>>Of course the war was not legitimate. Of course in a world in which
>>there are such inequalities of wealth and power, a counterattack
>>was illegitimate.
>
>So we should have gone to visit the homes of the dishwashers at
>Windows on the World killed on September 11, and told their wives,
>husbands, and children that "Because the United States is a rich and
>powerful country, it would be illegitimate to take any steps to
>force the Taliban to hand over those responsible for this atrocity,
>and illegitimate to take any steps to reduce Al-Qaeda's ability to
>commit a similar atrocity again?"
>
>Somehow I don't think so.
>
>Brad DeLong
I have to say that I have quite a few problems with this vignette. Without wanting to get competitive on this subject, I've lost people to three separate terrorist groups in my life; I've also, unlike seemingly anyone else on this list who has posted on the subject, actually discussed the subject of vengeance and military action with the surviving relatives of people murdered by terrorists. Listing the problems I have with this argument:
1) The quoted text at the top very clearly says "the war" in a context in which it is clear that what is being referred to is the current bombing and ground troop action in Afghanistan (mainly the bombing). The response argues against "any steps". The implicit assertion that there were no alternative steps which could have been taken is false, which means that there is an implicit accusation that the author of the first passage would be opposed to any action at all against Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. This is as near as makes no difference to accusing someone of supporting the attack.
2) Concentrating on the most attractive group of victims (to a left-wing audience) is pretty emotionally manipulative. The bond traders and fund managers did not deserve to be murdered either.
3) It is hard to read this argument in a way which does not support the conclusion that what ought to be done in any case of murder is dependent on what relatives of the victims want (more accurately, what relatives of the victims are supposed to want, since none of us have asked them). This is bad law and bad practice.
4) The argument also proves too much; indeed, it is hard to see how it could not be extended to make a similar case against any opposition to any kind of death penalty. Certainly, for example, the author of "Native Son" would have to be made to feel ashamed by this argument that he had ever suggested that the social conditions of 1930s Chicago had anything to do with the murder of a white woman by a black man.
One could be quite sympathetic to the argument that the military operation in Afghanistan was a police operation aimed at Al Quaeda, if anyone was making that argument. It might also be argued that the destruction of the Taliban made the world a safer place for us, or that it made Afghanistan sufficiently better a place to justify the risk. But I don't like the implication that we had to go and fight the war that was fought because we owe no less to our glorious dead. Enniskillen and Omagh, among other towns of this world, are full of people who have become a little weary of that kind of argument.
Get Your Free Email at http://www.al-islam.com