NP? The Validity of Anti-War Criticism

[Doug Millison]

The Validity of Anti-War Criticism
Tim Wise, AlterNet
November 20, 2001

[...]  now that these same folks can point to the fall of the Taliban and
the death of one of bin Laden's henchmen as positive outcomes of bombing,
they feel especially emboldened to criticize anyone who has opposed the
war, especially if they feel such persons to have offered no alternative
methods to achieve such presumably splendid results as these.

Truth be told, of course, there actually have been alternatives to bombing
and war proposed by those of us in opposition to such approaches. That the
persons demanding that we provide such alternatives haven't seen them can
only be the result of having not looked very hard. From the outset we have
been calling for an international law approach that would involve
presenting evidence of responsibility to the UN Security Council, a
concerted global crackdown on terrorist financial networks and, if
necessary, approval of limited but targeted police action, involving
special forces, designed to go in, find the guilty parties and capture
them. Such actions would be an international version of what the U.S.
itself did in bringing the 1993 Trade Center bombers to trial, as well as
those involved in the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie,
Scotland.

Additionally, there are any number of better security measures we could
adopt, none of which would require the sweeping impositions on civil
liberties that are part and parcel of the new anti-terrorism bill. Air
marshals, reinforced cockpit doors and improved screening and oversight of
airport security would all make a difference, and indeed would have
prevented the events of 9-11 from happening in the first place. Additional
measures, including comprehensive access to health care services, as
protection against bio-terrorism, and the elimination of vulnerable and
dangerous nuclear power facilities would also boost security.

[...]

But no matter how imperfect an internationalist approach might be, there is
simply no reason to think it would be any less effective than
carpet-bombing. Especially when one considers the likely backlash the
latter approach could engender, as compared to the almost non-existent risk
of it in the former case. That such an approach hasn't been tried is not
because it couldn't work to catch terrorists. Rather, it is because
catching terrorists is not the point of Operation Enduring Freedom. Its
point is to project U.S. military power, to demonstrate our willingness to
use such power and to make clear that, as the current President's father
once said, "What we say goes."

In fact, the nightmare scenario for George W. would have been for the
Taliban to have captured and turned over each member of Al Qaeda (assuming
this was something they could have done in the first place) before the
first shot was fired. We rejected their offer to turn over bin Laden to a
third country, not because we thought they were bluffing, but because we
were afraid they weren't. Trying him in a court of law wouldn't rank high
enough on the bad-ass-ometer that seems to matter so much to the President,
with his "dead or alive" rhetoric and "let's roll" punch lines. It wouldn't
satisfy the "nuke the bastards" contingent. In short, it wouldn't do much
for Georgie's re-election chances.

Now some would say that we simply didn't have the luxury of this more
peaceful but also more time consuming approach. With other terrorists
likely planning imminent attacks on our shores, we had to act quickly,
decisively, immediately.

But consider the illogic of such a statement. If indeed there are
additional confederates of bin Laden planning imminent attacks, there is
little reason to think they would still be in Afghanistan, if in fact they
were ever there. They would most likely already be in the U.S., or hiding
out some place until they could sneak into the country. So bombing the
Taliban into the Pleistocene couldn't possibly do anything to minimize the
risk of an actual pending attack, already far along in the planning
process.

And if, on the other hand, there were no ongoing and imminent plots
underway, there would be no reason to rush into military action; or at
least, no reason to do so if the real goal of such action was to diminish
the threat of terrorism.

Much as the U.S. was able to wait several months after the bombing of Pearl
Harbor and carefully plan our response, without diminishing our security or
"inviting" another attack -- the fear so many have today -- so too could we
have deliberated, planned and carefully honed our response in the instant
case. That we didn't, has nothing to do with strategy and everything to do
with a culture that has become far less patient over the past half-century.
In a nation of channel-surfers and short attention-spans, where "Just Do
It" is more a national mantra than mere shoe-marketing slogan, anything
that takes time is considered unworthy of the support of folks locked into
a fast-food and microwave mentality.

So the decision to bomb Afghanistan, while definitely "doing something,"
hardly amounts to doing something that is related to the goal most
Americans have in mind. And none of the persons who have lambasted me for
opposing it, have been able to offer one shred of logic, to say nothing of
evidence, which indicates that the Al Qaeda would be significantly damaged
by virtue of pummeling that particular nation. They haven't even tried, in
fact.

The fear that understandably has gripped so many in the U.S. since 9-11 has
prompted them to latch onto anything: any remedy for terrorism, no matter
how hollow, no matter how unlikely to work it may be. Not willing to seek
out alternatives, or think critically about better methods for addressing
the problems themselves, they rush to support anything that is offered by
those in power; those whom they sincerely believe have their best interests
at heart. And then when persons criticize the methods chosen by those in
whom the masses have placed their trust, we become the targets of personal
attack. We become appeasers, we become supporters of terrorism. We become
the enemy.

The simple truth is, even if the opponents of bombing and war didn't have
any alternative suggestions about how best to handle terrorism, the
critiques we offer would still be legitimate, and worthy of consideration.
Bad policy is bad policy, and should be resisted. Good alternatives are
important to develop, but one should not have to wait until one has thought
of such a policy, before raising ones voice in opposition to that which
such a person finds objectionable. Especially when the bad policy in
question could result in the deaths of tens of thousands, if not millions
of people.

Perhaps instead of criticizing those who themselves critique the war, those
persons who feel the U.S. must do "something," should spend a little less
time watching CNN or Fox News, and a little more time Web surfing to
discover what war critics actually believe. That they won't likely do this
is not because discovering such views is particularly difficult, but
rather, because doing so would require acknowledgement that the war hasn't
actually made them safer; that safety will require thought-out solutions to
terrorism, long-term and short-term policy changes, and diplomacy. Since
it's so much easier to drop explosives, many Americans would rather not
hear this. We want the solution that is easy and quick. But as H.L. Mencken
once said, the solutions that are short and simple are also invariably
wrong.

Tim Wise is a writer, lecturer and antiracism activist. He can be reached
at tjwise at mindspring.com.



Doug Millison - Writer/Editor/Web Editorial Consultant
millison at online-journalist.com
www.Online-Journalist.com