Barbaras' balance of horror

[The Great Quail]

Barbara,

>Can I ask you just one question?  It's all I'm really interested in tonight
>as I read this (anybody feel free to answer though).  Which is a more
>sickening outcome? Our 6000 +  losses, or the loss of their 6 or 7 million
>who risk starvation this winter in Afghanistan.

Well, you are looking at the situation from a very humanitarian, 
objective level. You are comparing body counts, stacking up the 
number dead on each side and declaring that whichever side weighs 
more, determines the balance of righteousness. (Additionally, you are 
assuming that all these starving people will die on account of a 
campaign only two weeks old; I think that discounts the history of 
the situation, and the actions of the Taliban themselves.) Although, 
to your credit, later you modify your statement by an arbitrary 
percentage.)

While I appreciate your viewpoint very much -- indeed, part of my own 
heart screams that you are right, and we should stop -- I also have 
to weigh in another interpretation.

We are not creating the famine situation in Afghanistan. We asked the 
Taliban, a "government" unrecognized by most countries on earth 
(include most Muslim countries) to turn over the criminal 
perpetrators. We gave them two weeks, and they refused. Of course 
they refused; they are being financed partially by bin Laden, and 
they are politically and ideologically aligned with him. They place 
this alliance above and beyond and real concern for their own 
starving "subjects," which is hardly, I think, a controversial 
statement. These are hardened men who will cling to their power no 
matter what cost.

Consequently, we begin the military campaign, one which will 
unfortunately  increase the rate of starvation. By carrying out this 
campaign, we hope to permanently cripple the Islamic Jihad network in 
Afghanistan. By doing this, we hope to make our own people more 
secure. We possess the belief that by crippling this network, it will 
reduce chances that they will have the resources to carry out more 
coordinated attacks, procure more weapons of biological warfare, and 
secure perhaps even a nuclear device. On a more hopeful level, it may 
also take out the Taliban, and cause more governments of that region 
to shun terrorists.

The price of this is horrifying --  starving innocents. But to fail 
to act, to allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to hide behind a human 
shield of ravished people, is to show us to be humanitarian, 
certainly, but also unfortunately weak. It is to invite more and more 
attacks -- remember, he and his network and his predecessors have 
been escalating attacks against us for a long time, and have 
expressed the desire to use biological and nuclear weapons.

So while, yes, as a human with a heart, I am sickened by the loss of 
starving innocents; but as a human with a brain, possessing a broader 
awareness of history and politics, I understand that while we share 
complicity in this, we are not wholly responsible. Our hands are 
stained with blood because that's partly how the enemy set up the 
situation; it is another psychological weapon in their arsenal, 
something merely to exploit.

Numerous innocents we killed in World War II as well. It is the 
horrible, inescapable nature of war; but I believe sometimes inaction 
can have more drastic consequences in the long run.

So if you want me to say it starkly: Yes, in the light of Realpolitik 
and my own personal status as an American who believes that our way 
of life is better than what bin Laden is offering, I accept what we 
are doing. Although, as I mention earlier, part of my heart screams 
that we should not carry out any actions that kill innocents, I also 
feel that this path is tantamount to burying my head in the sand, and 
inviting an eventual nuclear blast in downtown New York.

I am sure you feel I may be paranoid, inhuman, callous, or 
hysterical; indeed, there are moments I doubt myself too. (Was it 
Thomas that said anyone with half a brain would question their stance 
-- any stance -- on this war?) But two months ago, I would not have 
believed that the Twin Towers would be gone, and anthrax would found 
all over the place. And Lord knows, I certainly believe it is 
possible to get worse weapons, given the time and resources.

>but allowed all the evidence to be misfiled where it wouldn't upset him
>but allowed all the evidence to be misfiled where it wouldn't upset him
>but allowed all the evidence to be misfiled where it wouldn't upset him

Yes, Barbara, surprisingly, I heard you the first time. Three times 
seems a bit dramatic, don't you think?

Oh, and regardless, I hope I have cleared up any grounds for your 
accusation that I have "allowed all the evidence to be misfiled where 
it wouldn't upset" me. I am well aware of what is going on; I just 
have a different system of beliefs and viewpoints than you. At least, 
you can address me on that level, rather than assuming my head is 
buried in a different sort of sand. I would rather you call me 
heartless or callous than imply that I am willfully and blissfully 
ignorant.

--Quail

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allen B. Ruch, Editor of the Libyrinth:
http://www.TheModernWord.com

527 Hicks Street
Brooklyn, NY 11231
Tel: (718) 596-7234
Fax: (718) 596-2851

Better hope deferred than none. Up to a point. Till the heart starts to sicken.
Company too up to a point. Better a sick heart than none. Till it 
starts to break.
So speaking of himself he concludes for the time being,
For the time being leave it at that.
      --Samuel Beckett, "Company"