More on the Iraq War (with a lot of Afghanistan thrown in)
This was originally meant to be a reply, but livejournal said my reply was too long, so I changed this to a post. This is the original post and the reply to which I'm replying.
http://nontacitare.livejournal.com/76992.html
I wish to apologize in advance if what I am about to say is too harsh. Feel free to delete my post if you don't like it, I won't take it personally.
I don't believe in censorship. ;-) The purpose of this post was to spark dialog.
Pacifism is the philosophy of responding to violence with non-violence. As a corollary, someone who is about to attack you will have no cause to use violence if you respond without violence. In such a view, there is no such thing as a "just war". This concept is a distortion whose origins can be traced to the medieval chrisitian philosophers.
As a pacifist, I agree completely. This essay, however, was not about pacifism; it was about this country's military philosophy. As this country is not and never has been pacifist, the "just war" concept seems a far more applicable paradigm.
What is terrorism? If terrorism is the philosophy of using senseless violence to strike terror into innocent people, what is the difference between Al-Quaeda and the U.S Army? Aren't the people of Iraq terrified? What is "shock and awe"? My point is that the word "terrorism" is a metaphorical frame (ala George Lakoff) that makes a distinction between "good" and "bad" violence.
That's part of my point in this essay.
How can you then use the word "terrorist" in your discourse? It is simply inconsistent.
I couldn't and I didn't. However, since this is an essay examining and refuting justifications for this war, and one of the primary justifications is that "We're fighting terrorists," I couldn't refrain from bringing it up.
If you accept terrorism as a metaphorical frame, how can you justify the invasion of Afghanistan and not Iraq?
I categorically reject the concept of terrorism as a metaphorical frame, and have for quite some time now. Again this essay was about Iraq and not Afghanistan; I merely brought up Afghanistan because it is so commonly linked to the discourse on the war Iraq (wrongly, in my opinion.) Had I been writing about Afghanistan, I would have been exploring some of the issues you bring up here. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the invasion of Afghanistan; but I do think it's a much grayer area than Iraq, which from my perspective has no justification.
You see, the problem is that by framing the problem as "terrorism" the U.S. govt has created a third class of "bad person". Previously there were two classes of "bad" people: prisoners of war and criminals. Each of these two groups is governed by international rules and precidents that fundamentally recognize both these groups as human beings with fundamental human rights. However, a "terrorist" has none of these rights. Although American likes to call this a "war on terror", terrorists are not considered prisoners of war when captured. If you consider murder to be an act of criminality, the burden is upon the state to disprove innocence. For the new third class, "terrorists" are not governed by these rules. Thus the act of labeling someone a terrorist becomes the ultimate act of violence because it essentially labels that person as "non-human". Any action against such a non-human is justified circularly by the phrase "well, he/she is a terrorist".
Exactly. I've been arguing that for quite some time now.
If Osama Bin laden is a criminal (responsible for the murder of 3000 innocent Americans) is he not subject to the rules of extradition, to stand trial for his crime under the rules afforded a criminal? Shortly after 9/11, I was arguing that same point. Unfortunately, our bellicose president had other views.
Considering that the US govt has not caught Osama Bin Laden in six years of looking, how is it credible that the Afghan govt could have located him and turned him over the U.S. in 1.5 months?
How credible is it that the Taliban would have done so if asked (and I believe they were asked?)
Although the Taliban and Al-Quaeda were both produces of the (CIA sponsored) Mujahideen, they are NOT one and the same organization. I agree.
However, it puzzles me that you can justify the overthrow of the Taliban on the basis that they were "illigitemate conquerers" and "cruel oppressors". Again, I do not justify the invasion of Afghanistan; I do believe that there are more solid moral arguments to be made for the invasion of Afghanistan than for the invasion of Iraq, and that if I'm to be successful at convincing people that the Iraq War is wrong, I stand a much better chance if I take Afghanistan off the table. (Afghanistan is a separate issue from Iraq.)
The Mujahideen were popular; the Taliban was not. They were committing egregious human rights abuses (check Amnesty International for documentation) long before 9/11. International human rights groups, exiled Afghanis, and resistance groups within Afghanistan, as well as internal protesters who were murdered were all opposed to the actions of the Taliban. And the Taliban were not exclusively from Afghanistan. Around the Muslim world, followers of the Wahabi sect flocked to Afghanistan to help impose what they saw as the "true" form of Islam. To claim that the Taliban MILITARY takeover of SOME of the country was a matter of internal politics is similar to saying that the Iraq war is justified because some of the fighters are Iraqi.
How then can you justify attacking a country and its populace on the basis of an oppressive regime and a "terrorist" organization that YOUR government is partially responsible for creating? Are you arguing that I am expected to morally support any military junta committing human rights abuses just because they are funded by my government?
If you think the attack on Afghanistan is justified for the reasons described in your post, how is it that the US worked with the "Northern Alliance"? This is a name for a group of criminal war-lords who, before the Taliban shut them down, supplied a large percentage of the world's opium/heroin traide, and whose human rights record is no better than that of the Taliban?
Sorry, but I don't think the opium trade compares morally with killing people for their religious beliefs or denying women the right to ANY medical care (under the Taliban, women doctors were forbidden from practicing medicine, and women were forbidden from being treated by male doctors; there were cases of women dying from apendicitis because of this) or stoning women to death for being raped. As to how the US can work with the Northern Alliance (an organization that is stil more Afghani than the Taliban) when I am appalled by human rights abuses committed by the Taliban, the US government does not consult me in matters of foreign policy. I wish they would.
And I still believe that the situation in Afghanistan is less black and white than you make it out to be.
Pacifism is pacifism, and violence is violence.
As a pacifist, I agree. The reality, though, is that there are very few governments on this planet that are pacifist, and that have pacifism as the cornerstone of their foreign policy. I wish they did, but they don't. All I can do is repeatedly remind my goverment (through peace marches, letters to the editor and to my representatives, my vote and the votes of those I can persuade, and blogging) to behave within a critical moral framework that they recognize - in the case of the US, that's the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; in the case of all countries it should be the UN Declaration of Human Rights. When I try to persuade others, I cannot simply demand that they see the world the way I do; I need to find common ground and work from there.
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond; I didn't notice your post until today.
http://nontacitare.livejournal.com/76992.html
I wish to apologize in advance if what I am about to say is too harsh. Feel free to delete my post if you don't like it, I won't take it personally.
I don't believe in censorship. ;-) The purpose of this post was to spark dialog.
Pacifism is the philosophy of responding to violence with non-violence. As a corollary, someone who is about to attack you will have no cause to use violence if you respond without violence. In such a view, there is no such thing as a "just war". This concept is a distortion whose origins can be traced to the medieval chrisitian philosophers.
As a pacifist, I agree completely. This essay, however, was not about pacifism; it was about this country's military philosophy. As this country is not and never has been pacifist, the "just war" concept seems a far more applicable paradigm.
What is terrorism? If terrorism is the philosophy of using senseless violence to strike terror into innocent people, what is the difference between Al-Quaeda and the U.S Army? Aren't the people of Iraq terrified? What is "shock and awe"? My point is that the word "terrorism" is a metaphorical frame (ala George Lakoff) that makes a distinction between "good" and "bad" violence.
That's part of my point in this essay.
How can you then use the word "terrorist" in your discourse? It is simply inconsistent.
I couldn't and I didn't. However, since this is an essay examining and refuting justifications for this war, and one of the primary justifications is that "We're fighting terrorists," I couldn't refrain from bringing it up.
If you accept terrorism as a metaphorical frame, how can you justify the invasion of Afghanistan and not Iraq?
I categorically reject the concept of terrorism as a metaphorical frame, and have for quite some time now. Again this essay was about Iraq and not Afghanistan; I merely brought up Afghanistan because it is so commonly linked to the discourse on the war Iraq (wrongly, in my opinion.) Had I been writing about Afghanistan, I would have been exploring some of the issues you bring up here. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the invasion of Afghanistan; but I do think it's a much grayer area than Iraq, which from my perspective has no justification.
You see, the problem is that by framing the problem as "terrorism" the U.S. govt has created a third class of "bad person". Previously there were two classes of "bad" people: prisoners of war and criminals. Each of these two groups is governed by international rules and precidents that fundamentally recognize both these groups as human beings with fundamental human rights. However, a "terrorist" has none of these rights. Although American likes to call this a "war on terror", terrorists are not considered prisoners of war when captured. If you consider murder to be an act of criminality, the burden is upon the state to disprove innocence. For the new third class, "terrorists" are not governed by these rules. Thus the act of labeling someone a terrorist becomes the ultimate act of violence because it essentially labels that person as "non-human". Any action against such a non-human is justified circularly by the phrase "well, he/she is a terrorist".
Exactly. I've been arguing that for quite some time now.
If Osama Bin laden is a criminal (responsible for the murder of 3000 innocent Americans) is he not subject to the rules of extradition, to stand trial for his crime under the rules afforded a criminal? Shortly after 9/11, I was arguing that same point. Unfortunately, our bellicose president had other views.
Considering that the US govt has not caught Osama Bin Laden in six years of looking, how is it credible that the Afghan govt could have located him and turned him over the U.S. in 1.5 months?
How credible is it that the Taliban would have done so if asked (and I believe they were asked?)
Although the Taliban and Al-Quaeda were both produces of the (CIA sponsored) Mujahideen, they are NOT one and the same organization. I agree.
However, it puzzles me that you can justify the overthrow of the Taliban on the basis that they were "illigitemate conquerers" and "cruel oppressors". Again, I do not justify the invasion of Afghanistan; I do believe that there are more solid moral arguments to be made for the invasion of Afghanistan than for the invasion of Iraq, and that if I'm to be successful at convincing people that the Iraq War is wrong, I stand a much better chance if I take Afghanistan off the table. (Afghanistan is a separate issue from Iraq.)
The Mujahideen were popular; the Taliban was not. They were committing egregious human rights abuses (check Amnesty International for documentation) long before 9/11. International human rights groups, exiled Afghanis, and resistance groups within Afghanistan, as well as internal protesters who were murdered were all opposed to the actions of the Taliban. And the Taliban were not exclusively from Afghanistan. Around the Muslim world, followers of the Wahabi sect flocked to Afghanistan to help impose what they saw as the "true" form of Islam. To claim that the Taliban MILITARY takeover of SOME of the country was a matter of internal politics is similar to saying that the Iraq war is justified because some of the fighters are Iraqi.
How then can you justify attacking a country and its populace on the basis of an oppressive regime and a "terrorist" organization that YOUR government is partially responsible for creating? Are you arguing that I am expected to morally support any military junta committing human rights abuses just because they are funded by my government?
If you think the attack on Afghanistan is justified for the reasons described in your post, how is it that the US worked with the "Northern Alliance"? This is a name for a group of criminal war-lords who, before the Taliban shut them down, supplied a large percentage of the world's opium/heroin traide, and whose human rights record is no better than that of the Taliban?
Sorry, but I don't think the opium trade compares morally with killing people for their religious beliefs or denying women the right to ANY medical care (under the Taliban, women doctors were forbidden from practicing medicine, and women were forbidden from being treated by male doctors; there were cases of women dying from apendicitis because of this) or stoning women to death for being raped. As to how the US can work with the Northern Alliance (an organization that is stil more Afghani than the Taliban) when I am appalled by human rights abuses committed by the Taliban, the US government does not consult me in matters of foreign policy. I wish they would.
And I still believe that the situation in Afghanistan is less black and white than you make it out to be.
Pacifism is pacifism, and violence is violence.
As a pacifist, I agree. The reality, though, is that there are very few governments on this planet that are pacifist, and that have pacifism as the cornerstone of their foreign policy. I wish they did, but they don't. All I can do is repeatedly remind my goverment (through peace marches, letters to the editor and to my representatives, my vote and the votes of those I can persuade, and blogging) to behave within a critical moral framework that they recognize - in the case of the US, that's the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; in the case of all countries it should be the UN Declaration of Human Rights. When I try to persuade others, I cannot simply demand that they see the world the way I do; I need to find common ground and work from there.
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond; I didn't notice your post until today.