Response to things are changing for Afghan women


Frankly, the use of force/violence, or the threat of its use is antithesis to being anti-war.  I know personally that the threat of violence or harm to my loved ones causes deep emotions, not the least of these anger and a great desire to do violence to the one who threatens or causes harm.  However, that feeling is in no way a justification for me to take such actions nor to condone such actions in others. I also understand that not everyone here that is anti-war is a pacifist (myself included).

A state, in its duty to its citizens, is empowered to protect such citizens from attack.  Should a country be attacked by another state, war, as a last resort, might be justified, to protect the lives of the attacked country's citizens.  There is no (legal or moral) justification for war based on revenge, justice, percieved threat, strategic advantage, material gain, imperial ambitions, etc.  I don't believe it is okay for a state to react like an individual that has experienced personal loss.   

Reacting to the emotion of hate, fear, and grief (we all tend to hate what we fear or what causes us pain, don't we?) leads really to blood feud.  In the end that is what besets the middle east, what happend in Yougoslavia.  Such actions fuel wars, fuels killing. Does anyone argue that violence is not cyclic in nature?

The US has it in its power to effect change in Afghanistan.  Is that happening? Is it enough that things are only happening in the Capital?  After the vacuum left by the Soviets, the US allowed Afghanistan to become what it was.  Are we not running the risk of doing the same now?  Isn't the environment in Afghanistan the real danger to the US? Why, with all of the resources that the US has at its fingertips has Osama Bin Laden not been captured?  Wasn't that the real impetus for invading a soverign state? The pattern is the same as for the 1st Iraq war.  We can't get people to sign on to this action for its real reasons, we must appeal to their moral outrage: let's talk about the plight of women (or babies being ripped from incubators as in Kuwait). 

The tendency of those who approved/approve of the US use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq is to try to justify the war after the fact.  They come to this rationalization only because the original (debatable) justifications for going to war have proven thus far to be falsehoods.

I imagine it is uncomfortable to have supported violence and destruction without the moral justification.  A dilemma, which brings us to another reactive emotion:guilt.  To be fair, my own motivation for my actions and anti-war stance have something to do with a sense of responsiblilty for my country's actions and guilt for not doing more to try and change those actions.  Others refuse to experience this feeling, deny it and place the US right up there with God as being perfect and beyond criticism.  Hence their great scramble to find "reasons" for the war other than what was stated by our esteemed leaders.

What is really sad is that even the "after-the-fact" justifications do not bear up to scrutiny. It's pathetic, really.


Created By: Gary Nihsen