2001-12-04 - 12:39 p.m.

here's what I wrote to the 'Utne Cafe' discussion group (cafe.utne.com) on the war:

Having been involved in some 'left' or 'progressive' groups recently and having close friends involved in the anti-war movement in Chicago, I've tried to take the anti-war view to heart, but I can't.

The question that comes up again and again, of course, is what else we could do as an alternative. Some offer as their alternate solutions the use of the U.N. and the Hague to extradite the terrorists for trial. This seems to take an idealist view of such institutions - ideally, there would be an international institution in place that could actually deal with terrorist groups and effectively remove them from their host states. But today, as terrorists continue to declare their intention and capability to destroy the U.S., no such institution exists.

The evidence in Afghanistan is clear - Al Quaeda is not just some group of nuts hiding in a cave hoping not to be arrested. They have thousands of trained fighters, an apparently significant chunk of the Taliban's fighting force. They were so closely linked with the Taliban that one Taliban government building featured Al Qaeda maps of where the 'infidel' Americans were located in the Arab world, not to mention plans for the development of nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda soldiers shot their Taliban counterparts in the back when they tried to surrender in Kunduz - do we think the Taliban could have actually 'turned over' the terrorists? To top it off, Mohammed Omar has said the Taliban, not just Al Qaeda, would like to see the destruction of America (though this is probably just the ravings of a desparate man).

To counter the pro-war argument, some bolster their argument with other points: the United States' hypocritical policies in support of dictatorial regimes, its support of 'terrorism' when it suits them, its support of bin Laden against the Soviet Union and its subsequent abandonment of Afghanistan. I agree wholeheartedly that the U.S. must change its policies. I agree that U.S. policy should be based on human rights, democracy and the interests of the world as a whole, not its own narrow economic interests. That's a long-term goal that I hope we wake up to. However, none of those long-term reforms will change the fact that thousands of well-funded militants would like nothing more than to wreak nuclear destruction on the U.S., and look forward to dying to do so. We can't convince these people. We can take measures to prevent their ideas from taking root in other people (helping Arab nations create viable economies would be a good start), and we can try to limit their opportunities to destroy us by breaking up their networks.

What I see of the anti-war movement seems knee-jerk in nature. The first day of the bombing, we all went downtown for a rally and a march, and it was full of people who seemed to oppose either to war in general or U.S. government in general - Greens, socialists, anarchists. They chanted 'Defeat U.S. imperialism' and 'Islam is not to blame'. Any reason for opposing the war - because it really is a crusade against Islam, or it really is just a ruse to build a pipeline through Afghanistan - seemed acceptable, so long as it was anti-war. Never mind the very obvious reasons we had for attacking Afghanistan that had nothing to do with pipelines or religion.

I could appreciate what the anti-war movement was doing in Chicago on one hand, because it's refreshing to see voices dissenting from the general consensus, reminding us that we don't have to support our government blindly. And I might want to join in their voice myself if they widen this thing to other countries and begin defining 'terrorist' as 'anti-U.S.' But while the military action is confined to destroying Al Qaeda, I'm afraid this anti-war movement is just talking to itself. It's simply a movement of pacifists, not a movement against this war in particular. The populace is aware that pacifists exist, and they've already decided not to join hands with them. At least not while no real-world alternatives are presented to stop the people who want to kill them.

previous - next