Head to Head
By Daily Bruin Staff
Oct. 21, 2001 9:00 p.m.
 Illustration by JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin Click here for
Ben Shapiro’s opposing column
War against terrorism poses to produce further
conflict
ATTACKS: Poor conditions have created angst,
Afghan civilians left to endure continued strife
 Mitra Ebadolahi Ebadolahi is a
fourth-year international development studies and history student
who believes that the forces of good will kiss evil on the lips.
She encourages comments at mightymousemitra@yahoo.com.
Click Here for more articles by Mitra Ebadolahi
Take a deep breath, check your preconceived notions at the door
and sit back for just one moment. Ready? Let’s sing it:
“War. Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely
nothing!”
Let’s be reasonable folks. We shouldn’t expand this
war. In fact, we shouldn’t be at war at all. Centuries of
armed conflict have not resolved the deep-seeded rifts among
different human populations. War hasn’t worked in the past,
and it won’t work now. There has to be a better way.
I don’t claim to know exactly what this “better
way” is. Nevertheless, I do believe that we have a duty to
think more before we act. Although it might be tempting to succumb
to an impatient desire for furious revenge, we must realize that
our present situation requires much more critical analysis and much
less rhetorical patriotism.
On Oct. 11, President George W. Bush notified the international
community of the sweeping scope of America’s “war on
terrorism.” In addition to Afghanistan, the President
threatened to attack all “those governments that support or
shelter terrorists.”
In light of this vague yet extensive threat, it is highly
probable that the U.S. government plans to expand this war and
target countless people around the world.
For all those who believe that today’s war against
Afghanistan and tomorrow’s war against November’s
scapegoat-of-the-month are just retributions necessary for American
safety, let’s take a moment to rationally analyze the
ramifications of an extended conflict.
Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, is
suddenly faced with unmitigated aggression from the world’s
greatest super power. Besides killing innocent civilians and relief
workers, bombing the bejeezus out of this underdeveloped nation
will only dig a deeper hole for America.
The majority of individuals living in developing countries are
brutalized by an institutionalized lack of opportunities. A desire
for radical change and relief from such suffering may lead a small
minority of a population to resort to violence to agitate for
change. Indeed, terrorism has developed as a reaction to desperate
conditions including oppression, poverty, hunger and
displacement.
If the U.S. exacerbates the hardships Afghans already face, it
will inevitably come to be seen as the enemy of the Afghan people.
By destroying what little infrastructure Afghanistan has, the
United States will only energize the terrorist agenda. Our bombs
will literally beget more bombs.
The Bush administration has declared that America, as a
sovereign nation, has the right to protect its citizens at any
cost. But what about the rights of citizens in other sovereign
nations? Don’t we believe in a people’s right to
self-determination and democratic rule based upon the
majority’s preferences?
In these times, it is critical to remember that terrorism is not
about nationality or religion. Terrorists are a minority, a small
fraction of people who choose to wield insane acts of violence as
their weapons. As David Barsamian explains, people like Osama bin
Laden have “hijacked Islam” and used religious images
to justify a fanatical agenda. In this view, bin Laden is nothing
more than an extreme version of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Americans must not make the same
mistake and associate all Muslim or Middle Eastern nations with
terrorism. If we do, then we will be guilty of committing an act of
racist reductionism rather than creating permanent solutions to the
threat of future terrorism, or absolving the fear felt by civilians
internationally.
Perhaps most importantly, there are quicker and less murderous
solutions to America’s search for bin Laden. Consider the
example of Serbia’s Slobodan Milosovic, the mastermind behind
some of the 20th century’s worst war crimes.
In response to these crimes, the international community,
including the U.S., presented irrefutable evidence regarding
Milosovic’s reign of terror. The U.S. threatened to withhold
aid to Serbia until Milosovic was handed over to an international
war crimes tribunal. Since Milosovic’s offenses were
international, so would be the remedy.
If bin Laden was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, his
crime was also an international one. Our response cannot be limited
to a small, tenuous coalition of random states. An international
crime warrants an international response.
For some, courtroom justice may not seem as exciting as an air
raid in the dead of night. But extraditing bin Laden and initiating
international proceedings will save millions of lives and prevent
us from perpetuating the cycle of violence.
As Mahatma Gandhi reminds us, the means will dictate the ends.
Violence will do nothing but breed more violence. If we are not
critical of our actions, of our privileges and of our goals, then
we will inevitably sow the seed for future catastrophes.
The present “war on terrorism” leaves no space for
such a critical analysis of the origins or tactics of terrorism.
Neither do the pro-war and anti-war rhetoric we hear every day. We
need an alternative dialogue, a third option to guide us through
this frightening time.
This “third way” would provide people of all
political backgrounds with the opportunity to scrutinize and
discuss the social and psychological impacts of war, domestically
and internationally. Only then could we begin to develop a relevant
response to the tragedy of Sept. 11 and prevent it from escalating
into a prolonged global conflict.
Click here for Mitra Ebadolahi’s opposing
column
Practicing pacifism in face of attacks will hurt
nation
TERRORISM: Actions against all enemies are
obligatory; negotiations breed violence
 Ben Shapiro Shapiro is a second-year
political science student bringing reason to the masses. E-mail him
at FrumFiddle@aol.com.
Click
Here for more articles by Ben Shapiro
America is finished with pacifism. Good riddance. For years,
leftists have been whining about the U.S. response to attacks on
American targets. Everyone has heard “don’t fight back
““ they’ll hate us even more.” People are used to
the flower power positions: “don’t sink to their
level” or “this is our American capitalist disgusting
utilitarian society coming back to haunt us” or
“let’s talk instead of fight.”
Those positions kill only time, energy and brain cells. They do
nothing. They are all talk, and no action. Appeasement of the
enemy breeds only more violence ““ terrorists will know that
if they want a change in American policy, they need only attack
U.S. civilians. The only solution to a terrorist threat is to crush
it with whatever means necessary.
Whenever someone makes a direct attack on American citizens,
they must pay dearly. Those responsible for acts of terror and
violence must be punished with loss of life and property. It
doesn’t matter why they would attack the U.S. It makes not
one whit of difference whether they ostensibly kill innocents
because of America’s treatment of Iraq, support of
“moderate” regimes in Muslim countries or friendship
with Israel. America has always been true to its ideals in support
of freedom, democracy and the ability to pursue happiness. If
someone has a problem with that, they can stuff it.
America, like all countries, has the right and the moral
obligation to defend its citizens. And the only means of defense is
to destroy terrorist networks. This means the liquidation of the
individual terrorists; it means the economic destruction of their
sources of wealth; it means the “ending of states” who
support terrorism, to put it in the words of Paul Wolfowitz,
assistant secretary of defense.
Logic and the moral imperative dictate that America must
threaten, enter and if forced, destroy states which harbor
terrorism. Letting terrorists off the hook by pretending that
only Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks
on America is foolish. And acting as though every state is against
terrorism is foolhardy. America cannot afford to be foolish.
Entering nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, the
Palestinian-controlled territories and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia
must not be seen as a “violation of their
sovereignty.” These states forfeit their right to
privacy when terrorist groups within their borders commit violent
acts against other nations.
America carries in one hand an olive branch and in the other a
baseball bat ““ either the countries hand over all terrorists,
dismantle the terrorist networks and training centers, open up for
inspection and stop educating their children to hate Western values
and freedoms, or they pay the penalty.
If countries reject the olive branch, they will feel the crack
of the bat. Civilian deaths are unfortunate and the U.S. always
seeks to avoid them, but, in the words of Zell Miller (D-Georgia),
“If there is collateral damage, so be it.” The fact is
that terrorists do not have offices with their names on the doors.
They hide in both public and private places amongst other
civilians. They know that Americans attempt to avoid civilian
deaths. America must be thoughtful and discriminating, but
unafraid.
Historical precedent makes it clear that inaction only breeds
more violence. In September 1938, Hitler invaded the Sudeten
territories in Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain, the
British prime minister, signed the Munich Agreement in the same
month, giving into Hitler’s demands and leaving
Czechoslovakia defenseless. Less than six months later, Hitler took
the rest of Czechoslovakia and went on to attack Poland,
precipitating World War II.
In contrast, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941,
FDR declared war the next day. Only through decisive and
uncompromising military action ““ and the eventual dropping of
the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ““ America ended the
threat of imperialism, preventing the loss of countless American
and Japanese lives.
A more recent comparison can be drawn between the actions of
Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. When Muamar Qaddafi
bombed a Pan-Am flight, Reagan bombed Libya ““ Qaddafi
disappeared from the international scene. When Osama bin Laden
bombed the WTC in 1993, killing and maiming American citizens,
Clinton did virtually nothing ““ America reaped the fruit of
his non-action on Sept. 11.
America must and will use everything in its power to defend its
citizens and Western ideals ““ freedom of religion, speech and
action; liberty to pursue happiness; democracy, promoting the
people’s voice in government. None of these are present in
any Middle Eastern Muslim states under consideration for
attack. They promote religious persecution, intolerance,
dictatorship and terror.
As U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, the epitome of patriotic
Americanism, so eloquently stated, “Extremism in the defense
of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
virtue.” Our principles are not subject to
negotiation. We will defend them with everything we have.
Click here for Mitra Ebadolahi’s opposing
column
