THE PAPER

On September 11th, 2001, two hijacked U.S. jetliners were deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, and another into the Pentagon in Washington killing over three thousand people. Still another hijacked jetliner, possibly headed for a similarly destructive attack on the White House, crash landed in a Pennsylvania field killing all on board, including the civilian passengers who were aware of the previous attacks and forfeited their lives in order to stop another attack. America and its people were stunned as news stations repeatedly replayed images of the jetliners crashing into the buildings and the subsequent collapse of the twin towers.

Of course there were obvious questions on the immediate minds of most Americans. Who would do such a thing and why? What could we do to protect ourselves? Less than eight hours after the attack news stations were reporting that Osama bin Laden was the prime suspect behind the terrorist attacks. This leads us to the question, why? President Bush was quick to respond, promising to hunt down those responsible and furnishing an explanation for their actions that was eerily reminiscent of Reagan’s cold war rhetoric used to describe the Soviet Union. Bush informed the American people that these despicable acts were the work of evil doers who were jealous, angry, and hateful toward the brightest beacon of democracy, the United States. Oppressive leaders such as Osama bin Laden, be they religious or political, fear the example of freedom set by the United States, because it makes it more difficult to maintain control over their own people in their totalitarian regimes. In a time of such crisis, the majority of American people quickly accepted this seemingly plausible explanation and soon sorrow and shock transformed into anger and a thirst for retaliation.

However, President Bush’s explanation appears extremely simplistic. The American public’s acceptance of such an explanation and its knee-jerk reactions regarding a thirst for quick retaliation are somewhat understandable considering the tragic situation. Yet, if the American public wants to gain such much needed understanding of the situation, why it might have occurred, and what could be done to prevent future attacks, it must look beyond Bush’s rhetoric. Often, when two individuals are involved in a dispute, a key to arriving at some level of understanding is their ability to consider the situation from the other’s point of view. As the saying goes, there are two sides, and often more, to every story. This is not to say that President Bush is completely wrong in his assessment or that the terrorist acts were not heinous, merely that Americans, and citizens of the world as well, must approach the situation with an open mind and apply their critical thinking skills. In the following essay, I will attempt to do just that. The terrorist situation will be examined through a variety of perspectives including reassertionism, neorealism, neoisolationism, radical or Marxism, and the world order perspective. In examining each perspective an attempt will be made to answer questions such as: Why was America attacked? Could it have been prevented and how? How should we respond? And lastly, how is our current response likely to affect international relations?

The reassertionism or Burkean Cold Warriorism perspective is difficult, if not impossible, to apply to the current terrorist situation. This is due to the fact that the perspective completely focused on the containment of the Soviet Communist ideology and the rollback of previous Soviet geopolitical gains. Therefore, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, this perspective cannot be directly applied to the current situation. However, all of the various foreign policy perspectives employed by the United States including reassertionism build on the basic foundations of realism. Hypothetically, one could simply replace the communist ideology with Islamic fundamentalism in order to examine the tenets of reassertionism. Ironically, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 was one of the prime examples Reagan used to justify the need for reassertionism, and the United States furnished arms to the Afghans in order to repel the Soviets. Today, Afghanistan, which is thought to be the home base of the terrorists responsible for the attacks, is the primary focus of U.S. military operations seeking to destroy the terrorist groups.

According to its proponents, the main reason why a reassertionist foreign policy was necessary was that Soviet Communist ideology viewed capitalism as an evil and an obstacle to relieving oppression throughout the world and, therefore, must be eliminated. Hence, the Soviets were attempting to take over the world. Kennan states the following in his article, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", "Belief is maintained in the basic badness of capitalism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands" (Michalak, 30). Given President Bush’s rhetoric about the evil ones and the recent increase in conflicts involving Islamic or Muslim factions in places such as East Timor, Kosovo, Albania, Chechnya, Greece, Pakistan, the Philippines and others, we could soon be seeing a new type of reassertionist perspective focused on a religious or cultural target, Islam, rather than the political ideological enemy of the past, communism. Just as radicals or Marxist would contend that the Soviet Union and the Cold War were conveniences for the United States foreign policy elite to initiate their own objectives, the same might be said of the recent terrorist attacks. Since the attack on nine-eleven, U.S. vocal support for Chechnyan rebels has weakened, if not disappeared, which is understandable due to the fact that the United States seeks and requires Russia’s involvement in the coalition against terrorism. Conveniently, this enables Russia to continue unabashed in its military actions against Chechnyan rebels, as the break- away nation struggles for independence. The United States can hardly expect Russia’s assistance in a war against Islamic terrorists if it protests the conflict in Chechnya, which Russian President Putin terms "An anti-Terrorist operation against forces aided by Muslim mercenaries" (Tayler, 40). In addition, U.S. troops have been deployed to help battle insurgent Muslim forces in the Philippines despite the fact that foreign troops are forbidden by Philippine law from joining in combat operations in the country (http://news.bbc.co.uk.). These could be a signs that we are now associating all or most terrorist activities with Islam the same way all insurgent revolutions were once thought to be somehow instigated by the Soviet Union. A radical or Marxist might argue that since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy elites had lost their excuse for interventionism and have now discovered a new one. However, according to a Marxist, neoisolationist, or even a neorealist, the Muslim revolutions occurring throughout the world are unlikely a result of an ideological master plan, but separate indigenous uprisings.

Therefore, while the reassertionist perspective does not apply directly to the terrorism issue, we can apply the tenets of the perspective to ascertain how such a perspective would deal with the current issues. A reassertionist would claim that all the terrorism, civil unrest and revolutions occurring in the world are due to Islamic influence and this must be stopped at any cost. Furthermore, the spread of Islam into other countries and regions of the world must be rolled back. The advances of Islam are part of a slow but never-ending ideology of Islam to destroy the American way of life and take over the world. The United States must fight the spread of Islam in every corner of the world by supporting anti-Islamic movements and using direct U.S. Military action when necessary.

Unfortunately, while this new "neoreassertionist" perspective is merely a hypothetical application, it resembles current U.S. actions in many ways. Another term for reassertionism is containment plus and according to a recent L.A. times article, "The philosophy of so-called containment, or limiting the damage Hussein could do either to the region or at home, is no longer considered enough. Many analysts, including former Clinton officials, now argue that it may even be dangerous to simply contain Iraq" (Wright, 1). While President Bush has been careful to point out the true peaceful aims of Islam, and on several occasions has applauded the many hard working, peace-loving, patriotic Muslims in our own country, many Muslims throughout the world fear he is on an anti-Islam mission. Bush’s earlier uses of the term "crusade" outraged Muslims worldwide and a U.S. foreign policy aimed primarily at Muslims, similar to the way reassertionism was aimed at communism, will definitely have a negative impact on the international system. Many of these negative reactions to this type of policy, such as the rise of anti-American sentiments and the creation of new generations of terrorists, will be further explored in the radical, neoisolationists, and world order perspectives.

Neorealists proponents split with reassertionists on two main points during the cold war. Neorealists were and are mainly concerned with maintaining the global balance of power and would support the use of American power including the use of military force against those seeking to alter the balance of power or threatening vital geopolitical interests. While reassertionists and Cold War Burkeans focused on the containment of Soviet Ideology, neorealists instead focused on the containment of Soviet Imperialism. Therefore, since there is no one country associated with Islam, the way the Soviet Union was associated with imperialism and world dominance, neorealism is also a perspective that is difficult to apply and use in order to understand the current terrorist situation. A particular problem one must confront when viewing the current situation through the neorealist perspective is that the perspective is designed to analyze nation states, not rogue terrorist organizations. Realism in any of its forms views nation states as the sole actors in the world and contends it has the ability to predict the actions of states based on national interest. Realism accepts very little change in the world, believing that nation states have always acted, currently act, and will always act according to their own interests. Furthermore, since the world itself is anarchical, we will always have wars and should be prepared for them.

Therefore, President Bush and his foreign policy advisors, all of whom are realists, must seek to connect the current terrorist problems with one or more nation states in order to explain the reasons for the attacks. Evidence of this can be seen in Bush’s recent remarks concerning the evil axis of powers. According to Bush the evil axis consists of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. However, there is little or no proof of any connection between the three as the term axis implies. Regardless of Bush’s rhetoric, neorealism is, like reassertionism, founded on realist’s principles. Whether the enemy is considered ideological, imperialistic, or fundamentalist, the national security of the United States is the prime concern and must be maintained at any cost. Therefore, while neorealism cannot adequately explain the reasons for the terrorist attacks, it is fully prepared to deal with those who are suspected of carrying out terrorist acts.

A neorealist would probably say that the best way of preventing or minimizing the attack before it happened would have been the upkeep of a strong military and intelligence force. This of course is necessary for achieving the prime objective of national security, and any sacrifice, including cuts in domestic programs are acceptable in order to re-directl the necessary funds to the military budget. This can be seen in Bush’s proposal for a three hundred and seventy-nine million-dollar defense budget for the year 2003. Another sacrifice the U.S. Government appears to be willing to make is civil rights in the form of the Patriot Act. According to Harrison, " The new anti-terrorism law signed into effect on October 26 grants law enforcement officials sweeping new surveillance powers that are not limited to terrorist investigations but also apply to criminal and intelligence investigations" (www.alternet.org).

A neorealist would argue that clearly the United States has been attacked and is now involved in a war on terrorism, as Bush has stated, despite the fact that war has not been declared by Congress. Our national security is at extreme risk because our homeland itself has been attacked and the use of military force is undoubtedly called for. Therefore, a neorealist would certainly agree that America’s current response is the correct one. President Bush’s idea that all the countries of the world must decide whether they are with us or against us, is appropriate and the use of military force against all countries who sponsor, protect, or assist terrorists in any way is needed to wipe out terrorism and ensure our national security.

Furthermore, from a neorealist perspective, this policy will have a positive effect on international relations as the eradication of terrorism not only serves to ensure America’s national security but the security of the world as well. The fight will be a difficult one but in the end, nations that harbor or assist terrorists will realize that it is advantageous to their own national interests, and necessary for their survival as a nation, to cooperate with the United States and its coalition in the war against terrorism.

While the neorealist perspective may be inadequate for analyzing current world problems, it is certainly not lacking in its proposals for dealing with them, be they appropriate or not. The Marxist or radical perspectives could be viewed as the opposite. Marxism or radicalism is adept at analyzing the reasons for America’s current problems with terrorism, but in my opinion lacks any viable alternatives. The Marxist perspective focuses on economics, and more specifically the unequal distribution of wealth, as the primary source of problems in the world. The fact that the United States is the strongest economic and military power in the world provides this perspective with a prime reason that America was attacked, and can offer a plethora of examples to support its contentions. While both reassertionists and neorealists would claim that their foreign policies were aimed at protecting national security, Marxists or radicals would say that this was just a cover for their true intentions, which would be expanding the free market and making the world safe for a Liberal International Economic Order and American investments. Why else, radicals argue, would the United States intervene in nationalistic revolutions, except to protect American investments and perpetuate the trend of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. While the United States claimed to be promoting democracy and self-determination in its fight against Soviet communism or Soviet imperialism, depending on which perspective is studied, why then would they interfere or seek to overthrow democratic socialist countries? There can be only one answer, because they interfere with the American corporate goals. Ergo, they contend that the American foreign policy agenda is controlled by corporate elites. Marxists would contend that if the United States were truly using intervention to fight Soviet communism or imperialism, that the end of the cold war should result in an end to intervention, which of course has not happened

Thus, according to the Marxist perspective a policy of intervention results in the maintenance of the status quo and the spread of economic and social injustice. Unlike realists, Marxists recognize that there are significant world actors other than states. International organizations such as the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and IMF play important roles in the scheme of world politics. However, according the Marxist perspective, these institutions are, for the most part, controlled by the same corporate powers that dictate the foreign policy of the United States. According to McAfee in her article, Why the Third World Goes Hungry, there is more than enough food to feed the entire world population yet many, especially in third world countries continue to starve. Moreover, although the third world is responsible for producing more than half the world’s food supply, it continues, due to capitalist pressures, to produce export products, rather than food for its own hungry people (Michalak, 208). The Marxist or radical perspective would say that this part of the inequality that capitalism breeds. Strong economic and military nations strip the poorer nations of their natural resources and what little profit that is made by the local citizens is concentrated in the country elite, who in turn oppress their own people in return for U.S. support of their authoritarian regimes. With the concentration of wealth limited to the few corrupt elites of the poor nation, the United States and International organizations such as the World Bank and IMF step in and provide money disguised in the form of humanitarian aid or economic assistance in the form of loans. In reality these funds are leverage tools used to force the poor nation to maintain an open market and forcing the government to reduce much needed domestic programs in order to pay the accumulating interest on the loans. According to McCarthy, " In sum, the radical critique of aid is that it serves to increase the trade and investment dependence of developing states, strengthens the position of elites within them, stunts agricultural development, and reinforces economic linkages which are already disadvantageous for developing and underdeveloped countries" (205).

Policies such as these have been applied by economic powers such as the United States all over the world and have certainly occurred in the Mideast. This theory provides a plausible explanation for the terrorist activities that are directed towards the United States. While in the case of South America the primary attraction of economic powerhouses is cheap labor, agricultural products, and natural resources such as timber, the main objective of these powers as they relate to the Mideast is the vast quantities of oil.

Therefore, from a Marxist or radical perspective, the primary causes or factors that led to the terrorist attack are quite clear. The Islamic Arab nations that make up the Mideast region of the world have long suffered brutality in the form of European and American colonialism. This can be traced back as far as the twelfth and thirteenth century crusades against Muslims. While these were cultural conflicts rather than economic ones they certainly set the stage for future Christian –Muslim conflicts. However, colonialism in the Mideast region continued throughout the centuries, and following World War I the British and French seized control of the area, which was previously under control of the Ottoman Empire. "These two nations, acting ostensibly through the League of Nations, redrew the political map of the region to correspond to their own interests, rewarding their allies, punishing their opponents, and ensuring their access to oil as it became the most important commercial opportunity in the region" ( Mosler and Catley, 83). Following World War II the United States assumed the main role of the colonizer and exploiter of oil in this region. This, along with U. S. support for the creation of the State of Israeli in 1948, are two main reasons for the anti- American sediments in the Mideast. Since the United States took the lead role in orchestrating the politics of the Mideast region, several actions can be used to illustrate its economic purposes. In 1951, Mossadegh became Prime Minister of Iran and began implementing his agenda of nationalization of the British controlled oil companies. American efforts to negotiate the problems between Iran and Britain failed and the CIA, under the guise of protecting national security from possible Soviet influence in the area, supported a successful coup against Mossadegh. He was replaced with the Shah, who fought against social and economic reforms and placed many proponents of these reforms in prison, while many others also suffered at the hands of the Shah’s brutal secret police force known as SAVAK. Soon after the Shah took power, the United States granted 68.4 million dollars to Iran in the form of technical and economic assistance (Schmitz, 191). From a radical perspective this was clearly not a case of America promoting democracy and self-determination, but simply protecting the assets and investment of the corporate elite in America and its allies. With the advent of President Carter’s foreign policy based on human rights, U.S. support for the Shah weakened and power was seized by militant fundamentalists. The U.S. policy then shifted toward a balance of power in the region between the three major powers in the area, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

The 1990 Gulf war is a prime example of the United States using military force to protect economic interests now under the guise of maintaining the balance of power. In August of that year Iraq invaded Kuwait on the historical premise that the land originally belonged to Iraq. The U.S. responded by forming a coalition of countries and used military force to quickly defeat the Iraqi forces and drive them from Kuwait. A Marxist would agree with a realist in the sense that this involved a balance of power issue. However, a Marxist would say the realist idea that the balance of power was key to U.S. national security was again a front for economic goals. Iraq’s seizure of oil fields in Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia would give them the leverage to initiate reforms to effect massive changes in the redistribution of world wealth and would be a severe obstacle in the path of America’s goal to protect and expand the liberal capitalist free market throughout the world (Mosler and Catley, 172).
Therefore, according to the Marxist or radical perspective it is clear why the United States was a target for Islamic terrorists. The use of covert operations by the CIA and direct military force by U.S. sponsored coalitions is viewed by many members of the Islamic faith as unsolicited and unwarranted intervention by the United States in order to achieve its economic goals at the expense of the Islamic people. Their obvious response to what the U.S. could have done to prevent the attack would be to stop backing authoritarian rightwing regimes in other nations in order to expand capitalism, and that the current response is completely inappropriate. However, although this perspective supplies credible reasons for the current conflict, it offers little in the area of alternative responses. As far as the current policy’s effect on the international system, it would say that the military campaigns led by the U.S. will undoubtedly result in continued oppression of the Arab people and further conflict as new generations of terrorists are created.

Interestingly, The Marxist or radical approach overlaps in many respects with our next perspective, neoisolationism. This perspective would agree with Marxism in the respect that intervention is the main reason the United States was selected as a target for terrorism. However, although an isolationalist would agree that there are economic issues involved, it would not focus on a U.S. plan to expand capitalism for self gain, but would claim the U.S. has implemented a misguided plan in seeking to maintain its national security and should re-evaluate and reduce its definitions of its true national interests. Hence, according to an isolationist perspective, America could have prevented such an attack by severely limiting its intervention in foreign countries to instances when national interests that are directly tied to national security are threatened. In his 1919 article, "Pitfalls of a League of Nations", Beveridge argues that American intervention through membership in a global organization designed to maintain world peace would send America on a "pathless wilderness of alien interests, or racial hatreds, or historic animosities" (Michalak, 43.). Today, an isolationist would point to this statement and proclaim that this is precisely what America’s involvement in the Mideast has led to. Our support for Israel has involved us in an ancient racial and religious feud which the United States has no hope of resolving, and can only lead to more anti-U.S. sentiments and further terrorist actions. While a neoisolationist would agree that oil is of vital importance to national security, our main concern should be focused on alternatives such as exploring the use of synthetic fuels, stockpiling, conservation, and increasing our own oil production.

As for our national security, a neoisolationist would propose reducing our inflated military budget by allowing Europe and Asia to provide and pay for their own military protection, which they are more than capable of doing. This money could be re-channeled into our domestic and economic programs, and by reducing our military presence throughout the world and restricting our interventions, we would become less of a target for terrorists. The nuclear age, and more specifically second strike capabilities, have rendered both the reassertionist worries about containment and the neorealists focus on the balance of power, unnecessary. Even though oil is vital to the U. S. national interests, our involvement in the Mid east leads to further unacceptable consequences which also threaten our security. In response to a neorealist’s contention that the balance of power in this region would cause oil problems for the U.S., a neoisolationist would respond that oil must be exported and sold in order to be an asset to those who control it, and since the U. S. is the world’s largest economy, it is an obvious and necessary export sight for Mideast nations.

In regards to America’s response to the terrorist attacks, a neoisolationist would agree that a military response is definitely required because our national security is under direct threat. However, the extent of the retaliation should be limited to involve only those found to be directly responsible for the attacks. Just as our past interventions in the Mideast have led to our current terrorist problems, any extended intervention in response can only lead to future problems. The current response is too broad and will only serve to create new generations of Arabs and Muslims who espouse anti-American sentiments and who have both terrorist capabilities and intentions. Therefore, the effect on the international system and American relations with other countries will be negative.

Much like the radical or Marxist perspective, the neoisolationist perspective clearly outlines the reasons for anti-American sentiments but fails to suggest truly viable alternatives. This brings us to our final view, the world order perspective. This perspective may be similar to other perspectives in identifying some of the causes of the world’s problems, including the exploitation and unequal distribution of assets mentioned in the Marxist perspective. However, its main focus is on the negative aspects related to the pursuit of national interests by all nations regardless of their ideological or political goals. While the mainstream perspectives such as reassertionism, neorealism, and neoisolationism, are all based on realist tenets, and focus on national security from a pro-capitalists view, Marxism or radicalism focuses on inequality and contends the downfall of capitalism is necessary in order to achieve equality and justice. The world order perspective might be construed as leaning toward the left in its critique of capitalism, but it does not require the destruction of the capitalist system, as does Marxism, in fact it promotes democracy. Therefore while world order proponents would place a large share of blame for the world’s problems on capitalistic greed, it would also recognize that oppression occurs in non-capitalistic nations as well. Therefore, capitalism can be altered rather than eliminated.

The main obstacle according to achieving security and equality in the world is the nation –centric philosophy that underlines the foreign policy of most, if not all, countries. While each nation seeks to protect and improve their own national interests, along the lines of the neorealists perspective, they remain oblivious to the havoc and inequality that they wreak upon the rest of the world, especially in poorer countries that cannot compete economically or militarily. More importantly they remain oblivious to the cumulative effects they place on the limited resources of the earth. This situation is illustrated by Beres, in his analogy of the herdsmen who share a common pasture. Each herdsmen seeks to better himself by enlarging his flock, failing to surmise that eventually they will all end up in ruin because of the overgrazing of the pasture.

While the United States is certainly not the only nation guilty of this type of policy, world order proponents would argue that since it is the premier power of the world it is imperative that the United States take the first steps toward a system of cooperative self-seeking, rather than competitive self-seeking (Michalak, 258). Furthermore, although the United States, and to some extent Russia, retain their statuses as world powers, they are actually losing power to transnational forces whom, due to advancing technology and the proliferation of weapons, have gained their own lethal power which can no longer be contained by the nation states they operate within. This is a plausible explanation for the terrorist groups that operate in the Mideast region but cannot be linked to any one nation.

Therefore, much like the Marxist or radical perspective, world order proponents would argue that America’s foreign policy objectives aimed toward their own self-interests are the primary reason America was selected as a terrorist target. These policies have helped perpetuate the inequality in the region and have spawned non-state entities such as terrorists groups who are emphatically anti-American. The U.S. has pushed its neo-liberal economic model of development in this region through the use of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, which have resulted in an overall increase in the GNP of these nations, but has again concentrated the wealth among the few, while the poor continue to suffer. Given the fact that Islam has a strong social justice element, it is not surprising that Muslims would be abhorred by these developments and seek to implement any means possible to end it, including terrorism (www.zmag.org).

The United States might have been able to prevent such an attack had it replaced its aggressive tactics with more cooperative ones at some point. It would probably still be forced to deal with a certain amount of anti American hostility for its past actions, just as neoisolationism predicts, but answering these acts of violence with more acts of violence is not the answer, especially when innocent victims are often the ones who suffer from these reprisals. For instance, in retaliation for terrorist attacks against two U. S. Embassies in Africa, the U.S. bombed a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan that supplied more than 50% of the antibiotics and vaccines to the poor of this impoverished nation (www.commondreams.org). Who really suffered from this retaliation and others like it? Not the terrorists themselves, but the innocent poor people who, quite understandably, are then prone to support the terrorist or become terrorists themselves. Other non-military responses, such as embargoes and sanctions also serve as punishment towards many civilian innocents.

Considering the above statements, it should be clear that world order proponents would say America’s current response is completely inappropriate and way out of proportion. In order to prevent the infliction of pain and suffering on innocent people, such as what is occurring in Afghanistan, any actions against the terrorists should be of a legal or police nature and not a military one. The world should be able to count on International Organizations such as the United Nations and the World Court to handle such matters. However, under the current nation-centric political structure, these institutions are for the most part controlled by the powerful nations of the world. Therefore, world order proponents do not propose merely changing the current nation-centric configuration into a similar structure on a global basis, but instituting actual changes that would make global institutions truly democratic. This would include the dismantling of the U.N. Security Council and a requirement that all nations cede their sovereignty to international bodies such as the world court. However, while world order proponents argue that the decline in the power of nation states magnifies the importance of international organizations, the true source of future power lies in the hands of the people through collective activism.

America’s current policy of using military force to deal with the terrorist situation is sure to have disastrous effects on the international system and America’s relations with other countries. Many nations will probably succumb to the pressures applied by the United States to assist them in the "war on terrorism" out of fear of further reprisals, be they military or economic in nature. Yet, the attack itself should be a clear indication to the United States that one nation or even a combination of the most powerful nations, can no longer hope to control the world. Eventually those who are made to suffer at the hands of the U.S. military will retaliate and with the proliferation of both conventional and nuclear arms this could spell doom for the entire world.

In conclusion, which of these perspectives is best suited for analyzing and dealing with the current terrorist situation? Clearly reassertionism, a perspective designed primarily to deal with the spread of communism, is inadequate. For the purposes of this paper and in order to illustrate the tenets of reassertionism, I hypothetically replaced communism with Fundamentalist Islam, and while the current actions and rhetoric of the United States policy makers may resemble some aspects of this perspective, it is nonetheless a extremely poor choice to use in evaluating the current world situation. An Anti-Islamic campaign is not only unjust and unwarranted, but will only lead to further violence.
Neorealism, which like reassertionism is grounded in state-centric realist’s principles, is also a poor choice. Perhaps perspectives grounded in state-centric realist’s tenets were an adequate tool in understanding the world in the past, but with the advent of the technology and nuclear age, the world has passed them by. Unfortunately, the United States continues to use realists and neorealists principles to guide its foreign policy agenda. This, as can be witnessed in our current actions, only leads to a perpetual cycle of violence and the continuing depletion of the world’s non- renewable resources.

Marxism, on the other hand, can be used as an effective tool for understanding some of the reasons the United States and the world itself are suffering from such problems as inequality, hunger, and violent revolutions. However, this perspective is limited in the respect that it deals entirely with economic issues, and while this is a key principle behind much of the world’s problems, it is certainly not the only crisis we face. Nor would a change in the dominent political structure of the world, from capitalism to Marxism, solve our problems. Marxism proposes the elimination of class structures, but still relies on a hierarchical structure that fosters inequality. Time has proven that Marxist regimes can be just as oppressive as any other form of government. While Marxist proponents would say this is because these states are not practicing true Marxism, the fact that every country that has attempted to practice true Marxism has failed to do so, is in my opinion, an indication of the inadequacy of Marxism. Therefore, while I feel that the Marxist or radical perspective can continue to be an important tool for recognizing the problems with inequality, it lacks an overall understanding of the world’s problems and a detailed plan on how to deal with them.

The fourth perspective, neoisolationism, at first glance appears to be a sufficient tool for understanding the terrorist situation facing the United States. While it may not agree entirely with the Marxist or radical perspective about the motives behind U.S. intervention, it does agree that this is one of the chief causes that the United States has become a prime target for terrorism. If terrorism and anti-American sentiments were the only problem the United States were facing, this would be a viable perspective for understanding and dealing with the problem. The United States could simply withdraw from world affairs over which we have no control. This is a key aspect of neoisolationism as it compares to other forms of realism. The neoisolationist perspective understands that the United States, or any other single nation, has no hope in controlling the world by attempting to impose or promote democracy on the other nations of the world. However, while this perspective would advocate a more limited response to the terrorist acts than other forms of realism, such as neorealism, the use of a military response on any level is still likely to perpetuate the cycle of violence. Over a period of time perhaps this perspective could greatly reduce the likelihood of the U.S. being a prime target for terrorism. Unfortunately, upon further examination, the perspective proves to be simplistic and naïve. If the United States were to simply reduce its role in the world, and in a sense mind its own business, it would still face a myriad of impending disasters that threaten its national security. This is because with the proliferation of weapons, increasing unregulated technology, and the disastrous environmental crisis, the world has become irreversibly inter-dependent.

The world order perspective recognizes and is founded on this principle of interdependence. The problem with neoisolationism, and its idea that America should simply reduce its role in world affairs, is addressed by Michalak in the following statement concerning the many problems that are facing the world today. "These trends all point to an ironic situation-a situation where "what is plainly everybody’s problem is nobody’s business"’ (Michalak, 249). While both the Marxist and neoisolationist perspectives appear to provide direct, easily understood, answers to why America has been selected as a prime target of terrorism, they both fail to incorporate the total picture. Although realists and radical perspectives may have completely different ideas about what is wrong with the world and how to fix it, they both rely on a state-centric system. Unfortunately until they can come to terms with the idea that what is good for the world is what is good for their nation, problems such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inequality, hunger, and environmental destruction, cannot be solved. Hence, cooperation between all nations of the world rather than self-seeking is necessary to ensure the security of each nation and the world itself.

This seems an extremely difficult task and perhaps even idealistic, but it may be the world’s only hope for survival. Surely, the facts are out there for everyone to see, violence in response to terrorism breeds more violence, the rich continue to get richer while the poor get poorer, pollution is rampant, the ozone and rain forests are being depleted. These facts are available to all world and corporate leaders but few have chosen to accept them. This is a difficult problem because those who are in the key political and economic leadership roles are also those who are reaping the advantages of state-centric, self-seeking policies which are causing many of the world’s problems and deterring the actions needed to correct them. This is precisely why world order proponents are not expecting or relying on much help from those elites in power. Instead, world order proponents seek change through collective activism. They call for a systemic, normative, and futuristic approach to the study of international politics and realize that those currently in power will surely resist such a policy (Michalak, 251). Therefore, through a series of ideas including consciousness raising through education and the use of non-government actors, they seek out those from oppressed groups such as women, minorities and the poor and hope that through these means the leaders of tomorrow will be shaped. These leaders and those who follow them will be dedicated to changing the world through global transformation, guided by the principles of the world order perspective.

This idea might also appear highly idealistic, but I believe that there are significant signs that these ideas are beginning to take hold. Prior to the terrorist attacks, collective activism could be seen in many areas including groups such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International. These groups, and others like them, are working hard to provide food to the hungry, improve human rights, protect the environment, and fight nuclear proliferation. In fact, collective activism should be given the bulk of the credit for ending Apartheid in South Africa. Although the recent terrorists attacks are detrimental to the process and have resulted in a surge of patriotic fever that is conducive to the implementation of realist policies by the foreign policy elite. Regardless of the fact that the terrorist attack has created an extremely difficult atmosphere for anyone who opposes American policy, these groups have continued working towards their goals to improve the state of the world, rather than the state of the nation. Therefore, in my opinion, the world order perspective is the best perspective for analyzing and solving terrorism and other world problems. Despite its idealistic goals, I believe that while the process will be difficult, the desired results are attainable. Hopefully, through education, and increased awareness, more and more people will realize that the world order perspective is the only viable option to take us off the path to self-destruction, and will seek out and join the activist movement to change the world.




Works Cited


McCarthy, Leo. Justice, The State and International Relations. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Michalak, Stanley. Competing Conceptions of American Foreign Policy. Harper Collins.

Mosler, David, and Bob Catley. Global America: Imposing Liberalism on a Recalcitrant World. Westport, Ct. : Praeger,2000.

Schmitz, David. Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Rightwing Dictatorships, 1921-1965. University of North Carolina Press., 1999.

Tayler. "Putin’s Policy of Real Politik." Atlantic Dec. 2001: 40-41.

Wright, Robin. " Bush’s Team Targets Hussein." Los Angeles Times 10 Feb, 2002, sec. A1.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

www.alternet.com

www.zmag.org

www.commondreams.org.