I am reading much disturbing news lately, as are we all. I am especially struck by statements from the aid organizations, that they cannot proceed with humanitarian assistance in a war zone. This, of course, is entirely plausible.
Here’s my question, over-simplified, perhaps, but….
If it is impossible to conduct humanitarian aid and pursue our military goals at the same instance, what is our priority?
If we were/are faced with the stark choice, what will we do? If to save hundreds of thousands of innocent people, it would be necessary to cease pursuing OBL and his pack of hyena, would we be willing to forgo our righteous vengeance?
I know my answer, you probably do too. What’s yours?
Ah, another attempt to consider what I called into question with my “What Price Perception” thread.
Since the lives of millions depend on the quick and thorough extermination of bin Laden, Al Quaeda and the Taleban feel free to guess my own answer to this.
Assuming that there is a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen, which seems likely, its a tough call. Why should hundreds of thousands suffer in the pursuit of a clutch of terrorists? Where is the justice in that? But then, bin Laden must be stopped, or he will kill thousands again.
The assault on the Taleban is a just war. It is being handled in an admirable manner by the US, which is bending over backwards to avoid civilian casualties.
But I am careful to say that its an assault on the Taleban, and not Afghanistan. The objective is to capture or kill bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and more recently it seems remove the extremist Taleban government. It is not to kill the Afghan population.
Killing the Afghan population can either be done by bombs, or by starvation. Neither is justified by the quest for bin Laden’s head.
The opposite view is that if bin Laden isn’t stopped, then more planes will fly into buildings, and thousands more people will die from terrorism.
I don’t think that there is an easy answer to this, other than to admit the sad truth that there is more pressure upon Western governments to prevent terrorist attacks on Western citizens, than there is to prevent mass starvation in the backwaters of the Middle East.
I think we will and must find a way to do both. We need to provide food on a larger scale than we are now, and win this war. Winning the war is one way to get the humanitarian organizations back in to Afghanistan quickly. Yes, I am cheating on the question posed in the OP.
Another issue this brings to mind is impending winter. I doubt we will conduct substantial military ops. in horrible winter weather. Flying helicopters in blizzards is dangerous in the extreme.
Direct answer: in the long run it will benefit the U.S. war effort more, the Afghani people more, and our world image more, if we cease hostilities temporarily when widespread starvation is imminent.* But, again, I think we will and must try to both feed the Afghani people and prosecute a war on terrorism.
*If we allow mass starvation we make enemies of all the Afghanis, not to mention the rest of the world. Oh yeah, and it is evil.
It is correct because our self-interest comes first. If we make humanitarian goals our primary concern at this time we will fail.
The government of the United States of America is responsible for the welfare of their own citizens. The US government is not responsible for the welfare of those in Afghanistan or the protection of their rights. Once the military threat has ended in Afghanistan then we can switch to humanitarian goals as being our primary concern. Personally I think that would be in our best interest as far as protecting the United States.
In answer, lets look at what’s happening on the ground, from my old favourite, the Asian CNN webite:
Humanitarian intervention is in the United States long-term security interests, as well as being a “good thing”.
If the US makes itself look like a humanitarian nation with the interests of Muslims in mind, rather than a power which blows up the houses of innocent Muslims and forces them into Pakistan to get food and shelter, then the US will be taking proactive steps to stop the spawn of another hundred bin Ladens.
You create a hundred, and odds are one of them will get a bomb, sooner or later. You wipe out the one bin Laden now, but take enormous efforts to look after the people you made homeless, then you won’t be creating hate which will be remembered for generations. Zenster - bin Laden’s hatred apparently stems from having US troops on Saudi soil. How many Afghans will be mad after having their homes destroyed and their families die in the winter? How many of these guys in the future would like to hijack more jets, or help smuggle warheads across borders?
If the humanitarian effort equalled the war effort, Afghans and Muslims generally would have little cause for complaint about American disregard for Muslims. It actually would look like a war against terrorists, not Afghans.
Running bombing missions and not helping out Afghans suffering from the war, better than the token efforts currently being undertaken, is short-sighted, from a security perspective alone.
MGibson
Entirely true. Hopefully the government of the United States recognises this, too, and starts giving dispossessed Afghans food and shelter.
As MGibson has mentioned, America’s primary goal must remain securing the safety of its own citizenry. It is the Taleban and their ill conceived collusion with bin Laden that has resulted in the deaths of Afghan non-combatants.
I’ll put it another way. If the Taleban hadn’t been so blitheringly moronic as to abet Al Qaeda the US would most likely be sending even more aid than we are currently doing at present. Fighting a war to preserve global stability sorta takes precedence over feeding the starving Afghans. These are the sort of nasty repercussions involved when a country’s leaders stupidly bring full scale war down upon the heads of its people.
That said, I’m all for feeding the Afghan people in even greater numbers and quantity just as soon as we have gotten our hands on bin Laden and his cohorts. Mopping up the Taleban scum can proceed in parallel with feeding the displaced Afghan people. To answer another part of your question; if we are able to successfully dismantle Al Qaeda it will be incredibly difficult for an Afghan terrorist to commit another attack on the US. If we pause to take pity on the poor schmucks that the Taleban have put in harm’s way, we may well open ourselves to another attack. That is a risk I am not prepared to accept.
I believe that America has the ability to shift perception of itself with humanitarian aid after the fact to the same extent that it could during this campaign and do so without compromising its military objectives. Although a little more difficult to prove, there are already many thousands of Afghan people who have been doomed to starve and freeze this winter because of the Taleban’s corrupt diversion of resources and provisions amidst drought and famine. Try to remember that the Taleban has only one priority, namely the Taleban. Their shortsighted, grasping and powermad attitude is more to blame for the suffering of the Afghan people than America’s retaliation ever will be.
The problem is the Taliban would destroy any humanitarian aid and then claim the Americans are doing some evil to the Afghani people. Untill the Taliban are gone any aid we give would be just to show that the Taliban would rather starve and kill its own citizens than accept help from America. There is no reason to believe that it would save more lives than removing the Taliban.
I see your point. I don’t think Muslims will. I especially don’t think Afghans will. If the US wants to align itself with the froces of light and not darkness in the eyes of the average Afghan being bombed, remembering Soviet aggression and listening to Taleban propaganda, then they need to do something other than drop bombs and a 50000 silly food rations.
If humanitarian aid to the refugees running to Pakistan has to wait for the offensive to finish for logistical reasons (which all aid agencies seem to think is correct), then I think your point is valid. But once its finished, the US, for reasons fo future national security (“America’s primary goal must remain securing the safety of its own citizenry”) if nothing else, needs to be in there with humanitarian help in a very, very big way to avoid creating more extremists.
You are thinking of the warehouses seized by the Taleban. On the border with Pakistan, UN humanitarian aid proceeds without interference from the Taleban. Refugees are running from the Taleban, after all - that’s where all the bombs are falling.
In terms of my OP, much of this is irrelevent. Whether or not the Taliban are the humble servants of Allah, or they grind kittens in a blender to produce heroin, is of no consequence to my question.
What is our moral obligation?
Allow me to grossly oversimplify: if letting OBL (piss be on his name) get off scot free will save 500,000 innocent Afghans from starvation, what should we do?
As I have said before, I would rather my country suffer an atrocity than commit one. I suspect this is a minority opinion, mine usually are. Only MGibson has directly answered. So that’s two.
I would venture to say that allowing bin Laden a chance to commit even one more atrocity like New York city would be the equivalent of letting him get off “Scot free.”
