Afghanistan: More violence, more death
I despise violence. Likewise, I despise those who advocate violence as a “solution” to anything. Those who advocate for violent solutions are amongst the most savage, primitive and malevolent human beings possible. Further, those who advocate for the most severe and efficient forms of violence—i.e. those who promote military violence—are amongst the most sadistic. Militaries, as agents of mass death, are only considered to be solutions by those who subscribe to a morality that says “rightness is determined by one’s ability to kill;” such a moral code contains nothing else—no justice, no freedom, no fairness; simply violence. And, as it has been with many other subjects, our new president Obama is no different from his predecessor when it comes to invoking the military as a “solution.”
President Obama spoke last Friday about his plan to deal with the ongoing situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan—a situation he described as “increasingly perilous.” According to Obama, “Al Qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan…and if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for the terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they can.”
Of course, a key piece of Obama’s “solution” to this plan is to increase the military forces in the area by some 20,000 troops. According to Obama’s speech, “These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east…and to go after insurgents along the border.” I suppose since these “terrorists” want to “kill as many of our people as they can,” we’d better go ahead and kill as many of them as we can first. It can’t get any simpler than that, can it?
Now, Obama did warn of some risks to his plan. He said “[T]he sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price.” Since military violence is all about who can kill who faster and better, I suppose it is likely that many soldiers will continue to “pay the ultimate price.”
What is peculiar though is that Obama never mentioned what sorts of risks his plan has in store for those who happen to live in Afghanistan—you know, civilians and such who might also have to “pay the ultimate price.”
According to some numbers compiled at wikipedia.org under an entry entitled Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), the total civilians killed as a direct result of U.S-led military actions since 2001 is between 4,972 and 7,764. These numbers include the blowing up of civilians with bombs from the sky, or the shooting of civilians with bullets from soldiers’ rifles, tanks, machine guns, etc. Also, the same Wikipedia article estimates that the total number of civilians killed as an indirect result of U.S-led military actions is between 3,200 and 20,000. The article defines “indirect deaths” as Afghans who had died of starvation, exposure, associated illnesses, or injury sustained while in flight from war zones as a result of the U.S. war and airstrikes. I suppose the range varies so greatly due to the inherent difficulties of measuring displaced peoples. In any case, these numbers tell us that somewhere between 8,172 and 27,764 Afghan civilians have been killed as a result of U.S-led military actions.
Now, Obama does remind us that those nasty terrorists have killed civilians too, “Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001,” Obama said, “for doing nothing other than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries.” Fair enough. But how many people have these Al Qaeda allies actually killed?
According to the Wikipedia article, the total civilians estimated to have been killed as a result of insurgent actions is between 2,399 and 3,949—far fewer than the U.S-led military has accomplished in the same amount of time. I suppose this means our military is better at killing civilians than those terrorist insurgents, eh? And if I understood Obama correctly, he wants to send more trained killers (otherwise known as soldiers) into the area.
Obama’s affection for military violence propels him easily and painlessly into my category of sadistic persons subscribing to the doctrine that rightness is proportional to powerfulness. As such, it is no wonder why he would make the following statement: “There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated.” In other words, there is no need to talk or negotiate with the Taliban, because they refuse to “compromise;” besides, we can simply settle this by “force” anyway, so why not just use that first?
I swear I’ve heard this before…except it wasn’t the Taliban who was “uncompromising.”
Back in October 2001 former president Bush rejected the Taliban’s request to hand Osama bin Laden over for a trial (after the U.S. had begun its devastating bombing campaign) if the U.S. would produce evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. As an October 15, 2001 article at independent.co.uk entitled Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden reported:
“After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush…Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban’s deputy prime minister, said: ‘If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate.’…But as American warplanes entered the second week of the bombing campaign, Washington rejected the Taliban offer out of hand. ‘When I said no negotiations I meant no negotiations,’ Mr. Bush said. ‘We know he’s guilty. Turn him over. There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt.’”
As we can see, back in 2001 it was the U.S. who was “uncompromising” when it came to non-violent resolutions. It was the Taliban who wanted to negotiate, with respect to the innocence or guilt of the accused, no less—a democratic process, mind you. But, the U.S. preferred the use of force. Now, over seven years later, we have another president trumpeting the use of force and truncating the use of negotiations all over again. And as the numbers attest, it is mostly the Afghan civilians who will pay the “ultimate price” for this use of force. I therefore maintain that president Obama is every bit as sadistic as president Bush was when Bush opted for military violence as a solution in Afghanistan. I care not how fluently Obama can articulate his obsession for violence in Afghanistan with rhetorical luster, it is the same doctrine underneath and I stringently abhor it. Killing people is not good policy; in fact, it’s no “policy” at all. It’s savage ruthlessness.