Anniversary

[Carl Remick]

>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>
>Luke Weiger wrote:
>
>>I think the leaders of democratic states (and those of a fair number of
>>despotic ones, as well) care about the potential deaths of many thousands 
>>or
>>millions of people.  However, that concern can be easily overriden by the
>>ends said leaders are pursuing.  In the case of Afghanistan, banishing the
>>Taliban and eradicating Al Qaida didn't necessitate killing untold numbers
>>of civilians.  Nor, I hasten to add, did such an outcome appear likely to
>>the more sober analysts.
>
>Sober = imperial apologists? Mass starvation didn't happen. But at the time 
>it was reasonable to worry about it - and that's what aid workers on the 
>ground were saying.
>
>Yes, "untold numbers" of civilians died in Afg in the literal sense - we 
>don't know how many, and if anyone does, they're not telling.
>
>Doug

I still think it was a mistake for the US to have pursued a military rather 
than a legal remedy post-9/11, both because of the continuing "collateral 
damage" in Afghanistan and because of the precedent Afghanistan sets for 
major US military offenses in Iraq and elsewhere.  Ralph Waldo Emerson 
(later, admittedly, an enthusiastic supporter of the Civil War) had some 
interesting thoughts in 1837 on the avoidance of war:  "... if a nation of 
men is exalted to that height of morals as to refuse to fight and choose 
rather to suffer loss of goods and loss of life than to use violence, they 
must be not helpless, but most effective and great men; they would overawe 
their invader, and make him ridiculous; they would communicate the contagion 
of their virtue and inoculate all mankind."

Carl

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com