Monday, August 31, 1998
U.S. justifies bombings, calling victims ‘terrorists’
MISTAKES: Retaliatory attack on Afghanistan killed innocent
people
On Aug. 7, bombs destroyed American embassies in Kenya and in
Tanzania, causing over 1,700 casualties. These acts were
universally deplored as cowardly and senseless. Just two weeks
later, the American government sponsored some senseless violence of
its own, supposedly as a form of retaliation. And to my amazement,
these acts have been widely praised. They will receive no praise
from me.
The United States acted by having its navy ships launch 75
Tomahawk cruise missiles on Aug. 20. Fifty of those missiles
targeted an alleged meeting place of terrorists in Afghanistan. The
rest were directed at an alleged chemical weapons plant in
Khartoum, Sudan. (The Sudanese claim it was a pharmaceutical
plant.)
While the purpose of the attack in Sudan was to destroy the
alleged weapons factory, the targets in Afghanistan were not
buildings but people. Thus, the 50 missiles sent to Afghanistan
were equipped with the latest in people-killing technology: devices
that release shrapnel on impact. This technology proved effective
enough to kill 21 and wound 53, according to Afghan news services.
Eleven more were wounded in Sudan, according to the Sudanese
government.
Many questions beg to be answered, but one rises above all the
rest: how does the United States justify taking 21 Afghan lives? In
other words, can our government persuasively argue that those 21
people deserved to die?
U.S. officials have responded to that question with a one-word
answer: "terrorist." By describing its targets as havens for
terrorism, America justifies all damage done, because any person
affiliated with terrorism deserves to die.
In fact, death is perhaps too merciful for terrorists in the
United States. Terrorists are the villains of every action movie,
and they always hold innocent women and children hostage while
seeking an all-too-hefty ransom. They always die in the end, and
they always deserve it. Terrorists have replaced communists as the
most heinous villains in the American imagination.
It’s a characterization that we should not accept. Our
government is using the term "terrorist" subjectively, and very few
groups would use that term to characterize themselves. They call
themselves "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries." How the U.S.
government labels a group often depends on the politics of that
group. The Contras in Nicaragua might be considered
"revolutionaries," because we have allied ourselves with the
Contras. An anti-American group that uses similar tactics will
inevitably be referred to as terrorists.
The actual meaning of the word "terrorist" refers to those who
use violence without respecting certain international laws of war.
But in modern warfare, non-terrorist soldiers are as likely to kill
innocent civilians as are terrorists.
And so it’s difficult to distinguish one from the other. Both
use violence, and with the use of bombs and missiles, innocent
people are killed by both soldiers and terrorists. So it’s not fair
for us to refer to a group we know nothing about as terrorists. By
calling its victims "terrorists," the U.S. government does not
prove that they deserved to die. Our leaders might as well justify
their actions by calling the victims "jerks."
The U.S. government can still refer to the groups that allegedly
met in Afghanistan as groups that might be responsible for the
bombing of American embassies in Africa. Would that be reason
enough for their execution, by method of Tomahawk cruise
missile?
I’d still answer with a resounding, "No!" I know of no battle
that I would fight for reasons other than self-defense. (The
administration is not claiming self-defense: "We’re going to be on
offense, as well as defense," National Security Advisor Sandy
Berger said.) Peaceful negotiation is always the right way to
resolve conflict.
There is a book by Dr. Seuss about violence called "The Butter
Battle Book." It’s kind of scary. Two rival societies form bigger
and bigger weapons to use against each other, and soon their very
existence is at stake. The book is analogous to the real-life
proliferation of nuclear weapons, which threaten our very
existence.
While weapons build up and lives are lost, actual conflicts are
not resolved by violence. The winner of a violent conflict (as in a
war) is not necessarily the person who is wrong or the person who
is right. The winner of a war is whoever is stronger. But the
conflict will remain until the two sides can come to an agreement,
and an understanding cannot be achieved through violence.
Going back to the missile strikes, the United States is choosing
to solve its problems, to fight its battles, through violence.
Every time a country (or a rebel group) chooses violence instead of
negotiation, more people die. In this case, 21 more.
And so I think their deaths cannot be justified, even if I were
to make all of the ridiculous assumptions that our country seems to
be making.
First, we seem to assume that any group of "terrorists" would
consist only of murderers. There is no chance, according to this
assumption, that any member was new to the group and innocent of
any wrongdoing. And it’s impossible that certain members of the
group were dedicated to violence while others were not.
Our country assumed that there was no chance that there might
have been non-members of the group at the meeting. Our nation
assumed that no innocent women and children accompanied the man of
the house to his meeting.
And for further justification, we assume that this group would
certainly have attacked Americans again. It’s not possible, we
assume, that some members may have disagreed with such a course of
action. In fact, we assume that it’s not possible that even one
member might have dissented. Our elected representatives believed
that every single member of this alleged terrorist group would
participate in future attempts upon American lives.
Well, my favorite cliche is, "When you assume, you make an ass
out of you and me." That’s exactly what’s happened in this
case.
It is possible that all of those assumptions are false. I
believe it’s even probable. Innocent women and children probably
are among the dead or wounded. And there are almost certainly group
members who died who had not committed crimes before or who had not
planned on committing them. It’s possible that while the group had
committed terrorist acts in the past, it had recently decided to
move away from violence. Not one of these people would then deserve
death.
It’s even possible that the alleged terrorist group repeatedly
referred to doesn’t even exist. For as often as media reports have
used the word "terrorism" throughout these events, another word has
been just as commonplace: "alleged." We have no evidence that
either of the targets housed people or weapons that were linked to
the bombings of American embassies in Africa. We are only told,
repeatedly, that U.S. intelligence had substantial evidence to back
all of these claims.
It’s wrong to blow up a building with innocent people in it. A
few of the people at the alleged meeting in Afghanistan may or may
not have been responsible for such an act. But in the end, the
American military attack was as immoral as the one it allegedly
responded to. Labeling the victims as "terrorists" only adds insult
to injury.
Peace.
Dittmer is a fourth-year geography, environmental studies and
economics student. Send feedback to [email protected].