"I am not arguing that no action should be taken: however, I think that calling the coming military operations a "war" or a "crusade" gives everyone the wrong idea of its nature, and could lead to rhetoric which some will misconstrue as a license for further ethnically-motivated attacks in the United States." I'll agree with crusade being loaded, but every intention of the current administration makes this look like it will be a war. Call it a police action, call it a measured response, call it a strike against terrorism ... it's still a war. I also have a fundamental problem with making targeted strikes your goal. Sending cruise missiles and killing one person almost certainly won't end this - there may be a very real need for ground troops to begin to achieve a longer-term resolution to the problem. Earlier posts mentioned how the US solves its immediate problem and then lets the situation fester. A significant argument in the defense literature is that, due to a reluctance to accept friendly casualties and a desire to fight wars that are "clean", the US is inhibited from seriously committing itself to war - hence the appeal of surgical air strikes. The problem is that, in many cases, you need people on the ground. US reluctance to take more aggressive positions led to allegations of a lack of commitment in Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, and previous strikes against bin Laden - "they'll shoot some missiles but they won't get their hands dirty". What if eliminating al-Qaeda means that ground troops must invade Afghanistan and Iraq? If this is the case, you have to choose whether you want to win the war or get stalemated. And if you choose to get stalemated, al-Qaeda and other organizations will still be able to organize horrific attacks. And if you choose to win the war, many innocent people will die and it's likely that many American soldiers will die with them. I can accept those who argue for peace. I can accept those who argue against indiscriminate destruction and only what is needed - I'm one of them. But I can't accept an argument that refuses to assume that anything besides a minimum military response might be needed. If you're going to argue for war, I ask that you do so knowing what it may entail and what the consequences of your choices are. War is horrible. Conducting a war to win it, in some cases, may mean the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of people who have no idea who's fighting over what. Don't fool yourself and think otherwise. You can bring some humanity to war, but you can't make it human.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST