How Less Government Can Equal Less Terrorism

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, nearly every anti-terrorism solution put forth by politicians involved increasing the size, cost, or power of government. Greater government surveillance. Federalized airport security. More monitoring of immigrants. A new Cabinet-level agency with a multibillion-dollar budget.

But before we reflexively assume that bigger government is the answer, let's keep something in mind: We've already tried that. It failed.

In response to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Congress passed an anti-terrorism bill granting the government vast new powers. Yet that didn't prevent the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The CIA has a $30 billion budget, yet never got wind of the hijackings. Neither did the FBI, the National Security Agency, or any of the military intelligence agencies.

Yet still, the belief persists: More government is the only way to vanquish the terrorist threat.

During another great crisis, the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for "bold, persistent experimentation." He said, "It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another."

Why not apply some bold, persistent experimentation to terrorism? After all, America has tried one method -- big government -- and it failed. In that spirit, here are several specific ways in which reducing government might also reduce terrorism:

Currently, airline pilots cannot carry guns in the cockpit unless they get approval from the Federal Aviation Administration -- approval that hasn't been granted since 1973. Undoubtedly the September 11 hijackers knew that; that's why box cutters were all they needed to turn jumbo jets into skyscraper-seeking missiles.

To prevent a recurrence of that horrifying scenario, the 67,000-strong Airline Pilots Association has enthusiastically endorsed repealing the gun ban. Yet the FAA is moving in the opposite direction: It recently outlawed even the possession of knives by pilots.

Pilots are better qualified than bureaucrats to decide whether they need guns. They ought to be able to make that decision without government interference.

The Drug War is a huge money-maker for terrorists; even U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert thinks so. Shortly after the attacks, Hastert announced the formation of a Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America, saying, "The illegal drug trade is the financial engine that fuels many terrorist organizations around the world, including Osama bin Laden."

Currently, about 75% of the world's heroin is produced in Afghanistan, reports the Wall Street Journal -- allowing the Taliban to reap enormous profits from black market sales.

If we ratchet up the War on Drugs, such heroin will become more valuable, since scarcity drives up prices. And higher prices mean more profits for drug dealers and their terrorist allies.

Ending prohibition would wipe out that black market "subsidy." The financial engine that fuels terrorist organizations would sputter to a halt.

Repealing prohibition would also give the government an additional $50 billion a year to fight terrorism, without costing taxpayers a dime.

If we simply divert the $50 billion now spent on the drug war (including incarceration costs), it would allow the government to focus on identifying and arresting terrorists -- rather than raiding college fraternity parties.

When's the last time you heard about a terrorist attack on Switzerland? One reason that small, peaceful nation is so safe from attack is that it has adopted a foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention.

U.S. politicians have done the opposite. They constantly dispatch our troops to places that have no relation to our national defense, such as Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and Lebanon.

According to Ivan Eland of the Cato Institute, the U.S. government now has 200,000 troops stationed in more than 140 countries and territories, most on endless peace-keeping or nation-building missions. Despite our good intentions, those troops are breeding anti-American resentment in many nations -- and making America a more tempting target for terrorists.

The solution is to move toward a "Protect America First" foreign policy. Redeploying U.S. troops to defend our own borders would make America safer, while depriving terrorists of their rationale for launching attacks on the homeland.

Can we guarantee that these small-government solutions will work? Of course not. That kind of absolute certainty is impossible in a world fraught with risks.

But it's clear that big-government solutions have failed to protect us. Now, as Franklin D. Roosevelt said, it's time to admit it frankly, and try something else.

It's time to embark on a bold experiment: Reduce the threat of terrorism by reducing government.

That was a great article. The author is right on the money.

The reality is, regardless of who is in power where in Middle East, oil has always flowed, and it will always flow.

Try this hypothetical: Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. US says 'Big Deal.' Saddam now controls Kuwait's oil fields. What will he do with all that oil? He can't drink it. He can't cultivate it. He'll sell it.

Since we're trying hypotheticals, try this one: Kuwait approaches us, and asks us for advanced weaponry to defend itself against possible Iraqi aggression. The Jewish lobby in Capitol Hill shrieks 'Thats a threat to Israel.' Us policy makers say 'Big Deal' and sell Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia) advanced weaponry. What happens? Saddam is deterred.

The Swiss, the Danish, and the Dutch are also addicted to oil. But their office towers are not suicide attack targets.

Read the Constitution. The Founding Fathers envisioned a Republic. A Federal government of limited and enumerated powers. Let's avoid the temptation to turn it into an Empire.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.