Barbaras' balance of horror

[Chaim Gingold]

While it is of course true that the precarious position of the Afghan
people is due in part to the Taliban regime (not to mention our historic
support of the Mujahideen, droughts, & other factors) this is not a
sufficient condition for the people's starvation, though it certainly
doesn't help. The US's political/military actions are in fact stopping the
flow of food into Afghanistan, which certainly is a sufficient condition
for the starvation of a great many people, so it isn't at all clear to me
that the US can absolve itself of the consequences of its actions by
saying "yeah, but if it weren't for these evil people..." We must
differentiate between necessary and sufficient conditions.

Also, Quail's argument that the current course of action is the proper and
ethical one rests on the presumption that there is a binary choice to be
made: either force the Taliban and Al Queda network into submission and
accept the starvation of millions of innocent people -or- accept the
consequences of inaction which will lead to more attacks on US interests
(which is ostensibly worse). While those are certainly two possibilities,
this can only be a false dichotomy -- obviously there must exist more
possibilities for action and effect. It may, for example, even be true
that the US can continue with this campaign and not starve one Afghani.

Arguing that it is ethical to take someone's life is a hard argument to
make. Making the case that it is right to take the lives of millions of
people is that much harder to do. I am unswayed by the argument that it is
acceptable and just to take action leading to the death of millions
because it is the only alternative. It chills my blood to hear such a
specious argument made for the starvation of so many.

I don't believe that the line of reasoning which critically considers the
humanitarian aspects of action (and in this case the US attack) "another
psychological weapon in their arsenal," but rather an indispensible tool
in the arsenal of every intelligent and humane person.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, The Great Quail wrote:

> 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
> 
>