I thought mine was a "that's the price" view. First of all I don't think those villagers who were 'collateral damage' deserved to die. Seems obvious. But if Al Qaeda wasn't stopped there would be many, many more innocents killed. It's almost a Hobson's choice. It's a painful decision. Those Afghans should have gotten the New York Times special 9-11 obituary section treatment.
I would like to reduce the collateral damage on all sides. From what I understand, England and France were very reluctant to fight Hitler, because of the memories of the bloodbath of World War I. But finally they had no choice. So either you are against "collateral damage" no matter the occasion, or you'll "rationalize it" by saying it will prevent even more "collateral damage" or dead civilians.
Where is "out here" by the way? I'd be interested to hear why my opinions aren't shared "out there." Many American leftists have been campaigning about the other barbarities out in the world. For instance, I know young feminists who campaigned against the Taliban and raised before the US government decided to join their cause.
>Is it then so incomprehensible that "yes...but"? Do we live in
>another planet, or are we creatures of lesser gods, lesser cultures,
>a lesser humanity? [No, this is not directed at you; but I do note
>the injection of the note of the superiority of US culture into other
>posts here -- at which point one is sorely tempted to ask, So why not
>celebrate the defeat of communism? Why not assume the mantle of
>didactic imperialism? For one suspects that in fact they would
>probably find US culture superior to all existing cultures.]
I don't really get what you're saying. If you go throught the archives you'll find plenty of criticisms of US culture.
>Let me say that over the past year, I've seen attitudes out here
>mutate from the initial horror to a plain shrug of the shoulders as
>we watch the unfolding of US strategy and policy -- knowing only too
>well how that strategy and policy is feeding into extremist Islamism,
>something that was already on the defensive pre WTC, but has since
>acquired new adherents; a strategy and policy that has opponents of
>such views in a fix as we struggle to articulate positions and views
>that strike out at the extremists while distancing ourselves from
>Washingtonian positions. I'm sorry if people find it hard to accept
>that many of us see the war on Afghanistan as part of a piece, and
>hence find it difficult to accept the argument for a case-by-case
>assessment.
We'll see how Afghanistan plays out. During the Cold War, the US supported "authoritarian" regimes with the excuse that they (we) were fighting the Soviet Union and Communism. Not much of an excuse, but now they no longer have that. And I don't see terrorism becoming the new Communism, because there is no nuclear-armed Soviet Union backing the terrorists. At least I hope that is the case.
Peter