There’s a reason Rome made it big. It pounded everyone it ran across flat. And then it rebuilt and built more on top of it, while giving the flattened area broad social and moderate political autonomy. If bomb, and move on, you make alot more enemies. No matter what you do, if you flatten an area, or a people, you are going to make enemies. Wonder what would happen if you didn’t flatten, but actually stepped forward to help in the first place. Bombing creates terrorists. What does building roads do?
That is not the American Way. we go in, bomb the shit out of ’em, and leave. it’s like a bad one night stand with a ton of innocent casualties. the american people like this sort of treatment of others, we think that they deserve it, without stoping to think that they really don’t. i nearly got slapped once for equating an afghani death with someone who died in the WTC.
if we were to help them plant their opium crop(opium is one of the few things that will grow in afghani soil), maybe they’ll forgive us. i don’t see it happening anytime soon with the many “mistakes” that the american armed forces have made.
Gives terrorists roads to drive on?
Terrorists like the US army? =)
It also lets the non terrorists get around more easily, but more importantly, it might build some affection in people who typically want to see us go smoosh. Harder to motivate terrorism against people who feed than against people who bomb.
Well first of all, I seriously hope that you don’t equate the morality of the actions of the US military with those of the Al Qaeda terrorists. Or even terrorists in general. Can I assume that this was for troll value?
Also, I am highly suspicious that anything along the lines of what you suggest would endear ourselves to that nation in the short or long term. Other than providing security and emergency assistance, I think I can make an equally good case that they would resent our attempts at nation building.
…Evidence my drift to the middle…
Well first of all, I seriously hope that you don’t equate the morality of the actions of the US military with those of the Al Qaeda terrorists. Or even terrorists in general. Can I assume that this was for troll value?
Not entirely for troll value.
Willful destruction is the defining act of evil. War is all about willful destruction, and is thus evil. Some say a necessary evil given human nature, and that may be so. But, regardless, by extension, any army that starts or escalates a war is evil. So, yes, I will compare two groups that slaughter civilians in droves. They are both guilty of evil. Both intend to accomplish good from their evil. And what has our army accomplished? It wasn’t the Taliban that hit the towers and pentagon, it was Al-Qaeda. The two organizations overlapped and interacted, certainly, but they are not the same. We’re smashing the Taliban, but that no more destroying Al-Qaeda than destroying the NAACP would destroy the ACLU. I do wonder what Al-Qaeda’s goal was. To cripple the U.S. economy? They didn’t succeed in that, for all our whining about a dropping stock market. That ugly beast is still moving pretty fast. To destroy our civil liberties? A convincing argument, in that the goal has been accomplished, but I don’t think they cared about that. To lash out at the people who have destroyed the lives and families of many Muslims? To attack the people that support a hostile nation in their midst? To get back at the people that have destroyed their hospitals and roads? That sounds far more probable to me.
More importantly, how can Al-Qaeda summon up suicidal people for these missions who really believe that the US is the enemy? Why do they themselves want to do this? Do you believe that some supernatural force for evil is behind their actions? And that some supernatural force for good is behind ours?
Also, I am highly suspicious that anything along the lines of what you suggest would endear ourselves to that nation in the short or long term. Other than providing security and emergency assistance, I think I can make an equally good case that they would resent our attempts at nation building.
Right, so what do you suggest we do? Bomb them into submission? That should certainly step up terrorist recruitment. It’s not an easy question to answer, and my ‘building roads’ suggestion is not meant to be taken literally, as sending in highway construction crews, and getting them started, but rather helping them accomplish goals of national development. Build them mosques, if you prefer. Something public, and something they will not deny as beneficial. Give their victims and heroes the same benefits we give our own.
…Evidence my drift to the middle…
That you attack untested propositions as implausible without proposing alternatives? =)
PART I
Willful destruction is NOT the defining act of evil. Assuming that you espouse a Western philosophical background, the carefully developed Just War Theory outlines the criteria of “jus ad bellum” quite specifically. Aggression across borders is the only “crime” on the international scale, and it warrants a total and complete destruction of the offending government and its military in response. The only other condition of a moral war, “jus in bello”, is not quite a clear-cut but has been met by most interpretations. I’m not going to list any here, but philosophy aside it’s not very hard at all to come up with a counterexample where it would be worse to not escalate the war than to do so. Your “war is hell” philosophy just doesn’t hold up in the real world unless you are willing to sacrifice your life and the lives of others in the name of non-aggression.
Thus, the terrorists attacked us, and we have every moral right to defend ourselves, even if it involves us going across their borders and finding them. Our actions were not aggressive– theirs were. Hence, theirs were criminal, ours were not. As much as you feel that you U.S. action is misguided, I think you realize that it is defensive, rather than aggressive. We had no prior intention to destroy the sovereignty of the Afghan people, nor to harm them in any way. This dichotomy is the fundamental and important difference between the U.S. and Al-Qaeda that makes them immoral and us moral.
The distinction between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda does not matter. The Taliban made the aggression directly possible, and its presence made its irradication impossible. It was therefore an integral and inseperable component of the aggression and our indeniable right to defense.
Jus in bello = Conduct in war. Short summary: mistakes are allowable, only combatants should be targetted (this is another reason why the attack can not even begin to be considered a rightful war), feed and cloth soldier POWs, etc… general Geneva convention stuff.
PART II
You suggest that we are in/directly at fault for making their life miserable through economic supression, the support of Israel, and our Afghan campaign.
Do any of those things ever ever ever give anyone the moral right to take the life of an innocent?
NEVER. Their actions are eternally inexcusable and evil. You sarcastically suggest that evil is a “supernatural force”, but I give you a very real and tangible example. This is what evil is.
I certainly don’t claim that the United States has pursued the best policies in the middle east, nor do I believe that many of Israel’s actions are in its best interest. I would go so far as to suggest that some of Israel’s specific actions are unjustifiable (i.e. assasination without trial, settlers, unnecessarily shooting at civilians). But on the whole, Israel does have the right to occupy and enforce law in a territory that is spawning deadly attacks on its civilians and whose government vacillates between inaction and condoning these atrocities. Also, how quickly we have forgotten that the Muslims were the ones who attacked Israel’s sovereignty and necessitated the occupation. I see no aggressive goals in Israel’s motives… it has been willing to return the territory if only it could guarantee its security.
It’s easy to sympathize with the deplorable plight of the Palestinians and Afghanis, but there is a difference between inducing hardship (even when it is fatal) through inaction or defense, and outright homocide.
Be careful. Where is the fine line between equating murder with a moral action, excusing murder, and justifying it altogether?
PART III
The middle doesn’t necessarily involve spouting criticisms without suggestions of my own. =)
As far as the Afghan campaign, we should continue to seek justice on those who contributed to the attack on us. Yes, it also might be in our best interest to cultivate some goodwill among the natives. But in the end we should return to them their own governance, and if they choose to pursue policies that again result in aggression, then we will have to repeat this sad ordeal. It’s their responsibility (by which I mean the country through the proxy of the government) to behave as decent human beings and good world citizens. I think this will further alleviate their plight and strengthen our relationship more than anything else. It’s not necessarily our responsibility to make them like us or to repair the damage that was caused by their misbehavior. But again, in our own interest, I highly support emergency relief and rebuilding enough of their infrastructure to support themselves in the coming future.
Pursuing justice, not participating in nation-building, and providing support are not mutually exclusive goals in any way.
Besides our major divergence on the morality, cause-and-effect, and responsibility, I differ from you in the fact that I think we should continue the operation for the time being, and that I don’t think that we should be providing any specific long-term relief (i.e. constructing buildings). Yes to emergency relief, yes to short-term relief, and yes to the same economic development assistance that we provide to the rest of the world.
If I didn’t really really have to go to bed, I’d give you my thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Perhaps with some interesting morsels of conversation I may be so inspired. =)
Time-being = As long as there are pockets of al-Qaeda and Taliban who are resisting us from pursuing justice
Sounds pretty idealistic. Far far from reality. Americans are quick to respond and slow to adapt.
Not that I am a UberPatriot to say the least. Those who know me know better anyway.
The problem with building up the infrastructure while there is still something there, is that SOMEONE is going to lose power in the process, and thus put up a fight to stop the progress from being made.
*most* countries, where you need better roads, it means that people are living there already.
those homes have popped up in an organic fashion, and there isn’t much of a linear nature to how they are organized. In order to build good roads, generally they have to flatten things to do so, whether it is a hill or a house. People get cranky, and don’t want to move, rightfully so.
Build up a new government, and whoever was the power structure previously isn’t in power anymore, otherwise, what is the point in changing it?
I am not arguing that the bomb-and-run policies of late are excusable at all.
After WWII, we helped to rebuild Japan, and Germany, and many many other contries that were screwed up after the war.
We haven’t been willing to put that much work into the aftermath like that for a long time.
Then again Afghanistan has always been very VERY volitile, even before the war with the Soviets. We are not blameless in the situation at all. But from what I have seen and read, I dont’ think it would have mattered if we had built them entire hospital research complexes.
They would have bombed those too. Evil Western Influence. Such is the nature of Fundamentalism *everywhere*
Would the KKK have welcomed a hospital built for a (theoretical) disaster ridden South if it was built by the NAACP?