The Answer to Afghanistan
“Never again war!. No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war. Just as the time has finally come when in individual States a system of private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the rule of law, so too a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international community. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that at the root of war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffered, legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the exploitation of multitudes of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving their lot by peaceful means.
For this reason, another name for peace is development. Just as there is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a collective responsibility for promoting development. Just as within individual societies it is possible and right to organize a solid economy which will direct the functioning of the market to the common good, so too there is a similar need for adequate interventions on the international level. For this to happen, a great effort must be made to enhance mutual understanding and knowledge, and to increase the sensitivity of consciences. This is the culture which is hoped for, one which fosters trust in the human potential of the poor, and consequently in their ability to improve their condition through work or to make a positive contribution to economic prosperity. But to accomplish this, the poor — be they individuals or nations — need to be provided with realistic opportunities. Creating such conditions calls for a concerted worldwide effort to promote development, an effort which also involves sacrificing the positions of income and of power enjoyed by the more developed economies.
This may mean making important changes in established life-styles, in order to limit the waste of environmental and human resources, thus enabling every individual and all the peoples of the earth to have a sufficient share of those resources. In addition, the new material and spiritual resources must be utilized which are the result of the work and culture of peoples who today are on the margins of the international community, so as to obtain an overall human enrichment of the family of nations.”
- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus.
Comments are closed.
It’s a good quote, but so far as I can see it equally well be taken as a argument in favor of Obama’s troop increase as an argument against it.
To me this quote asks the deeper question: was war ever the answer to the Afghanistan problem? The implicit answer being “no.”
Crusader,
What was the answer? What was the United States supposed to do when a government was harboring Osama bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks?
And of course even if you believe the war never should have been started, what is the best course of action now?
Call me naive, but I think the United States would heed the pope’s words if Al-Qaeda and the Taliban would also. Then we can all join hands and peacefully work on economic development in Afghanistan.
David Nickol,
I myself consider the US invasion of Afghanistan to have been just, for exactly the reasons you give. My earlier comment stemmed from what seemed self-evident: that John Paul II was calling for an abandonment of war.
Still, it may not have been Morning Minion’s intent to question the war itself but merely its escalation. If that is so, I do not know why he would use a quote containing “Never again war!. No, never again war, which destroys the lives of innocent people.”
In any case I have not yet answered your question: what do we do now. I suppose the answer to Afghanistan depends on 1) the moral parameters within which we choose our objectives, and 2) the objectives themselves. I believe the President did an excellent job the other night of outlining our goals in Afghanistan, so I will not repeat them. The moral parameters should be the conditions of Catholic just war theory (being a Catholic it is what I subscribe to). Sending in extra troops, then, makes sense, assuming our cause retains its justice and our presence brings us closer to victory.
If I missed anything, please accept my apologies. I do not mean you any disrespect.
Upon WHOM are we making “war” exactly, when it comes to occupying a country from whence the 9/11 terrorists fled quite some time ago? The practical answer seems to be upon the PEOPLE of Afghanistan, or, at least, upon that segment of the population who are sympathetic to the Taliban and their version of an Islamic state.
Is it our business, our right to interfere with the internal debates or struggles of another nation in determining their future?
Please understand something about me and most of the other believers in “just war theory” who supported Obama because we thought he would bring to an end the neo-conservative/neo-imperialist and bogus “war on terror” (which, I suspect, almost all of us think is a species of arguments concocted to preserve the hegemony of the American “national security state” and the position of the dollar as the reserve currency for all energy resources in the world): we DO NOT flinch from a “war” (“4th generation” or otherwise)against actual “terrorists.” Most of us, I believe, SUPPORTED the “police action” into Afghanistan to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of 9/11. To this day, I believe a great many of us would support a MASSIVE retaliation–even inside the borders of a sovereign nation–if there were another terrorist attack on a major Western city. That would be an act of defense, and an act of justice.
What we WILL NOT buy, however, is that our “defense” depends upon ruinous “nation-building” among peoples with a long history of resentment of colonialist and post-colonialist interference in their affairs, their cultures and their economies. The patronization of ancient, if primitive societies in this way–presuming to bring them “democracy,” or “progress”–is racist, it is imperialist and it is usually genocidal.
I’m willing to send “care” packages to our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m willing to have my taxes used to build schools and roads and hospitals in Iraq, but I am NOT willing to fall for Obama’s and McCrystal’s argument that the only way to “protect” those hospitals, schools and roads is to send 30,000 more young Americans into the meat-grinder of a long-standing indigenous civil war, when the EVIDENCE coming in from Afghanistan is that not a single one of the schools founded by American or European NGOs have been attacked by the Taliban.
Schools and hospitals build a “culture of democracy” in a “failed state” like Afghanistan and corn-fed boys from the American heartland afforded only a training in how to “kill the enemy” cannot, and never will be able to.
“What was the United States supposed to do when a government was harboring Osama bin Laden and other members of Al-Qaeda who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks?”
The real solution would be to stop messing with the world. While homicidal maniacs will always exist, the United States manage to cultivate them like no other. You won’t find that many lunatics running around chanting “Death to Canada.” (Well, maybe Rush Limbaugh on a Hillbilly Heroin bender) No, the people in the towers and planes didn’t deserve to die. Caught together, hanged together, as a German saying goes. But, in addition to the murderous lunacy of the terrorists, they certainly can also “thank” US policy for their grim fate. There is no good vs. evil here, there’s bad vs. worse. There is no need to play the game of being “either with us or with the terrrrists.”, that wonderful fascist carte blanche every “leader” dreams of. 9/11 was to Bush what Christmas is to retail – if it didn’t exist, it’d have to be invented.
I’d be happy with some truth in advertising, I’m not asking for much, right ? – make the stickers say “Support war”, not “Support our troops”, it’s so slimy and arm-twisting. “Surely you don’t hate ourbravemenandwomeninuniform or DO YOU ?” It’s an admirable trick, to make supporting war synonymous with supporting the individuals involved in it. An honest arsonist would say “Support Fire”, instead our leaders say “Support burn victims.”
In general, I’d feel so much less insulted if our “leaders” were honest about their goals. It should have been called “Operation Oil Well”. “Freedom”. Please. You’re free to be our newest dependent, honored to be exploited by the most skillful people in the business. It’s flattering, in a way, to be singled out by the US. It’s like the world is beef and you just got called filet mignon. It makes the being carved up and devoured aspects hurt less. I mean, if you’re gonna get raped, you’d want it to be a distinguishing connoisseur rapist.
As far as “Just War” is concerned, when the attacked party (US on 9/11) bears considerable blame for why it got attacked, can such a case still be made ? Supporting despots favorable to the US Oil industry (the former Shah of Iran, for example), to name just one item, didn’t endear the US to a great many people. Spreading democracy is the advertised goal, the reality is quite different. The will of the public of Turkey, the EU etc. wasn’t held in high esteem when it was against invading Iraq. Dubious leaders who were “willing” did not have their credentials questioned. The obliging oligarch beats the dissenting democrat any day.
National sovereignty – defended in Kuwait’s case – is another touted value, unless a nation decides it’s had quite enough of being milked for oil by US (and British, Dutch etc.) companies.
Human rights are just wonderful, heck freedom is God’s gift to mankind right ? The US has the divinely-appointed job of doling them out around the globe, right ? Unless of course General Pinochet has Milton Friedman sitting on his lap, then what’s a few thousand tortured, murdered people. Surely their orphans and widows will appreciate a free market.
It is true of the USA what used to be said of the Greeks: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/douglas/douglas29.1.html
“Death to Canada”?? I can’t believe you’d even put that in writing. Why, Canada would never hurt a fly!…
Oh, maybe THAT’S why nobody ever discusses them in the grave matter of world affairs…
It seems to me that our problem in Afghanistan is that the US is taking the imperialist approach. While it may not have have been wrong to go in there in the first place to get the terrorists, why was the only long-term solution seen as being basically an occupation and take-over of the country? Not that we want to make Afghanistan the 51st state; we just want the government there to be as close to our form of government as possible and friendly to us in every important way–in other words, a puppet.
This looks little different than old-fashioned European imperialism. We know we know so much better than the backward Afghanis what is good for them; we bring the blessings of Western civilization–thus, for example, we train a whole new police force for the country to be pretty much like New York’s finest. Did not the Afghanis have some method of enforcing the law before detectives from NY and LA showed up to introduce them to enlightened Western law enforcement, including all that paperwork and coffee and donuts?
Barring extreme circumstances, there are ways of working one’s national will that are a lot more clever and a lot less destructive (and cheaper!) than taking over whole countries and trying to get whole populations to see the interests of the USA as coinciding with their own.
Of course we want to promote decent governance and human rights as much as we can. But again, there are ways to promote these things that make more sense and cost a whole lot less than making new colonies.
Gentlemen,
Unless I am mistaken (which I may very well be), it seems to be the case that we are performing nation building operations principally to fulfill our national self-interests- that is to say, to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist haven.
Since we must expect our leaders to take our safety seriously, is nation building a viable and just method for preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist haven again?
So, Aegis, where does it stop? There are SO many other nations that are already potential “terrorist havens.” How about Chechnya (or do we just let the Russians commit genocide there in our behalf)? How about Somalia or Yemen?
The real issue is Pakistan, and Pakistan stands or falls depending upon the resolution of her problem with India over Kashmir. But NOBODY in the West wants to talk about that, because that would interfere with the BIG BUSINESS of India’s development.
Those who support this evil, colonialist policy in the Muslim heartlands of Asia are running RIVERS of hypocritical cant out of their mouths! It’s NOT about “protecting our people from terrorist attack.” (The REAL “terrorists” in Western capitals are the banksters.)Instead, it’s about MONEY!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski239.html