DATE=10/7/1999
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=TERRORISM AGAINST THE U-S
NUMBER=5-44444
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:


INTRO:  Terrorism, especially involving weapons of 
mass destruction, is the greatest danger facing the 
United States in the opinion of many analysts.  The 
nation is more vulnerable than ever to fanatics 
determined to strike the only remaining super-power.  
Is terrorism a response to U.S. intervention around 
the world?  V-O-A's Ed Warner reports that at least 
one Washington scholar thinks so.


TEXT:  Old habits die hard, says Ivan Eland, Director 
of Defense Policy Studies at Washington's Cato 
Institute. During the Cold War, the United States felt 
compelled to react to Soviet provocations just about 
anywhere in the world.  There was a concrete target 
for U.S. military intervention.

Now that enemy is gone, says Mr. Eland, but the United 
States continues to intervene.  The reasons are varied 
and often obscure, but he believes it is a futile and 
endless effort to combat instability.

            /// ELAND ACT ///

      The total world environment has shifted, but we 
      are still seeing that we need to be anywhere 
      because instability will sweep the world if we 
      do not respond to the slightest problem in the 
      most remote part of the world.  There has been 
      instability in the world for centuries, and 
      there is going to continue to be, and most of it 
      does not really affect the security of the 
      United States.

            /// END ACT ///

Mr. Eland says chronic intervention results in 
resentment and occasional terrorism against the United 
States.  In a report for the Cato Institute, he writes 
that about 40 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide 
have been directed against U-S targets - this at a 
time when the country has friendly neighbors and no 
ostensible enemies.

Mr. Eland says most of the conflicts since the end of 
the Cold War have been within nations, in which the 
United States has chosen to intervene on one side or 
the other, often under murky conditions.  He lists 
over 50 terrorist attacks in reaction to this kind of 
U-S intervention.

In Mr. Eland's view, the United States must be much 
more prudent in its use of its military overseas if it 
wants to avoid terrorism.  It should delegate policing 
chores to other regional powers and stick to defending 
its own vital national interests.

Neil Livingstone has written books on terrorism and is 
chairman of Global Options, a crisis management and 
security company in Washington.  He agrees there have 
been unwise U-S interventions that could encourage 
terrorism.  But he says the country has international 
obligations and cannot always avoid the line of fire. 
That goes with superpower status.

In Mr. Livingstone's opinion, there may be no rational 
explanation for some terrorist acts.  They can emerge 
from rage or despair unrelated to any particular 
cause:  

            /// LIVINGSTONE ACT ///

      There will always be people that are beyond the 
      pale of society, people that you cannot reason 
      with, people you cannot find a legitimate 
      compromise with.  Those people are haters with 
      absolute passion, and it would be morally wrong 
      to compromise with them.

            /// END ACT ///

Mr. Livingstone says U-S intervention should be more 
creative and try to solve problems before military 
force is required.  (Signed)

NEB/EW/TVM/gm



07-Oct-1999 20:09 PM EDT (08-Oct-1999 0009 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.