Reconsidering arguments against war

Correction appended

Those who oppose military action in Afghanistan have come under attack for being "anti-American" and "unpatriotic." Barbara Lee was called a "communist" for doing so. This is unfortunate.

But, while certainly not "anti-American," "communist" or "unpatriotic," the arguments of those against military intervention in Afghanistan are fundamentally flawed. One of the most prominent of such arguments states that military force is ineffective. Yet, was it not military force that stopped Adolph Hitler's quest for world domination and ended the Holocaust? Was it not military force that prevented Communist North Korea from taking over non-Communist South Korea and ended genocide in Serbia? Military force has often been used as a way of protecting one's national security and ending atrocities committed against the people living in the nation attacked. Unlike almost every other military intervention since World War II, America's involvement in Afghanistan is directly concerned with protecting its national security.

Another argument relates to civilian casualties. America is killing innocent civilians, it is claimed, and since we do this we are no better than the terrorists. Yet there is a fundamental difference between intentionally murdering civilians, like the terrorists did, and trying very hard to avoid civilian casualties in a time when a nation's security is threatened. Moreover, the Taliban has committed grave atrocities against its own people. By overthrowing the Taliban, eradicating the terrorists it harbors and helping to rebuild Afghanistan, America can help ameliorate the condition of the civilians there. If military action is not taken, many more innocent lives may be lost. Brutal regimes can harm human life much more than war can. (For example, Communism killed many more people than all the wars in the past 200 years combined.)

The next argument is that we ought to tackle "the roots of terrorism," whatever they may be. Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime that supports and harbors terrorists are at the root of the problem. Unlike many terrorist acts, the ones of Sept. 11 were a sophisticated operation that required years of meticulous planning, enormous resources and a large organization. By destroying terrorist training camps and overthrowing the Taliban, we are helping to prevent the repetition of such acts. Also, it is not impossible to attack both terrorists and their allies and the other social ills that breed terrorism.

Another argument states that the terrorist attacks are simply a reprisal against America for "horrendous actions" in the Middle East such as supporting Israeli "oppression" of Palestinians. If it had not been for American foreign policy in the Middle East and injustices against Palestinians, the argument goes, the attacks wouldn't have occurred. American foreign policy has, no doubt, caused harm to many people, and it is appropriate to adopt a more just foreign policy in accord with our democratic ideals. But the notion that American foreign policy in the Middle East is the direct cause of the Sept. 11 attacks is ill conceived.

Osama bin Laden simply uses the plight of the Palestinians to give an extremist agenda broad appeal, as many people across the globe sympathize with the Palestinians. In the same way, bin Laden often mentions the plight of the Iraqis and criticizes America for its eagerness to destroy Iraq so he can garner support throughout the Muslim world, despite the fact that he and Saddam Hussein have historically been enemies. Bin Laden's ultimate aim is not to liberate the Palestinians but rather to impose theocratic fundamentalism throughout the rest of the Islamic world. He aims to "kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever [found]," as he stated in his 1998 Fatwah urging jihad against America. No sort of foreign policy would satisfy such extremists and prevent them from committing terrorist attacks. In a letter to bin Laden, another Al Qaeda leader indicated that Americans are mistaken when they think that the only thing that stands between them and Al Qaeda is the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In an article that opposes military intervention, printed in The Nation, Katrina Pollit asks, "Why does our foreign policy underwrite the clerical fascist regime [emphasis added] of Saudi Arabia?" Note how she calls the same regime "clerical fascist" that bin Laden calls "infidel" and "un-Islamic." Also, it is understandable the Palestinians may harbor resentment toward the United States because of its support of Israel, but Afghans and Pakistanis — from whom Al Qaeda and the Taliban are primarily drawn — have hardly any grounds for doing so. The United States supported the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union, and the United States and Pakistan were major allies throughout the Cold War.

Opponents of military intervention often cite America's "shortsighted" support for the anti-Soviet resistance in the 1980s in Afghanistan, which supposedly gave rise to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet American support for the anti-Soviet resistance helped save the Afghans from Communism, bring about the fall of the Soviet Union and liberate Eastern Europe from Communism. Would it have been better not to intervene and allow the Afghans to suffer under Communist rule? America's fault was not too much involvement, but rather too little. After the Soviets withdrew, America stopped taking interest in Afghanistan and simply let Afghans fight amongst themselves, leaving them to another decade of poverty, deprivation and terror.

Finally, one often hears the argument that terrorist movements cannot be destroyed. But the Indian government severely undermined the Khalistan terrorist movement when commandoes stormed the Golden Temple, a Sikh holy site, in 1988. The terrorists were desecrating it and using it as a base to launch their operations; in the same way, Al Qaeda has desecrated Islam and used it as a basis for committing acts of terror against innocent civilians.

Arvin Bahl is from Edison, NJ. He can be reached at abahl@princeton.edu.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the Indian government completely ended the Khalistan terrorist movement by storming the Golden Temple in 1984. The temple was indeed stormed in 1984 by the Indian government, but it did not end the Khalistan terrorist movement.