When terror group ISIS killed two Americans, the impact on U.S. public opinion was huge. American support for bombing Syria went from 2-1 opposed to 31-54% in favor. Certainly the change in opinion wasn’t cost-benefit analysis.
The average American is still in absolutely no danger from ISIS. It was entirely based on the way ISIS kills. The Americans were beheaded, on video, which was widely reported on and distributed online.
What’s odd about ISIS is that the motivation for the killings seems to be opposition to American offensive military engagement in Islamic countries. However, the killings are doing a remarkable job ginning up American support for more bombing in more Islamic countries.
It’s almost like ISIS wants war with the US. Which, if the actual goal is to destroy, or at least hobble, the United States, is actually quite genius.
Knife-wielding desert dwellers
There is no way a small band of knife-wielding desert dwellers could possibly pose any threat to the United States, except if they could succeed in drawing the nation into one more doomed-to-fail, expensive, protracted military engagement abroad.
In one video, victim Steven Sotloff says that what is happening to him is a direct result of ISIS-targeted air strikes in Iraq. A man with a British accent then says, “I’m back, Obama, and I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy towards the Islamic State.”
This thesis, that terror results from America’s actions abroad, has been put forth forcefully for decades by Texas Representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul. The blowback theory of foreign policy states that when the US and other so-called Western countries invade weaker states, they often leave a power vacuum and resentment among citizens, both of which are often exploited by non-government groups which are hostile to the US and eventually gain state or state-like power.
For example, Iran was once a modern country, with friendly relations with the United States. After the US and Great Britain helped orchestrate the deposition of the democratically elected Shah, radical Islamicists stepped up to fill the power vacuum, resulting in the Islamic Revolution and the beginning of the end of friendly relations between Iran and the West.
But for many, the idea of agreeing with the terrorists, or the concept that the US could possibly be responsible for terrorism, is a bridge too far.
“Siding with the terrorists” was one hurdle fans of a non-interventionist foreign faced when getting their message out. And then there’s the fact that “these colors don’t run” feels better than “Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!”
But what if both sides are wrong?
If the existence of ISIS shows anything, it’s that America’s adventures in foreign intervention haven’t stopped the growth or proliferation of terrorism.
Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are still around, and arming. Now ISIS is on the scene. The faces in the news might change, but the situation is relatively unchanged. But maybe what Ron Paul and other non-interventionists are missing, or not focusing on enough, is that terror isn’t necessarily about stopping America from bombing Islamic countries.
When contemplating air strikes in Syria, let’s not forget the beginning of the Iraq war.
The Bush Administration had Congressional authority for limited war. And yet, once in, it wasn’t difficult to evade these limits, creating never-ending, Constitution-violating, incredibly expensive, deadly war.
In Limited War and the Constitution: Iraq and the Crisis of Presidential Legality, authors warn that “President Obama has thus far failed to repudiate these acts of presidential unilateralism. If he continues on this course, he will consolidate the precedents set by his predecessor’s exercises in institutional aggrandizement.”
What has the Iraq war cost the United States, so far?
According to Reuters, the U.S. war in Iraq has cost “$1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest.” More importantly, according to Antiwar.com, nearly 4,500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and more than 100,000 have been wounded. Foreign intervention is part of why the United States is responsible for 39 percent of all the military spending in the the world.
There has never been a legitimate threat to the United States in Iraq. No American was ever in any danger, until the invasion. There was no way anyone in that country could threaten the most powerful nation on earth, except by by using FUD on the American public. According to Wikipedia, “fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda.”
FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor’s product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.
That’s exactly how the US got embroiled in Iraq. Media and government disseminated negative and dubious or false information, specifically relating to so-called “weapons of mass destruction.” This resulted in American support for military engagement.
In the end
It appears ISIS may be using FUD to persuade the United States to embroil itself in another war, this time in Syria. In this case, the “safe” option seems to be war, even though it’s most likely to be unending, expensive, unlimited and will involve violating the Constitution.
FUD works by using fear, uncertainty, and doubt to override rational decision making. The shorthand phrase for this kind of decision making is “No one ever got fired for buying IBM.” It could as easily be, “No President has had to resign for starting a war.” People often prefer the “safe” option, whose results that they feel they can control or at least anticipate, to the clearly better option, whose outcome is less clear and controllable.
We can’t know whether the leaders of ISIS realize that the US will likely get embroiled in another protracted, economically debilitating war which will, again, leave a power vacuum which will be filled with anti-American forces, as a result of, among other things, their public beheadings. They do seem to be a group that’s dedicated to seriously injuring the US. But all they have to work with are a few machetes, and arms they picked up from Iraqi soldiers, who were armed by the United States. They have that, and FUD.
But in the end, it really doesn’t matter. Whether ISIS knows that this is happening, whether this is ISIS’s plan, is totally irrelevant. War with Syria will go beyond what the Constitution allows. It will continue longer than Americans expect. There is no goal, no end. It will be incredibly expensive. It will cost American lives. And all to stop a threat that isn’t a threat at all.
