| Of course, given the irreducible subjectivity of all of our judgements, who can be sure what is happening in Afghanistan, or why? It could be that we are driving the Taliban out of the cities, or it could be that the Taliban are invading San Franciso, and about to close in on Oakland. After all, there is no such thing as "reality", only private interpretations. Even if we concede that the Taliban is on the run, who can say why? Maybe it is because we waged a successful campaign in tandem with the Northern Alliance, but maybe it is because the Taliban just finished "On the Road", and decided that life is more intense, more wild and free, if lived on the lam. As for whether it is better or not, who can say? Obviously, ethical judgments are purely arbitrary. By our yardstick, it is better that the Afghan people are not "oppressed", and that the support of "terror" is destroyed, and maybe even from the Afghanis standpoint, there is reason to cheer their liberation, but why are the viewpoints of the United States or oppressed Afghanis privileged? What about the point of view of the oppressor? To the Taliban, the situation is worse. To Al- Queda, the situation is worse. Who are we to say it is better? No one has an absolute standpoint to decide whether severe oppression or relative liberty is better. So, who can say that the peaceniks were "wrong"......... |
