|
|||||||||
Posted October 19, 2001
Sowing the Wind
We have been sowing the wind. In response to the predictable, if undesirable, result we are doing it again. Doing more of the same thing and expecting a different result is the very behavior Einstein put down as the definition of insanity.
Moral Equivalence
[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of October 15, "The Peaceniks":]
Despite
the "peaceniks"
claptrap about socialism
and racism they may
have a point in equating
the morality of those
bombing Afghanistan
with the morality of
those responsible for
the WTC attacks.
Those in charge of the bombing of Afghanistan have repeatedly stated that there will necessarily be some "collateral damage" as a result. They have also stated that this campaign is not just about Bin Laden, and that even if he is never captured the campaign will move on. Thus, a conscious decision has been made by United States authorities to sacrifice innocent human life in an undeclared war upon a sovereign nation and its people. Of course, the spokesmen for the war go out of their way to say civilians are not the targets; this provides the necessary rhetorical cover for the military strikes of cluster bombs and bunker bombs and other bombs dropped from thousands of feet in the air that inevitably will kill civilians in the cities that are targeted.
The terrorist network that attacked the WTC is made up of a group of men who with fanatic zeal will sacrifice civilians to try to achieve their goals. The United States War Party is made up of a group of men who with fanatic zeal will sacrifice civilians to try to achieve their goals. Two sides of the same (im)moral coin.
Relief
I
just wanted to write
you this short e-mail
to express the relief
I feel when stumbling
across websites and
information which don't
senselessly reflect
major viewpoints.
I really honor your work and feel happy for the fact that there are still some reasonable sources out there, even now when accepting major propaganda is trendy.
This
War
[Regarding "Does the LP Support This War?," by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., October 17, LewRockwell.com:]
Why
do you see fit to
nitpick the Libertarian
Party to pieces?
... Many years ago,
I wrote a letter
to Murray
Rothbard asking
him to devote at
least as much print
space to bashing
the Republicans
and Democrats as
he spends bashing
the Libertarians.
Here we go again.
Yes, you are correct,
the LP definitely
has its shortcomings.
I, for certain,
do not agree
100% with everything
they say, but for
gosh sakes, Lew,
I don't agree 100%
with you, either.
But the important
thing is that the
LP, and also Lewrockwell.com,
truly do support
the cause for liberty
and peace. So therefore,
I overlook petty
errors and support
both of you in principle.
I particularly like
voting for LP candidates,
because it's a great
opportunity to show
the Republocrat
statists how much
I despise their
policies.
So what's the point of nitpicking Libertarians to death? What is your goal? Will the world be better off without an LP? Would you prefer instead that I vote for the likes of GW Bush? Instead of publicly bashing the LP, why don't you work with them to resolve differences and minimize the problems?
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. replies:
The LP has extra responsibilities to be the standard bearer. They shouldn't endorse a war that has caused a massive refugee crisis, killed hundreds of civilians, and will lead to the death of 100,000 children this winter (so says The Times of India). Oh, and today the US bombed two trucks of refugees trying to flee, and also a boys' school (fortunately, this bomb did not detonate). I think that the LP ought to be against this stuff.
Justin Raimondo adds his two cents:
You are absolutely right. It is clear from the LP statement that they do not endorse killing innocent civilians and they are not giving George W. Bush and the American military a blank check. Yet Rockwell labors mightily to show that they are – and, in my view, fails.
Incensed
I am incensed by the fact that the Taliban government (like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega) has been brought to power and armed by American foreign policy. I have been opposed to a lot of military actions this country has taken and disappointed by a lack of action when it was appropriate – like responding to the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. I understand that the main reason Hussein hasn't been overthrown by the people of Iraq is because they have been made to feel that the US is a much bigger problem for them than he is. Therefore it's important to make it clear to the people of Afghanistan that we are their liberators, not just one more big threat added to the list.
Remember the Reconstruction period in the South after the Civil War and the occupation of Japan after World War II. How long would it have taken for the concept of democracy to arrive in those two places had they been left to their own devices? Much different from several countries in Latin America more recently where the point of Uncle Sam getting involved was apparently to make the place less democratic than it would have been otherwise.
We must keep in mind that the use of nuclear weapons – including depleted uranium shells – is an act of war against innocent bystanders and future generations as well. Never forget that if there is one reason the 20th Century was such a bloody one, that would be a failure to question authority in the name of patriotism, democracy, communism, or Islam.
Something else I find just as disturbing as anything else I've mentioned is the practice of female genital mutilation. The Taliban government must be destroyed for this reason along with many others, regardless of whether they cooperate with the handling of terrorism suspects. I will not participate in any "antiwar" movement or organization that fails to address this matter. For the sake of supporting the lesser of two evils I will prefer war over a sort of "peace" that involves leaving the Taliban in power. If it was the CIA that created and armed this psychotic regime than America now has a special responsibility to clean up after itself. And regardless of whether the genital mutilations are partly our fault we have the ability to help those who are unfortunate enough to be born a girl in Afghanistan. We can start with the removal of the present Afghan government from power and the introduction of another Reconstruction period.
Let me know if there is room for someone with these opinions in your organization.
~
Robert W.
The "Backtalk"
editor replies:
At this time, Antiwar.com is a web magazine, not a membership organization. Your letter includes a mix of interventionist and anti-interventionist opinions, while Antiwar.com opposes interventionism – so some of your opinions clash with our mission.
We don't believe that previous destructive US military intervention in a country creates a responsibility for future US military intervention – just the opposite. Also, we don't believe that the United States military should impose political, cultural, or medical reform on foreign nations.
On the other hand, if you oppose the use of nuclear weapons and depleted uranium shells, or if you want to end the various ongoing (and likely future) attacks on Iraq, you could work with opponents of military interventionism on those issues.
Big
Dumb War
I find missing from most discussions of "the war," or Operation [your favorite PC name here], any talk of the immense difference between spec ops and conventional Big War.
What's going on now is that General Franks and his fellow brass hats are waging Big War a la Desert Storm, Serbia 1999, and Desert Fox. The conventional brass don't like the spec ops approach, because there is little, or no, pork in it. No potential for new gee-whiz gear, let alone promotions and staffing increases.
The style of "operations" we now see in Afghanistan (heavy bombing of economic infrastructure) is very pork-friendly. It makes a good ad for the Joint Strike Fighter and other expensive budget items. What it will never do is deliver Bin Laden or the Taliban chiefs, dead or alive. It will, however, contribute to the starvation and disease of millions of Afghanis. It might, also, put Pakistan into a civil war or even an escalating war with India.
It seems that Rumsfeld is in a tug of war (bad pun) with the Joint Chiefs. So far, Big Dumb War is the order of the day. The failure to "bag" the Taliban chief, in this light, was no accident.
I pray that the Spec Ops "silent professional" approach will come into use, and that the star-spangled brutes at Fort Myer will be sidelined. This anti-terrorist campaign is too important to leave to the sledgehammer style of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are the bunch that conventionalized, and ruined, the Vietnam War, which President Kennedy was winning with Green Berets and covert ops.
~ Tikhon G.