A Case Against Bombing Afghanistan

A Case Against Bombing Afghanistan
The events of September 11th have spawned massive excavations in New York and Washington. And as the human remains are exhumed another excavation is underway; one in which the remains of our humanity must be found. The destruction has opened our eyes to the vulnerability of human life. In the dust rising from our previous notion of invulnerability, we begin to try and understand what has happened and why? Though many choose to view the wound as a national tragedy, one in which “citizens” were killed, it is far more constructive and important to view these and other events as HUMAN tragedy. Because of this tragedy’s human nature it calls into question our conception of humanity. In the time following the attacks, we have been massively exposed to rhetoric proclaiming that anyone capable of such actions are “inhuman”. Individuals exclaim that such acts are “incomprehensible”. The Media states that the perpetrators are “evil”. This language is the means by which we distance ourselves, as humans, from the thought that the human nature contains such violent and cruel potential. The phenomenon is a classic example of “dehumanizing” our enemies. By denying the humanity of “our” enemies we thus affirm “our” own security within humanity. This is a grave mistake. In denying the humanity in others, humans create a condition under which they see themselves as human and all others who do not stand with them are viewed as subhuman. Thus we are psychologically capable of justifying any “collateral damage” in the pursuit of “evil”. Soon we begin to see the same “inhumanity” we set out to combat, portrayed in our own actions.

Civilians are being killed in Afghanistan. Though the US is targeting “military installations,” innocent civilians are dying. The US states this is the necessary cost for bringing down the Taliban and the capture of Osama Bin Laden. How many civilian deaths, or how much “collateral damage” is acceptable in order that the U.S. may attain its goal? Can we quantify the value of human life? Are a thousand Afghani lives of equal value to a thousand lives in the U.S? Are a thousand deaths now in order to assure the “defense” of a hundred thousand later a valid argument? Is war and foreign policy simply an elementary mathematical equation? And if it is, will these calculations prove effective? No matter how much bombing occurs on Afghan soil the threat of terrorism will still exist.

When president Clinton, in response to the bombing of a U.S. embassy, lead air strikes against Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in western Africa, did it destroy the risk of terrorism? No, but what it did do was to destroy the main supply of medicine to western African nations (there was no bio-weapon development occurring in the factory as was believed). Can we take no heed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and see that this cycle of violence does not end, but continues on and on. Why are we blind to the fact that it is the innocent, like those in New York, Washington, Israel, Palestine, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Iraq, Ireland, Afghanistan, that die. The currency of ideological forces has always been the professed “righteousness” of the cause, and in the conflicts between opposing ideologies it is innocent lives that are crushed and destroyed.

During the Russian occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89) the United States through the Pakistan Government, General Zia, and the CIA developed ISI (the Pakistani intelligence service), funded the Mujadeen and other Afghan resistance groups. Whether this was a matter of humanitarian interest or merely another power struggle between the US and Russia fought on foreign ground with foreign forces can be left up to debate. In 1989, when the persistence of the Afghan resistance secured the withdrawal of Russian forces, the country was left in a state of economic, social, and political chaos. The United States was directly involved in funding and implementing a “stable” political force. Originally organized by theological students living or in exile in Pakistan, this group was called the Taliban. What this means now that the US is involved in a military confrontation with the Taliban is that the Defense department has explicit knowledge of the military instillations within the country. These are the locations the US is now attacking. Yet even in a country where the US has explicit knowledge of the military locations, civilians are being killed. What happens when the US begins strikes on other non-compliant countries in which the US has limited knowledge of military locations? How many civilians will be killed when the US bombs cities?

International aid agencies are hindered in their work under conditions of war. Approximately 100,000 new refugees have crossed Afghan boarders since the conflict began, adding to the estimated 5,000,000 internationally displaced persons from Afghanistan already living in outlying counties. US aid being sent to Afghanistan now is propaganda; a country cannot be “righteous” for feeding the people it bombs.

Bombing is unnecessary and occurs simply to give the semblance of action: at the cost of innocent life. Military tactics will not destroy a threat to national security of the United States. Global exchange, Human Rights Watch, and many other NGO’s, as well as the majority of independent media organizations have condemned U.S. military action. There have been protests in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. There is a rising appeal that the ideals of humanity not be lost beneath the weight of powerful nationalist and military centered thinking. Many organizations are calling for a criminal case to be lodged against the perpetrators of the September 11th attack, instead of a military intervention that only strengthens confrontational ideologies. United States has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court (presumably to avoid being held accountable for many of its actions, e.g. Kissinger, Bush Sr.), and thus has isolated itself from a possible tool in the development of a criminal rather than military prosecution. The US delivered an ultimatum in conflict with international protocol, denying the standard procedure of furnishing the evidence necessary to extradite a suspected criminal.

Whatever is to be done must be done in the most “humane” fashion. The first step in this process is examining our own potential and propensity to fall into our own inhumanity. When we acknowledge this fact, we can guard against it by assuring that our actions are in accordance with our ideals. The correct course of action is one in which no innocent lives are lost, when we forgo punishment because we cannot achieve it without losing our humanity or forfeiting another’s. When this ideal of justice, empathy, and humanity is realized, then and only then can we call our cause and our concept of humanity “righteous.” We have the ability to speak out. In silence we agree to war, in silence we forsake our humanity.


WRITE YOUR SENATOR
EXPRESS YOUR DISAGREEMENT WITH U.S. TACTICS

BARBARA BOXER
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.html


DIANNE FEINSTEIN
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
senator [at] feinstein.senate.gov