Blowback, reaction

Johnson argues in his essay for a sort of imperial and political karma, termed as blowback, that haunts every expansionist and self fulfilling policy it enacts. He believes that the majority of the obstacles in foreign policy and global conflicts have been created by former acts of America's Cold War self, seen at that time to be necessary for survival.

The most important fact that he presents in his essay is the duality of "terrorism" and terrorist-like acts. As he accurately points out, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," and the ability to see the oppostite side from our own in viewing America's military actions in retrospect allows for far greater perspective on the global situation, especially in regards to terriorism. Rather than pursue further attacks, he proposes that conflicts of the past could have been solved by simply removing our presence from certain parts of the world. The danger in such thinking, however, comes back to soft power. Soft power can exist between enemies as well as allies, and although some opposing rises to power may have been preventable, our perception in the minds of our enemies must also be taken into account when deciding strategy.

His most powerful point in the essay seemed to be his bit on the future and the unintended consequences that the innocent will face, most likely ones which they had no say in. Terrorism always lashes out on the innocent to punish the powerful, and in all likelihood those innocent will prove to be punished for sins that their generation did not commit, as history tells us. Johnson believes that if America does not rid itself of its Empirical nature and outlook on the world, this punishment will lash out furiously and more intensely than ever in the upcoming generation.