiveness has three main benefits:
1. It undermines the dangerous "active deterrence doctrine" that radical leaders have increasingly used to justify continued attacks on U.S. targets.
In the words of Iran's president, Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the United States has resorted to "empty threats" because it still bears the "scars of the blows" it received in Iran from the Islamic Revolution and the failed rescue mission in Tabas. The United States, according to Khamenei, also cannot forget the blows it received at the hands of the Lebanese "masses" when the U.S. Embassy and Marine headquarters were blown up. As a consequence, "all the Reagan administration can do is to make threats." In turn, the radical assault against America should continue, if not intensify, as a means to deter American "plots" against revolutionary regimes.
2. U.S. inaction has bolstered the Soviet image and credibility in the Middle East. The more Washington is verbally belligerent, while remaining military passive, the more believable is Moscow's claim that its influence and presence helped deter America. In turn, radical leaders could surmise that escalation of their anti-American campaign was feasible since a Soviet "umbrella" was shielding them from a forceful American response. Needless to say, such a conclusion would redound to Soviet benefit.
3. Most importantly, the new U.S. posture is the first step in reducing the attractiveness of the Radical entente countries (Syria, Libya, Iran, North Korea,
...
Read Full Article
|
|
