It used to be that America's best known exports around the globe were cool cars, rock and roll, and movies. Many citizens around the world have been drawn to American culture, and for those Americans that travel abroad there are always constant reminders of home, whether it's hearing "Beat It" blasting from a storefront or stumbling upon a dubbed-over episode of "Seinfeld" in your hotel.But those who actually live overseas are getting a lot more from America than the hip music and classic sitcoms.The recent attack against civilians in Nairobi's Westgate mall by Somalia's Al-Shabab militia is covered by most media in traditional fashion: as a senseless, barbaric attack with no logical cause whatsoever. From USA Today, "Nairobi Mall Attack Strikes Against All of Us":

As on 9/11, terrorists are waging a war on our modern, democratic way of life. Today, we are all Kenyans.It's the post-9/11 nightmare that Americans have been half expecting: al-Qaeda gunmen attack a shopping mall, take hostages, leave behind carnage and a sickening repeat question: "Why us?"

It's a valid question. Why "us"? Why "them"?People always have motivations for their actions, regardless of how horrific those actions may be.In the case of the Nairobi attack, this was a direct response to the Kenyan government sending troops to Somalia in order to wage war against the militant group Al-Shabab. As with 9/11 in the U.S., Kenya's foreign intervention has resulted in blowback upon its citizens. They are the dual victims of extraction of their wealth by the Kenyan government, and now the direct victims of attacks resulting from how that money was appropriated.But the Kenyan government didn't wake up one day and decide it felt like fighting a war in neighboring Somalia against Al-Shabab. One could say they were "nudged" by some "friends".From The Independent, October 2011:

Kenya has confirmed that Western allies have joined its war on Islamic militants al-Shabaab despite denials from the US and France that they are involved in fighting in southern Somalia. Foreign military forces have carried out air strikes and a naval bombardment close to the militant stronghold of Kismayo, a Kenyan army spokesman said yesterday.

This very same article seems to recognize that this intervention by foreign forces could have consequences within Kenya.

Meanwhile fears of a backlash of terror attacks against Kenya were underlined by a blast at a nightclub in Nairobi in the early hours of yesterday morning, that seriously injured 12 people. The grenade attack was immediately linked by local police to al-Shabaab. It came only a day after the US embassy warned expats in the Kenyan capital of a “credible threat” of an imminent attack.

"Backlash." This is simply another term for "blowback", the CIA's own term for the unintended consequences of an operation suffered by the aggressor. In this case, the aggressors against Al-Shabab in Somalia are the governments of the United States, France, and Kenya.But the U.S. is more than a willing accomplice in the attacks in Somalia. It appears they are an active participant, up to and including the use of drone strikes. From BBC News, February 2012:

The US military, which has a base in neighbouring Djibouti, has previously carried out drone strikes in Somalia.

It has also launched air strikes against alleged al-Qaeda militants in the country.

Again, this article seems to recognize the potential consequences of these actions.

BBC East Africa correspondent Will Ross says a number of air strikes have been reported in recent months but for now no-one seems prepared to own up to them - possibility because of the potential backlash should civilians be killed.

Backlash. Blowback.In reality, the United States has been intervening in Somalia for decades, the most infamous incident of which is the "Blackhawk Down" incident from the Clinton years, and the subject of the movie of the same name. Since then, the United States has invaded Somalia through proxy wars several times, first during the Bush administration via its Ethiopia, and most recently in 2011 at the direction of the Obama administration, through both Ethiopia and Kenya.The attacks in Nairobi are not without motive or cause. They are a logical consequence of governments intervening military in the affairs of other nations.As Peter Falk's "Colombo" might say, there is "just one more thing."And as Tony Cartalucci describes at Land Destroyer Report, these murderous terrorists attacking civilians in Kenya are not just motivated by the actions of the U.S. and other governments in Somalia. They are also funded by the U.S.

This cooperation between AQIM, Boko Haram, and Al Shabaab has been clearly bolstered by the immense influx of NATO-provided cash and weapons flowing into Libya first to overthrow the Libyan government, then to be shipped to Syria to overthrow the government there. NATO's assistance in expanding Al Qaeda's operational capacity in North Africa can only be helping terrorists like those behind the Kenya Westgate Mall siege carry out cross-border operations of this scale.Despite attempts by the West  to provide other explanations as to where Al Qaeda is receiving its funds, manpower, and arsenal to carry out global campaigns, it is clear that it is a product of state-sponsorship - states like the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and others.Indeed, Al Shabaab's attack in Kenya is abhorrent, unjustifiable terrorism - however, what Kenyans and the world as a whole must remember, is who armed them, who continuously props them up, provides them entire nations (Libya) as safe havens, and swells their ranks and armories with billions in cash  and thousands of tons of weaponry at a time in war zones like Syria.

The United States has armed and funded a global terror network to use for it's own ends, whether it's the relatively easy task of overthrowing Ghadaffi in Libya or the slightly more complicated proposition of overthrowing Assad in Syria. These terror networks are all linked together, and Al-Shabab, the perpetrators of the Nairobi mall attack, is right there in the mix.As always, the problem can be boiled down to "intervention". The U.S. government intervenes in it's citizens wallets, uses those funds to intervene in other countries, and the resulting blowback harms civilians all around the world.Perhaps Ron Paul is right, and libertarians should be classify themselves as "non-interventionists": no intervention in the economy, in personal lives, in other countries.Sounds dandy to me.Until more people adopt this philosophy and demand the same from their government, we will continue to see American's most insidious export continue to rear its ugly head in all parts of the globe.