Question:

I am an Italian supporter of libertarianism. I worry that most American libertarians seem to favor isolationism, to avoid being involved in world troubles. This happened prior to World War II, but apparently the lesson was not fully understood. I believe even the current terrorism crisis can be blamed on a lack of U.S. intervention in world politics, not an excess of it.

I think that the motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks is clear. Simply the fact that America exists is a threat to militant Islamic fundamentalists, and to governments that are bloody dictatorships and have total disregard for their own citizens’ lives and rights.

Answer:

I have heard the news media echo your certainty on the terrorists’ motivations, but frankly, I see little hard evidence for this viewpoint. On the other hand, bin Laden, the presumed mastermind, claims that the crimes of the U.S. include, but are not limited to: stationing troops in his native Saudi Arabia; intervention against Muslims throughout the world; sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, and Iran; and support to Israel. For a sample of one of the many interviews in which bin Laden makes these statements, see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011015-178412,00.html.

These seem like concrete complaints against US intervention (military troops, embargo, tax-supported aid), not a concern with threats to fundamentalist beliefs.

However, non-intervention (as seemingly called for by bin Laden) is not the same as isolationism. For example, libertarians wouldn’t impose embargoes, as the US government does now, so trading with all nations would occur. Trading is neither interventionist or isolationist. Indeed, it’s quite neighborly and interactive.