Feature Article October 10, 2001
LAND O'LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
Revenge and retaliation win outby David BrisonRevenge and retaliation win out --that is my take now that we have learned that the US has launched a massive air attack on selected targets in Afghanistan. It depresses me because I had thought there might be another way. Although the initial statements out of Washington, after the Pentagon and World Trade attacks, stressed revenge and retaliation, there seemed to be a moderating tone in the days following. Military leaders apparently had come to the conclusion that the only way to defeat the Taliban was through close encounters, not air strikes. That means conventional ground troops, but even that is very problematic, according to some military strategists, because the Taliban knows how to fight on their own territory and defeating them would take a massive long-term effort. Even if they were defeated, the country would likely have to be occupied in order to stop them from returning. The military has coined a term that summarizes their thinking on the situation, AOS (all options stink). I had hoped that that alone might mediate against massive air strikes. Massive air strikes, using conventional bombs and satellite-guided missiles, will undoubtedly kill innocent victims. That concerns almost all of the people I talk to in our little corner of the world. My family, friends and neighbours have many concerns: the loss of life, the devastation of an already impoverished nation, and the fear that violence will breed more violence. The idea, coming out of Washington, that air attacks to destroy the Talibans anti-aircraft are needed so that food can then be dropped by planes, is apparently negated by early reports of the raids it seems that the Taliban does not have any significant anti-aircraft defence. The air strikes do not adhere to what Jean Chrien called for in the hours immediately following the attacks patience and wisdom and the quest for long-term solutions to very serious problems. Larry McCormick, our MP, supported Chrien in his own statement, It [the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centres] was a cowardly, covert act. However, we must respond in a measured and responsible way a response that will work in the long run, rather than one that would make us feel better in the short term. The psychological roots leading to the emotionally based retaliatory bombings arent hard to identify: We are stronger and the next time you get the urge to march into our town and threaten or kill us, you will think twice. We will get our revenge. The world doesnt need to be convinced that the US is strong everybody knows that. However, are they strong enough to prevent retaliatory attacks by terrorists? People on the street in our northern communities dont seem to think so. The United States had a chance to do it a different way. Bin Laden could have been brought to justice, the forces of terrorism isolated over time, and the worlds outrage at the September 11 attacks exploited in a way that would minimize terrorism in the future. To do so, however, would have required that the US take a long, hard look at their policies. The US could have sought United Nations support instead of ignoring their resolution calling for UN approval before attacking Afghanistan. They could have eventually prosecuted bin Laden in the International Court in The Hague. After all, isnt that what the Allies did at the end of World War II? Hitler, if he hadnt killed himself would have been brought to trial -- his close associates were all tried and imprisoned. Maybe it isnt too late.
