Innocent Afghans don’t deserve attacks

Ali is a third-year physiological science student.

By Mujtaba Ali

I would like to commend Mitra Ebadolahi’s and Shirin
Vossoughi’s piece, “Proper retribution entails more
thought, less force,” (Daily Bruin, Oct. 9).

This column points out an oft-forgotten reality: that violence
begets violence and that military retaliation is not the universal
solution to foreign problems.

In polls conducted by leading news corporations, including
Newsweek, up to 90 percent of Americans surveyed were in agreement
with the U.S. strikes on Afghanistan. I’m shocked that 90
percent of people in this country approve of senseless violence and
destruction.

In an online poll conducted by the Daily Bruin, more than 50
percent supported the United States’ “war on
terrorism” even if it included military strikes against two
or more nations.

Where, in the course of our development as human beings, did
this lust for blood develop?

Justice does not equate to vengeful killing and destruction. I
couldn’t agree more with Ebadolahi’s and
Vossoughi’s statement that “Sept. 11’s 7,000 dead
don’t deserve to have thousands more murdered in their
name.” It is unfortunate that the vast majority of Americans
feel justified in avenging the loss of thousands of innocent lives
by taking thousands more.

Shortly after the attacks on Sept. 11, I found it impossible to
believe that the United States would actually attack a country as
helpless and innocent as Afghanistan. After all, the evidence
against Osama bin Laden was, and still is, merely circumstantial.
Bin Laden was labeled as the “most probable suspect” as
a result of being strongly linked to prior attacks on U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

I felt it unlikely that any country that prided itself on
providing “justice for all” would act so quickly,
irrationally and in such a violent manner.

Neither Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban government nor the
American people were given proof of bin Laden’s guilt.
Providing at least minimal evidence implicating bin Laden’s
involvement in the attacks would have been enough to convince the
Taliban to willingly hand over bin Laden. Providing at least
minimal evidence would have been enough to avoid the bombardment of
an already-dying nation. Providing at least minimal evidence would
have been enough to appease those Americans, like myself, who for
years have been critics of American foreign policy.

This would have resulted in a quicker and easier transition into
the recovery process, which, at this point, should be our primary
goal ““ not revenge.

Tragically, it seems the United States has ignored one of its
fundamental tenets of justice, and is now acting on the notion that
one is “guilty until proven innocent.”

No one would argue that the destruction of airports, radio
stations and government buildings is helpful to Afghanistan’s
infrastructure. Thus far, these structures have been the prime
targets of American missiles. It is also very difficult to believe
that these targets are central to terrorist operations. I
can’t imagine what progress can be made in the war against
terrorism by destroying the basic civil necessities of the Afghan
people.

All I see is unnecessary violence ““ the only foreseeable
result of which is that Afghanistan will be plunged deeper into
poverty and be pushed back several decades from becoming an even
remotely prosperous nation.

In a statement made during one of several massive anti-bombing
rallies in Europe, a rally attendant expressed the irony in the
fact that the richest country in the world is unleashing an
overwhelmingly devastating attack on the poorest country in the
world.

Where is that “characteristic compassion” that
allows this country to regard itself as “protector of the
world?”

More importantly, why aren’t the American people at least
questioning the unilateral nature of this military engagement? It
is unilateral in the sense that sending thousands of cruise
missiles upon the land of a noncombatant, impoverished population
is hardly fair.

Barely into the second week of U.S. retaliation, the military
has already admitted to bombing a civilian housing row, killing
four and injuring eight. Those Afghans “lucky” enough
to walk away alive from the attack on the neighborhood now have to
deal with being homeless. Due to its dilapidated civil framework,
it is impossible to build a new home in Afghanistan.

Last week, a missile intended for a broadcast tower destroyed a
United Nations office resulting in four deaths.

These were tragic errors, committed by the most sophisticated
and heavily funded military in the world. Inexcusable, however, is
that which occurred early Tuesday: a Navy F/A-18 Hornet dropped
1,000-pound bombs on warehouses occupied by the Red Cross.
Contained within the warehouses were shelter supplies, blankets and
wheat, intended to help the civilian population survive through the
winter (LA Times, Oct 16).

It gets worse: the damaged Red Cross complex had been clearly
marked with two red crosses on its roof.

We are repeatedly told that this war is against terrorists and
not the Afghan people. If the government truly felt this way, the
aforementioned errors such should not have occurred.

Instead, the government is making a mockery of international
relief organizations as well as the Afghan people by delivering
food packets, in paltry amounts, in tandem with its bombs.

Recall that 12 years ago we were told that Operation Desert
Storm was intended to target the dictatorial regime of Saddam
Hussein and to “free the Iraqi people of his tyranny.”
Meanwhile, over a decade later, Hussein has as much wealth and
power as he ever had, yet the Iraqi citizens are suffering the
worst form of oppression ever inflicted upon a people: they are
being suffocated and starved to death by U.S.-sponsored economic
sanctions. To date, the United States is directly responsible for
the deaths of millions of Iraqi children.

It is clear that the only thing the United States is protecting
in the Middle East is its own interests. God forbid the twisted
logic used to suffocate the Iraqi people should manifest itself in
our current crisis.

I have come to realize that exhibiting patriotism reveals severe
naivete among Americans, as was the case with Manuel H.
Rodriguez’s letter “Lack of patriotism reveals
ignorance” (Daily Bruin, Oct. 15).

I am most disappointed by this phenomenon occurring among
college students ““ those Americans who are expected to be
educated, inquisitive and therefore aware, at least minimally, of
the reality of the imperialistic and unjust nature of this
country’s foreign policy.

Ebadolahi and Vossoughi point out, inarguably correctly, that
“American citizens are accountable for the foreign policy
objectives of their government.” It is up to the American
people, especially young intellectuals such as college students, to
determine the future of this country’s relationship with the
rest of the world.

Blind allegiance with uncritical support of the country’s
objectives will continue the tradition of corrupt, self-serving
diplomacy that has for too long been characteristic of this
nation!

It is becoming clear that the Afghan people are suffering most
in this dilemma, not the terrorist regime, which has in actuality
become an arbitrary concept ““ an invisible super-enemy rather
than an actual entity.

Unfortunately, this enemy has been assigned as a presence in
Afghanistan.

But what is most unfortunate ““ and terrifying ““ is
that this logic can be used by our government to bombard nearly any
other unsuspecting, and equally innocent nation.

Should the American people blindly support such an irrational
act of violence? In the midst of difficult and trying times, does
Afghanistan really need or deserve more death and destruction?

No.