Do We Sponsor Terrorism?

While we rightly revile terrorists or whatever ideology who commit atrocities such as recently transpired in France and Nigeria, history suggests that terrorists are even worse when they gain control of a nation or become a nation.

Yes, today’s terrorist are often radical Islamists, but not all. Fifty years ago the threat was Marxist terrorism. A hundred years ago, a nationalist assassin in Sarajevo started the First World War. Worrisome as are the radicals who terrorize peaceful populations, the greater threat to world peace are those in Nigeria, Syria, North Korea, Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan who seek to establish themselves are legitimate nation-states without eschewing their lawless worldview.

The Bolsheviks would be a footnote in history had they not captured control of Czarist Russia and created the Soviet Union. No one would have heard of Adolf Hitler had he not swept all Germany into his craziness. Fidel Castro might actually have done the Cuban people some good had he not hitched his future to Soviet Marxism, then exported it throughout Central and South America. Shiite Ayatollahs would be dismissed as harmless aberrants had they not gained control of Iran and exported their brand of terror as far as New York City.

Boko Haram and ISIL will menace the world if they duplicate the accomplishments of the Khmer Rouge and Ayatollahs.

Compare the American Revolution of 1776 with the French Revolution of 1789. Arguably, they started with the same goals, but they diverged in methods and results. There was no Reign of Terror in Philadelphia as there was in Paris.

And today? Are we, the United States, unintentionally supporting—or just ignoring—terrorists who will threaten world peace for the next fifty years?

Advertisements