The US and UK have begun to bomb Afghanistan. They have begun the bombing of Kabul and Kandahar. They have also dropped some food on the region. In order to assist activists, here is an article with some common arguments for war, and answers to them. It refers to a number of helpful essays available on ZNet.
1. We have to do something to deal with the immediate threat.
In Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's October 7 address, he said that there is no way to protect against every imaginable and unimaginable attack that terrorists can think of. He was right in this. He then went on to say that the only solution was to attack the terrorists and destroy them, to take the battle to them. He was not right in this. We will return to this below.
The immediate threat, of further terrorist acts, can only be dealt with by improved security measures. Locking the cockpit of a plane, having more careful security measures, and so on.. A generalized attack on Afghanistan does not deal with the immediate threat nor does it directly enhance the security of US civilians, and is directly harmful to the security of Afghani civilians. If Afghani civilians are as important as US civilians, then this war cannot continue.
If the only two options were to try the al-Qaeda network in absentia, issue arrest warrants and resolve to catch them as soon as possible, and then to wait for an opportunity while pursuing diplomatic options, or to launch a war that would kill many more innocent people, what would the moral course be?
Those aren't the only two options. Monbiot's proposal of 'Collateral Repair'is to drop way more food than bombs, or rather, just food and not bombs. He makes a convincing case that this would, fairly quickly, result in just the kinds of changes that the US government claims it would like to see in Afghanistan.
2. We need to deter terrorists from further attacks.
This argument depends on terrorists being 'deterrable' by threats against them or the people they are oppressing. That the attacks of September 11 were suicide attacks establishes that a threat of death is not a deterrent to those responsible for them.
There is evidence that violent attacks and assassination campaigns against terrorist organizations does not deter suicide bombers. Israel has been carrying out a war against Palestinians in the occupied territories for decades. Part of this war has been the targeted assassinations of Palestinian dissident leaders believed to be responsible for suicide bombings. This has not prevented suicide bombings from occurring regularly in Israel.
A sensible approach on the other hand, would be to bring the specific perpetrators of the crimes to justice, and also to redress the grievances of those who are vulnerable to being recruited by terrorist networks. In Tariq Ali's words, 'The only real solution is a political one. It requires removing the causes that create the discontent. It is despair that feeds fanaticism and it is a result of Washington's policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.'
3. The attacks are surgical, accurate, will not harm civilians-- and we're doing humanitarian aid simultaneously. Civilians are being safeguarded.
Let us look at the food issue first. The figure given by the CNN for the first day's airdrops of food was 37500 rations. One ration is 3 meals, or one person-day of food. There are between 3-7 million people at risk of starvation. So in order to alleviate the danger, the rate of airdrops has to increase by a factor of one hundred.
Bush pledged $324 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Each ration costs $4.25. Let us assume that there are only 3 million at risk of starvation, that every ration will reach one of those people, and that every dollar of that $324 million is going to rations (and not to the planes, fuel, staff, medicine, or any other item). Under these generous assumptions, there will be enough food to feed these people for 25 days. The reality is probably worse-- since millions are now fleeing the bombing, and will not sow their crops of winter wheat for example, but even in this scenario the money is insufficient to last for the winter. Also for comparison, $40 billion was appropriated for the war effort, and a single B-2 bomber costs $2.1 billion.
On the surgical nature of the strikes, it is important to note that there is just no way to know. The only footage available so far is a fuzzy green screen on CNN, and highly controlled releases from the government. The government has openly stated that they will not give details on their operations, and so it is unlikely that we will be informed of the full impact of the war on civilians. If all of the history of war and the specific record of US-UK military actions in the past is any guide, the war will have devastating impacts on civilians.
4. The UN is untrustworthy, undemocratic, and anti-American. Adhering to international law and letting the UN take the lead would be a disaster.
Would using the relevant international legal instruments lead to an outcome more unjust and less conducive to security than launching a war? It seems unlikely. Consider the comparison to Nicaragua, mentioned by Noam Chomsky:
'We should remember that there are real precedents for this. The most obvious, because it is supported by a World Court decision and UN Security Council resolution, the highest authorities. Twenty years ago the United States launched a war against Nicaragua. That was a terrible war. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was practically destroyed. Nicaragua did not respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court with a case, the World Court ruled in their favor and ordered the United States to stop its "unlawful use of force" (that means international terrorism) and pay substantial reparations. Well, the United States responded by dismissing the court with contempt and immediately escalated the attack. At that point Niagara went to the UN Security council which voted a resolution calling on all states to obey international law. They didn't mention anyone, but everyone knew they meant the United States. Well, the United States vetoed it. Nicaragua then went to the General As In this case, the whole world really is with the US, and no one would act to stop the US from using all the relevant international law to bring the perpetrators to justice.
5. The Taliban is horrible and their replacement by the Northern Alliance would be an improvement.
The first part is certainly true, but the second is debatable. To quote Robert Fisk, the Northern Alliance includes men who 'looted and raped their way through the suburbs of Kabul in the Nineties. They chose girls for forced marriages, murdered their families'… 'And, dare I ask, how many bin Ladens are serving now among our new and willing foot-soldiers?'
If the end of this open-ended war is the Northern Alliance in power after a long bombardment and various commando raids and assassinations of key Taliban leaders, the Afghani people who survive all this will not thank us.
Again, what would be a better solution for Afghanistan? Vijay Prashad makes some suggestions. 'What are the alternatives? The mujahidin, mainly Hikmityar's crew, have killed much of the intelligentsia during its reign of terror in the 1990s, and it led to the exile of a huge number of reasonable Afghans, many of whom took shelter in New Delhi (and do not wish to return to a place that has given their families such nightmares). Organized refugee groups, like RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan), the Afghan Women's Network, and other such people's organizations have been at work for years trying to restart a progressive dynamic among Afghan refugees, but also to spill over into the besieged country. These groups will not be party to the types of corrupt capitalist deals already being worked out in Roman suburbs and in Uzbekistan: a moratorium on the exploitation of Afghanistan is perhaps in order, with the profits from a potential natural gas pipeline drawn into the redevelopment of the country's productive base and democratic institutions rather than toward Unocal or Bridas. These are our fights, against the war aims of the US and their new, yet old, allies, but in support of those popular agencies that oppose the Taliban from within the contradictions of Afghan life, both in diaspora and at home. It is time to move on the contradictions."
Advertisement
(By arrangement with Znet)
