|
War is unavoidable. Any student of history should know this, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding him or herself. We will find a reason to hate one another, and we will use this hatred as an excuse to kill one another. This is how it is, this is how it has been, and this is how it always will be. I’m sorry, but the truth is sometimes not very pleasant.
As a prelude, I would like to mention the war-like and violent nature of most of human history.
I would like to make mention of this simply as an illustration that warring is not a modern phenomenon. The classic example is the nature of most of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. Germanic tribes warred with each other for territory and resources; eventually the strongest warlords established fiefdoms and the feudal system came to be. Other examples include much of Asia during the same time period, Africa for the majority of its human history, and most of North and South America at various periods of time. There have been wars wherever and whenever there have been people and to say that we have become particularly violent in this day and age is a bit of a misnomer. Again, see Rome: Gladiatorial Combat and headlines such as “Boys Kick Baby to Death in Street.”
This bit of background brings me around to current events. We here in America have once again become involved in a war. This war happens to be with a group of Middle-Eastern people who are difficult to locate and apparently hate us very much. This is not very surprising; when you have the most money, toys, influence, power and whatnot, people are bound to hate you for one reason or another. That’s how it goes, I’m afraid. The question on everyone’s mind seems to be, “Is it right for us to start a war with these people?” Other questions include: “Well isn’t it our fault that they hate us in the first place, couldn’t we do something differently so they would not hate us?” and “Aren’t we sinking to their level by wanting to kill them, does this mean they win?” The answer to these questions and many of the others that I have noticed floating around is more complicated than anyone would like to think, and I am going to attempt an answer below.
Is it right to start a war? No, but neither is it wrong. A war, by its very nature, is not something that can be viewed as a matter of morality. We, as those who are not directly involved have the luxury of moral debate; but, when things come right down, the question that needs to be answered is not “Is it right?” but, “Is it prudent?” Because we have been warring with each other for so long, the question of whether or not war is morally right is a moot point. Many people have had many different answers, and the same people will often have different answers in different circumstances. Therefore, the only question with a consistent answer happens to be, “Is it prudent to get involved in a war?” This question, being of a purely factual nature, can be argued logically and a conclusion can be reached. The issue of morality is impossible to answer in this manner and therefore rather useless.
Thus, is it prudent for us to be involved in a war with this group of Middle-Easterners who seem to hate us very much? The answer, seemingly, is yes for the following reasons:
1) People willing to hijack four planes at the same time in order to destroy two civilian buildings and damage a large military one pose a definite threat to America. Are they right about our policy in the Middle East? Who cares? Whether or not our policy in the Middle East is good or bad does not change that these people pose a real and definite threat to the United States and our way of life. Doing something like this once probably means that they are willing to do it again, and the prudent thing to do is to stop that before it happens. The first rule of self-defense is “Neutralize Every Threat.” Sure, our country was founded by a bunch of terrorists, but Britain did everything in its power to neutralize that threat, didn’t it? The same thing applies here; we should do everything in our power to neutralize any threat to the security of the United States, that is a prudent maneuver.
2) Lifting of economic sanctions or other barriers will have no net effect on the lives of the Afghani people, no matter what the Taliban says. The Taliban can accurately be called a regime. And, as is true with any regime, any money that flows into the country will be used first to help them keep power and secondly to help them gain more power. Eventually, some will filter down to the average citizens, but this will have no net effect on their lives. The trickle-down policy of the 1980s in the United States is a good example of why more money to the Taliban will not help the Afghani people. As a student of economics, I know that economic sanctions are not an effective tool for crushing regimes, but I also know that supply-side economics is somewhat sketchy at best and can only operate in truly unregulated markets. I can assure you that the markets in Afghanistan are far from unregulated.
3) Perhaps our policy in the Middle East is the result of the actions of the governments of that area. If we are responsible for these most recent attacks because of our policy in the Middle East, perhaps the governments of that region are responsible for our policy because of their actions on previous occasions. Why should other countries get to blame our policy for their actions if we cannot blame their previous actions for our policy? The argument that the Taliban has been using can be used on them, with the same effect. The United States has said repeatedly during the past few weeks, “If you give us Osama bin Laden, you will not be bombed.” The Taliban did not give us Osama bin Laden and so now they have been bombed.
Also, the United States and United Nations have set many conditions for the lifting of the economic sanctions against Afghanistan. If the Taliban would meet these, the sanctions would go away. If there is a cause and effect relationship between our actions and their actions, it can go both ways, not just one.
4) Appeasement of people who hate a certain group of people enough to want to see that group completely eliminated from the Earth does not work. The historical example of Europe trying appeasement on Hitler before WWII leaps immediately to mind. Did Hitler stop after he got Czechoslovakia? Did he stop with Belgium or Poland? No, he didn’t. No matter what he said, Hitler kept right on rolling through Europe and killing people. Pol Pot, Edi Amin, and every other third-rate butcher have made all sorts of claims about appeasement and appeasement has never worked. Why would that change now?
5) American and civilian casualties will, in all likelihood, be minimal. Face it, we have the largest, most advanced, most capable armed forces in the world. Our military technology is far superior to that which the rest of the world, and especially the Taliban, has. We also have over 20 times the manpower of the Taliban’s standing military capability. Estimated total military capability of the Taliban, including Osama bin Laden’s resources, is somewhere around 50,000.
The United States certainly has 1 million troops, at least. Quite frankly, we have the capability to crush them under our boot-heel if need be. Civilian casualties will be minimal because winning a fight all-out has the least fall out. Also, we are not carpet-bombing the whole country.
Thanks to our superior technology, the classic WWII and Viet Nam era saturation bombing can be avoided and targets can be struck precisely. Will some civilians be killed? Yes, that has happened in every war that any nation has fought against another. This happens, is it right?
Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, it will happen and will probably be minimal in comparison with civilian casualties in other wars or the 6,500 civilians lost by the United States.
6) The Government of the United States has an obligation to protect its citizens through the social contract (See Locke and Hobbes for more on this). This last point relates back to the first one. If these people pose a threat to citizens of the United States, and there are other justifications for killing them (such as those seen above, perceptible future threats, probable links to other acts of terror/war in the past, etc.), then the United States is obligated to find and destroy them. The government exists because of a mandate from the people, and is therefore obligated to defend its citizens both at home and abroad. When there are threats from abroad to the safety of our citizens when they are on our soil, the obligation is just that much stronger.
The government is obligated to protect the safety of its citizens and this sometimes means finding people in other places who would see harm done to said citizens and killing them. In addition, the United States is under no such obligation to citizens of other countries. They do not live here, and they do not participate in our governmental system. Therefore the United States is under no social contract obligation to protect the citizens of other countries. Because the government is obligated to its citizens and not to the citizens of other countries, it has a duty to neutralize threats to the people who live here. Therefore, the civilian casualties that will happen as the result of a war in Afghanistan are of less concern to the United States than what has already happened to the civilian citizens of this country. While wanton slaughter should be of concern, a few peripheral casualties are inevitable in any war and are not as important to the United States as neutralizing a threat to its citizens.
The six points above give clear insight as to why a war with the terrorists in Afghanistan and perhaps the Taliban itself is prudent. And, because the very nature of war itself, prudence is the only standard in measuring whether or not any country should be involved in a war. Wars are unavoidable, they simply will happen. No matter what, one large group of people or nation will find a reason to go to war with another large group of people. The issue of whether this is right or wrong therefore becomes a moot point. War is thereby, amoral and must be looked at from the point of view of prudence. This war is prudent, it is in the best interest of the United States and its people, and is therefore a task we should undertake.
Timothy Dreier, one angry SOB, is a Staff Writer for the Oregon Commentator
|