Zaffer is a third-year pre-law student.
By Ehsan Zaffar
Twenty-six days after the attack on American soil, President
George W. Bush ordered military airstrikes over the pariah nation
of Afghanistan. We blasted back with punishing force by dropping
bombs and missiles on major Afghan cities.
Although I, along with millions of other Americans, knew of an
imminent attack directed toward Afghanistan, what happened that
Sunday morning still brought a sense of deep sadness and regret to
my heart.
The sadness I felt was not only for the people of Afghanistan,
but more so for us, the people of this nation. I try to force
myself to think in terms of gray instead of black and white, and so
when I ask myself the question: “Are the attacks on
Afghanistan wrong?” the answer is not yes, but it isn’t
no, either.
Revenge is sweet, but are we prepared to risk so much?
As a nation of compassionate people, we tend to look at the
broader picture first. This ability and belief is part of why
the United States is so successful. In that same spirit,
President Bush sponsored air drops of food and medical supplies in
conjunction with military strikes, and following this same belief
we strive to form a coalition against terrorism, where we can just
as easily go at it alone.
Yet, there is one aspect of the picture that greatly disturbs
me, and that is the nature of our attacks on Afghanistan.
To understand the problem, we must first understand
Afghanistan. A poor, tired, yet hardy people, Afghans have
suffered for many years under different regimes and the political
machinations of superpowers such as the former Soviet Union and the
United States.
A barren, landlocked and mostly bleak nation, Afghanistan lacks
the capability to rebuild, let alone sustain its current resources
and population. Its people are near starvation, a woman dies in
childbirth every 15 minutes, four out of 10 children never make it
past adolescence, and the only source of food for many Afghans is
the meager and hard-to-get portions provided by various relief aid
organizations.
Nothing but survival motivates the actions of the Afghan
people. They quest not for a good life, but for life
itself. Whenever we think of why the people of Afghanistan do
this or that, we must keep in mind that food, shelter and clothing
steer them.
These are also the strings that control them. An offer of
income or food will motivate the people to do anything. Those
who provide these limited resources are looked upon with favor, and
in many youngsters’ eyes there is a buried hint of adoration
as they look upon the ragged Taliban army.
So when you tell these people that food will be provided, new
homes will be built, running water will be a reality, pain and
suffering a myth ““ when you tell this to their broken and
haggard faces, what do you expect them to do but comply?
Many millions have left Afghanistan, and that is a testament to
their bravery. However, many millions of Afghans remain behind in
hopes of the better life that the Taliban promises.
It is in this same atmosphere that terrorism also
flourishes. Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t pride,
religion or greed that motivates many people to this act.
It’s despair.
Would we in the United States ever be swayed by
fanatics? Ideals and religion are used by the leaders of these
terrorist organizations to offer a plausible reason for the
attacks. This serves as proof that they hope will be more
believable, just as the church in the Middle Ages strove to use
Christian doctrine as a means to condone “un-Christian”
acts.
Military strikes on a government that doesn’t think itself
at fault does nothing more than strengthen their
resolve. Visual shows of force on an already beaten people
does nothing but validate the Taliban’s claims of
“American injustice”. It does nothing more than
stoke the misleading fires in many hungry youths looking for
someone to blame.
Although the thought of more than 6,000 souls perishing in an
instant wrenches my guts, I cannot believe that we could not have
waited more time for our revenge. Was an attack necessary?
Yes. But I refuse to believe that we could not have taken the
time, with our sophisticated weaponry and “undergarment
peering” satellites, to locate Osama bin Laden’s unit,
eradicating them one by one. Instead, what we have done is
stoke the fires of terrorism.
These people have already been beaten. That is why they have
resorted to desperate acts. That is why they have been misled by a
twisted version of Islam and by men who wish to achieve their
“noble” goals through cowardice and pain.
Though it would have taken considerably more time, resources and
effort, how much better would it have been if we had organized a
coalition to feed the people of Afghanistan? How much more of an
effective and lasting peace would it have been if we had taken away
the crutch the Taliban uses to coerce its people and mislead its
youth?
A robust and balanced package of economic relief and an increase
in food supplies already being sent overseas, targeted to reach the
most amount of people possible with the knowledge that this was
coming from America, would have worked wonders. The same
militaristic energies redirected would have built a far more
powerful peace than we can imagine.
Instead, now we must lock down our facilities, curb our
freedoms, and wait in fear of another attack. The taste of
revenge is sweet, but are we prepared to risk so much? Are we
prepared to risk another Sept. 11?
In the end, we must remember that it is infinitely easy to wage
war, but it takes a true hero to wage unrelenting
peace. Terrorism is born in the crucible of despair. If we aim
to eradicate terrorism, we must first eradicate hopelessness.