Let Freedom Endure
Oct. 15th, 2001 05:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robotech_masterMore anthrax. Seems like there's a lot of that going around. I think by now it's completely clear that this is another terrorist attack. Whether it's the same terrorists as the ones who brought down the WTC, a related group, or some random copycats with a bone to pick remains to be seen. At least they're not killing very many people--but then, that's not really the point. The point is to scare people silly, and they seem to be doing a decent job at that.
There are those people out there who are agitating for peace. We shouldn't be attacking them, they say. After all, they point out, wasn't it our own foreign policy that caused this mess in the first place? They seem to believe that we should settle down and talk things out and come to an amiable solution.
Well, I wouldn't dream of restricting their rights to say things like that, but I think it's just plain wrongheaded, and I think most of the people here in the states would agree with me. Let me explain.
First off, whether our foreign policy led to this is arguable either way, but I'm not going to get into that--because at this juncture, it's immaterial. We've gotten into this predicament by whatever means, and after it's all over perhaps we should look at whether we should alter our foreign policy to keep it from happening again--but that doesn't matter now that we're under attack. At the moment, it's "root, hog, or die," as the old saying goes.
Even before we started bombing Afghanistan, the attacks had been underway for a long time, and there was no sign it was going to stop any time soon. The World Trade Center was hardly the first shot fired in the war. Look at the U.S.S. Cole incident, which happened almost exactly 11 months earlier (they had a 1-year memorial ceremony just a couple of weeks ago). Look at the embassy bombings.
These terrorists have it in for us, and have had for quite some time. How are we supposed to respond to such a massive terrorist attack on our own soil? Say, "Oh, please, Mr. Terrorist, don't hurt us again!"? Yeah, sure, that would work. Just sit there and let them attack us and take it, because it was "our fault"? ("She was just asking for it, going around dressed like that...") But it wasn't the fault of the people who died, was it?
We're in this situation now, and it's not the sort of thing ordinary diplomacy is going to handle. Not when the government of Afghanistan is apparently little more than a front for the terrorists themselves. They'll hem and haw and make ineffectual claims, blow up an irreplaceable ancient Buddha or two, and completely fail to do anything useful (to us; the terrorists are probably finding them quite helpful). Meanwhile, Osama bin Ladin and his merry little band of thugs will plot another bombing or hijacking or disease dissemination or what-have-you.
This terrorism is bad--for us, for the world. We need to do as much as is necessary to stop it from ever happening again--but only as much as is necessary, and no more. And I'm satisfied that's what the USA is doing in this situation. We're taking out the Taliban, who really aren't the legitimate government of the region anyway. We're doing as much as we can to minimize civilian casualties. (Yes, they'll happen anyway; that's unavoidable. What matters is keeping them minimal.) We're dropping aid to the civilians even as we bomb their government. We'll probably be going in to rebuild everything once a new government is in power.
This is not a reactionary, revenge-motivated attack. If it had been, we wouldn't have waited, wouldn't have given Afghanistan a chance to hand over the terrorists. This is a military operation meant to end a clear and present danger. We can't let this happen again.
Anyway, that's how I feel. Now, let's see if I'm controversial enough that people flame me for my opinions. :)
There are those people out there who are agitating for peace. We shouldn't be attacking them, they say. After all, they point out, wasn't it our own foreign policy that caused this mess in the first place? They seem to believe that we should settle down and talk things out and come to an amiable solution.
Well, I wouldn't dream of restricting their rights to say things like that, but I think it's just plain wrongheaded, and I think most of the people here in the states would agree with me. Let me explain.
First off, whether our foreign policy led to this is arguable either way, but I'm not going to get into that--because at this juncture, it's immaterial. We've gotten into this predicament by whatever means, and after it's all over perhaps we should look at whether we should alter our foreign policy to keep it from happening again--but that doesn't matter now that we're under attack. At the moment, it's "root, hog, or die," as the old saying goes.
Even before we started bombing Afghanistan, the attacks had been underway for a long time, and there was no sign it was going to stop any time soon. The World Trade Center was hardly the first shot fired in the war. Look at the U.S.S. Cole incident, which happened almost exactly 11 months earlier (they had a 1-year memorial ceremony just a couple of weeks ago). Look at the embassy bombings.
These terrorists have it in for us, and have had for quite some time. How are we supposed to respond to such a massive terrorist attack on our own soil? Say, "Oh, please, Mr. Terrorist, don't hurt us again!"? Yeah, sure, that would work. Just sit there and let them attack us and take it, because it was "our fault"? ("She was just asking for it, going around dressed like that...") But it wasn't the fault of the people who died, was it?
We're in this situation now, and it's not the sort of thing ordinary diplomacy is going to handle. Not when the government of Afghanistan is apparently little more than a front for the terrorists themselves. They'll hem and haw and make ineffectual claims, blow up an irreplaceable ancient Buddha or two, and completely fail to do anything useful (to us; the terrorists are probably finding them quite helpful). Meanwhile, Osama bin Ladin and his merry little band of thugs will plot another bombing or hijacking or disease dissemination or what-have-you.
This terrorism is bad--for us, for the world. We need to do as much as is necessary to stop it from ever happening again--but only as much as is necessary, and no more. And I'm satisfied that's what the USA is doing in this situation. We're taking out the Taliban, who really aren't the legitimate government of the region anyway. We're doing as much as we can to minimize civilian casualties. (Yes, they'll happen anyway; that's unavoidable. What matters is keeping them minimal.) We're dropping aid to the civilians even as we bomb their government. We'll probably be going in to rebuild everything once a new government is in power.
This is not a reactionary, revenge-motivated attack. If it had been, we wouldn't have waited, wouldn't have given Afghanistan a chance to hand over the terrorists. This is a military operation meant to end a clear and present danger. We can't let this happen again.
Anyway, that's how I feel. Now, let's see if I'm controversial enough that people flame me for my opinions. :)
