Why Don't They Hate Luxembourg?
You might say, it is the question. Do "they" hate the United States because we are the "freest nation in the world"? Well, according to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, the United States is not the freest nation in the world. We're only #5! Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia rank higher in economic freedom. And who puts out this anti-American garbage? Actually, it is the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, two strong supporters of the war on terrorism.
At the recent ABC-Facebook debate, Ron Paul asked the question that others have often asked: Why don't they attack Canada or Switzerland? This generated a lot of yelling, as usual, but Romney's remarks were: "Is it such a puzzle, is it such a mystery as to why they attack America? They're not going after Luxembourg. (Laughter.) We're the strongest nation in the world."
Romney's comments are puzzling for several reasons. Chiefly is, why would you want to attack the "strongest nation in the world," when there are four countries that are "weaker," yet still more economically free? And Luxembourg... we'll get back to them.
As I understand it, only three Western nations have been attacked by al-Qaeda: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain. The countries with the largest current deployment to Iraq are the United States and the United Kingdom (Spain withdrew their troops about a month after being attacked). Both Canada and Switzerland (mentioned by Paul above) are freer than the United Kingdom (as are New Zealand and Chile), according to the war-supporting Heritage and WSJ.
Thirty countries are freer than Spain, including, yes, Luxembourg. Why don't they hate Luxembourg? Maybe Mr. Romney can answer that. Maybe he'll get some more laughter. They are clearly much more economically free than Spain, which should make them a nice "hate them because they're free" target. But they don't spend much on the military, so by Romney's "logic" they aren't a great target (although this would seem to make them an easier target). Oh yes, and they have not sent troops to Iraq.
Of course, several countries ranked above Spain in economic freedom have troops in Iraq, but have not been attacked by al-Qaeda, so the correlation is not perfect. Most prominent is Australia, ranked 4th in economic freedom and with the 3rd largest current deployment of troops to Iraq. But that does not appear from lack of trying on al-Qaeda's part.
Jeremy, I have no doubt that this answer will be unsatisfactory to you, but
let's see if it passes the plausible test. Suppose that al-Qaeda wants to
(in the long run) put the entire world under Islamic law, and that it is
cheaper for those who do not wish to be under Islamic law to oppose them
before they acquire nuclear weapons (say, by conquering Pakistan).
Opposing al-Qaeda early (in contrast to opposing them only when directly
threatened) is, therefore, a public good, and like all public goods it will
be underprovided and subject to the free-rider problem. It is easier for
small governments like that of Luxembourg to free-ride than it is for the
US government to free-ride; if the US government does not oppose al-Qaeda,
it's not clear that any other coalition will be able to hold together to
supply the public good. Therefore, al-Qaeda opposes the US government, the
US government opposes al-Qaeda, and Luxembourg doesn't have to worry about
terrorism. It's an equilibrium; no party is better off in its own judgment
by doing anything differently.
The problem with that theory, Eli, is why al-Qaeda would attack us first as
part of a grand scheme to Rule the World. Seems a *lot* easier to start
small, doesn't it?
Jason, let's assume your answer is correct. Retaliating against al-Qaeda
in this scenario is a bad option, playing directly into their hands. But
NOT retaliating may be an even WORSE option. You would have this little
"cave-bound" operation that is able to attack the Infidels with impunity.
This seems like an even better recruitment opportunity. The equilibrium,
therefore, may not change.
Hey, if we can get our government/military/etc. to track down the
particular individuals responsible for the World Trade Center/Flight 93/the
USS Cole/etc. -- and thus to truly *retaliate* -- then, wow, let's go for
it.
Eli: you have presented a plausible theory of al-Qaeda's strategy, which is
to knock out the big guy first. Then all you have to do is conquer all of
the smaller countries. I'm not sure it is correct, though. Primarily
because, does al-Qaeda really think they could ever "conquer" the United
States? That is, that Bin Laden would be sitting in the White House and
could now command the U.S. government? I really doubt it, but maybe that's
not precisely what you are arguing.