The Taliban's Killing Fields: History 2014? - Austin Bay - Townhall Conservative Columnists
http://townhall.com/columnists/austinbay/2012/03/14/creators_oped/page/full/
RRD:No doubt people will ask:”What allies,the ones calling for Americans to be killed for burning already desecrated Quran's?”
The answer is no,not the ones who the news media on both the left & right make sure we see,but the ones who we are rarely shown. Examples include the Northern Alliance,formerly headed by Ahmed Shah Massoud;before Al-qaeda murdered him in the run up to 9/11. Ahmed Wali Massoud,his brother,spoke out on the dangers of leaving Afghanistan prematurely: Osama bin Laden dead: US strategy misconceived, says Hamid Karzai
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-afghanistan-fears?cat=world&type=article
...."Although the killing of Bin Laden will strengthen Karzai's argument with the US, some analysts and officials expressed fears that his demise could hasten the end of the huge US-led military and development effort in Afghanistan. "While thrilled to see the removal of the worst enemy of Islam who inflicted irreparable damage to image of Islam and Muslims, my concern is his death becomes the justification for US premature disengagement from the region," one senior Afghan government official who specialises in foreign affairs said. It was a view echoed by Ahmed Wali Massoud, an Afghan politician and brother of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary resistance fighter who was assassinated just days before the September 11 attacks in 2001 on the orders of Bin Laden. "Already the US has been thinking about shifting its policy on the war on terror and there is a risk that the American public will continue to question why their troops are still fighting there," he said. But Massoud warned that his killing would not make "any practical difference to the war in Afghanistan". "Symbolically this is huge because he was such an iconic figure, but this is not the end. Al-Qaida is still there and there are so many other groups that are just as ideologically strong. "The younger generation of the Taliban have come up and they now make up the bulk of the Taliban ideologically and are not very different from al-Qaida itself. We believe there is still scope for operations in Afghanistan, because the threat is still here."... We do,in fact have allies in Afghanistan.Whatever action we take,it is neither moral,nor practical, to abandon those who have risked death to aid us.
It makes no difference how many,or how few,there are.
Those who are our allies are our allies,those who are our enemies are our enemies,those who are neutral are neutral.
People routinely make statements about Afghanistan,or Iraq,that they would never make about the U.S..
They speak as if the 20 million people of that nation are a undifferentiated hive mind like the borg.
I 've read comments on Bay's piece that say:”Let those savages kill one another” Which savages? Is the translator who risked death to work for Americans a "savage"? Is Ahmed Wali Massoud a savage?
Was Ahmed Shah Massoud a savage? Were the women who risked death to teach girls to read ”savages”? Is this girl in the photo a savage?
Were the librarians and artists who suffered persecution under the Taliban "savages"?
It is clear that if these people are left behind,(as we left others behind in the past)we will be sacrificing the BEST of the Afghanis,not the worst.
At this point someone may say:"Don't you believe in acting in America's self-interest"?
Yes,of course.
Is it in our best interest to send a message to any current,and future allies that our commitments mean nothing,that our policies change without rhyme or reason,and that we do not distinguish between friends & foes,dismissing a entire nation of 20 million people as ”savages”?
Is it in our best interest to have our intelligence sources dry up,because people fear that they will be spat upon and left to be slaughtered if they aid us?
We need not stay in Afghanistan for the sake of our allies.But what moral right do we have to ask people to risk death & then brush them off as ”savages”,& leave them to have their brains blown out by our mortal enemies? I do not believe that we have any moral obligation to rebuild Afghanistan,or to help those who hate us.
But we cannot imagine that potential allies all throughout the world are eager to come to our aid because of our NEED.
They are not Christian Martyrs risking death only to be spat upon for their pains.
We have a right to act in our Rational National Self-Interest.
So do all other innocent people.
Nor does the fact that various people in the past have exploited our country for their gain,justify any injustice towards the innocent.
Whether we stay in Afghanistan & Nation Build(because we think it is our long term best interest to do so) ,or maintain a smaller presence,or use drones or other methods is a Strategic & Tactical question.
But the moral principles are these:
Do not sacrifice your nations rational self-interest,& do not betray those whom you have allied yourself with.
A wide spectrum of Military options may be considered. But simply leaving our allies to die is not one of them.
Though I doubt that will ultimately happen,the risk is serious enough to call attention to it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/austinbay/2012/03/14/creators_oped/page/full/
RRD:No doubt people will ask:”What allies,the ones calling for Americans to be killed for burning already desecrated Quran's?”
The answer is no,not the ones who the news media on both the left & right make sure we see,but the ones who we are rarely shown. Examples include the Northern Alliance,formerly headed by Ahmed Shah Massoud;before Al-qaeda murdered him in the run up to 9/11. Ahmed Wali Massoud,his brother,spoke out on the dangers of leaving Afghanistan prematurely: Osama bin Laden dead: US strategy misconceived, says Hamid Karzai
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-afghanistan-fears?cat=world&type=article
...."Although the killing of Bin Laden will strengthen Karzai's argument with the US, some analysts and officials expressed fears that his demise could hasten the end of the huge US-led military and development effort in Afghanistan. "While thrilled to see the removal of the worst enemy of Islam who inflicted irreparable damage to image of Islam and Muslims, my concern is his death becomes the justification for US premature disengagement from the region," one senior Afghan government official who specialises in foreign affairs said. It was a view echoed by Ahmed Wali Massoud, an Afghan politician and brother of Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary resistance fighter who was assassinated just days before the September 11 attacks in 2001 on the orders of Bin Laden. "Already the US has been thinking about shifting its policy on the war on terror and there is a risk that the American public will continue to question why their troops are still fighting there," he said. But Massoud warned that his killing would not make "any practical difference to the war in Afghanistan". "Symbolically this is huge because he was such an iconic figure, but this is not the end. Al-Qaida is still there and there are so many other groups that are just as ideologically strong. "The younger generation of the Taliban have come up and they now make up the bulk of the Taliban ideologically and are not very different from al-Qaida itself. We believe there is still scope for operations in Afghanistan, because the threat is still here."... We do,in fact have allies in Afghanistan.Whatever action we take,it is neither moral,nor practical, to abandon those who have risked death to aid us.
It makes no difference how many,or how few,there are.
Those who are our allies are our allies,those who are our enemies are our enemies,those who are neutral are neutral.
People routinely make statements about Afghanistan,or Iraq,that they would never make about the U.S..
They speak as if the 20 million people of that nation are a undifferentiated hive mind like the borg.
I 've read comments on Bay's piece that say:”Let those savages kill one another” Which savages? Is the translator who risked death to work for Americans a "savage"? Is Ahmed Wali Massoud a savage?
Was Ahmed Shah Massoud a savage? Were the women who risked death to teach girls to read ”savages”? Is this girl in the photo a savage?
Were the librarians and artists who suffered persecution under the Taliban "savages"?
It is clear that if these people are left behind,(as we left others behind in the past)we will be sacrificing the BEST of the Afghanis,not the worst.
At this point someone may say:"Don't you believe in acting in America's self-interest"?
Yes,of course.
Is it in our best interest to send a message to any current,and future allies that our commitments mean nothing,that our policies change without rhyme or reason,and that we do not distinguish between friends & foes,dismissing a entire nation of 20 million people as ”savages”?
Is it in our best interest to have our intelligence sources dry up,because people fear that they will be spat upon and left to be slaughtered if they aid us?
We need not stay in Afghanistan for the sake of our allies.But what moral right do we have to ask people to risk death & then brush them off as ”savages”,& leave them to have their brains blown out by our mortal enemies? I do not believe that we have any moral obligation to rebuild Afghanistan,or to help those who hate us.
But we cannot imagine that potential allies all throughout the world are eager to come to our aid because of our NEED.
They are not Christian Martyrs risking death only to be spat upon for their pains.
We have a right to act in our Rational National Self-Interest.
So do all other innocent people.
Nor does the fact that various people in the past have exploited our country for their gain,justify any injustice towards the innocent.
Whether we stay in Afghanistan & Nation Build(because we think it is our long term best interest to do so) ,or maintain a smaller presence,or use drones or other methods is a Strategic & Tactical question.
But the moral principles are these:
Do not sacrifice your nations rational self-interest,& do not betray those whom you have allied yourself with.
A wide spectrum of Military options may be considered. But simply leaving our allies to die is not one of them.
Though I doubt that will ultimately happen,the risk is serious enough to call attention to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment