SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (102615)6/25/2003 9:01:01 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Aftermath Of War Not Exactly An Eye For An Eye
_______________________

by Robert Higgs

Published on Monday, June 23, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle

In the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists killed more than 3, 000 people, some 90 percent of them at the World Trade Center, the rest on the hijacked airliners and at the Pentagon. The taking of life shocked many people the world over, not the least of them the president of the United States. Regardless of one's ethical, religious or political beliefs, no one could condone the murder of thousands of innocent people.

In the "war on terrorism" that ensued, President Bush sought, or so he claimed, to "bring to justice" the responsible parties. The first difficulty, of course, was that the 19 people most directly responsible for the crimes were already dead. Bush looked past them, however, in his quest to "root out" all those who might have harbored or otherwise aided the perpetrators. This project made some moral sense: We all understand the concept of "accomplice to murder."

At this juncture, however, the president's moral vision must have grown murky. The hijackers' main abettors were identified as members of a shadowy radical Islamic organization known as al Qaeda, whose principal training sites lay in Afghanistan. When the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan refused to hand over al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, in accordance with a U.S. ultimatum, the president loosed a military assault on Afghanistan, the major component of which consisted of heavy aerial bombardments in support of local anti-Taliban groups momentarily allied with the United States.

Although the Taliban was chased from power and dispersed into hiding places in the mountains and elsewhere, the U.S. bombardment took a substantial toll of innocent civilians. Estimates vary widely, and by the very nature of the situation they cannot be made very reliable or precise. Nonetheless, reports by a number of U.S. and foreign journalists and other observers on the ground indicate that during the first two months of the campaign -- a campaign that continues today -- at least 1,000 and perhaps as many as 4,000 civilians were killed. Since then the toll has mounted, as U.S. forces have continued to expend bombs, rockets and other munitions on an assortment of targets ranging from mountain caves to inhabited villages to isolated automobiles. Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire calls his estimate of nearly 3, 800 Afghan civilians killed between Oct. 7 and Dec. 7, 2001, "very, very conservative,' although others regard his estimate as too large."

Thus, the president, setting out to "bring to justice" those who had aided or harbored the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, has succeeded in adding the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans to the toll of those killed by the hijackers in 2001. U.S. officials have consistently shrugged off these deaths; when they admit causing them at all, they designate them unintended "collateral damage" and therefore of no great significance. A morally clear- eyed view must regard them as gross injustices that only augment the initial crimes the president ostensibly sought to avenge.

The killings of innocent Afghans, however, now pale in comparison with the number of innocent people killed in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country whose leaders were never shown to have had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. On June 11, the Associated Press announced the results of its own survey, which is based on the records of 60 of Iraq's 124 hospitals as well as interviews with hospital officials. It covers the period from March 20 to April 20, the time of the heaviest fighting.

Besides not surveying all of the country's hospitals, the AP found that death records were far from complete, in part because many of those killed were never taken to hospitals and were buried quickly by their families, and in part because some victims were buried under debris or obliterated by explosions. Still, the surveyors confirmed the deaths of at least 3,240 civilians. Other investigators have arrived at much greater figures. Douglas W. Cassel Jr., in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin of May 29, reports that "human rights and humanitarian groups suggest a civilian death toll of somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000." Again, the range is plausible; no one will ever know the exact number.

If we take as reasonable lower-bound estimates 2,000 Afghan and 4,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, then we can conclude that the U.S. forces already have inflicted at least two undeserved deaths for every death the terrorists caused in the Sept. 11 attacks. Many of the dead in Afghanistan and Iraq are women and children. Moreover, many of the thousands of Iraqi army personnel killed in the invasion arguably ought to be regarded as essentially innocent, because as conscripts they were fighting only under duress (and only in defense of their homeland). Thus, in a grotesque mockery of justice, the Bush administration has taken several innocent lives for each innocent life lost at the hands of the terrorists.

One might say -- as many do -- that the two killing sprees are not comparable, because the terrorists set out to kill the innocent, whereas the U. S. forces killed the innocent "by accident." I greatly doubt, however, that this argument can hold water. When U.S. forces employ aerial and artillery bombardment -- with huge high-explosive bombs, large rockets and shells, including cluster munitions -- as their principal technique of waging war, especially in densely inhabited areas, they know with absolute certainty that many innocent people will be killed. To proceed with such bombardment, therefore, is to choose to inflict those deaths.

If you or I settled our scores in our neighborhoods in such a fashion, neither moral authorities nor the legal system would countenance our slaughter of innocent bystanders as excusable. Nobody can gain moral absolution merely by labeling his killing spree a "war." It's not a morally valid way out for you and me, and it's not a morally valid way out for George W. Bush, either.
________________________________________

Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Independent Institute (www.independent.org) in Oakland, is author of "Crisis and Leviathan" (Oxford University Press, 1987) and editor of "Arms, Politics and The Economy" (Holmes and Meier, 1990).

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle

commondreams.org



To: tekboy who wrote (102615)6/25/2003 11:58:21 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
THE NOTE
ABC 2004: The Invisible Primary, foreign policy

Before Howard Dean's foreign policy speech, The Note conducted one of those modern e-mail interviews with Alton Frye of the Council on Foreign Relations about The Doctor's address.

In 2000, the CFR maintained one of the best political resources on the web, with lots of carefully crafted and cutting-edge use of the medium to provide information about the candidates' positions on foreign policy.

Check out their impressive 2004 site here, which does for foreign policy and the presidential candidates what somebody smart somewhere should be doing for domestic stuff. cfr.org

You'll be blown away by how deep and thorough it is.

So: here's our interview with Frye, who is the presidential Senior Fellow and Director for Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy at the CFR.

He is an expert on national security strategy and arms control. He often consults both the legislative and executive branches on these matters. LINK

The Note: How well does the foreign policy community in Washington know Governor Dean? Has he been active in the Council's world?

Frye: "Governor Dean remains a largely unknown quantity in the foreign policy community, but he is arousing a degree of curiosity comparable to that in the wider political world. He certainly got attention for his early and insistent challenge to the justification and wisdom of the war in Iraq. It is possible that that are some aspects of his experience that will emerge as relevant to current international issues ? obviously, his medical background might give him a purchase on the global crisis in HIV-AIDS."

The Note: "Bill Clinton got to the 'right' of the first George Bush on the issue of China and human rights. Is that something that Governor Dean or another Democratic could or should do?"

Frye: "Reports of Governor Dean's political dexterity suggest that he will look for some positions to flank President Bush, quite possibly on issues of human rights. I think it doubtful, however, that on these questions his maneuver would be to the right of Mr. Bush. More likely, especially in the context of widespread concerns over domestic civil liberties issues after 9/11, one speculates that he might move left on those issues."

"Bush has been, to use a poor term, less 'accommodationist' than some leaders with regard to China's or other governments' human rights practices ? his rhetoric has been pretty direct in challenging those governments even while he has addressed particular issues with them in a pragmatic manner. (An exception is Bush's relatively soft comments on Russia's campaign in Chechnya.) So it will be hard to get to the president's right in that zone. More likely, one might think, would be outflanking Bush by asserting that he has been insufficiently attentive to crucial alliance relations, especially in NATO. The tattered state of those relations could invite conservative attack, on the grounds that traditionally important institutions have been damaged in recent months."

The Note: Amongst Democrats you know who worked on foreign policy in the Clinton years, is there a lot of interest in or support for Howard Dean?

Frye: "I would characterize their attitude as wary curiosity. There is concern that, to the degree his current themes and appeals are successful in mobilizing support among Democratic partisans, he could make it harder to produce a united party able to challenge Bush in the center. That is the clear message of the sharp critiques he has excited from circles around the Democratic Leadership Council."

The Note: "Have any of the candidates established themselves as the Council front-runners?"

Frye: "Since the Council never develops an institutional position on any candidate, no one can answer that question. At this stage Council members are beginning to listen, but I doubt that many have formed even preliminary views about their preferences among the Democratic contenders. Republicans among the diverse Council membership seem to parallel the national distribution of opinion in solid support for the president's foreign policy --- despite serious currents of unease about the prospect of protracted, inconclusive engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The Note: By what measures/standards will Governor Dean's audience today judge his remarks?

Frye: "As with all politicians, a lot of the reaction will be a matter of personal chemistry and subjective inclinations in the audience. Added to that, however, people will certainly be looking to see if there is depth, rather than superficiality or pre-cooked comments, in the Governor's assessment of the international scene. His skepticism about the policy in Iraq is already known, so members will be interested to learn how cogent an argument he develops on that issue."

"More important will be what Dr. Dean has to say about other pending challenges to American foreign policy. What issues attract his attention? What insights does he bring to bear on them? Does he have any novel and plausible approaches to healing the breach in Transatlantic relations, to shaping a modus vivendi with Russia and China, to forging a more effective campaign against terrorism, to reinvigorating the faltering non-proliferation regime in North Korea and Iran, etc. The list is very long indeed."

The Note: Beyond the war against Iraq, are there divisions or schools within the Democratic party that you see on foreign policy? If so, where are they? Frye: "In the general mood compelling Democrats to demonstrate that they are strong and reliable on national security issues --- not a new problem for the party but one greatly exacerbated by 911 ? there seems to be a fault line, rather vague, between those Democrats who believe that the way to do so is by supporting large increases in defense spending and those who feel that the party now needs to emphasize a responsibly frugal approach to security investments. A main theme will likely center on tradeoffs between dollars for defense modernization and dollars for additional measures of homeland security. One may also anticipate a significant cleavage among Democrats over aspects of international trade policy, as one recalls from the party divisions over NAFTA and other such undertakings over the last decade when Republicans saved the deals in Congress by supporting proposals that originated in the past Democratic administration."
abcnews.go.com