Valdez is a second-year undeclared student.
By Frank Valdez
Many anti-war activists insist on thinking of this war in terms
of abstract concepts and ephemeral ideals, stripping the problem of
its human face ““ except of course when it benefits their
arguments.
Think of the poor Afghan who might not be able to rebuild his
house after it’s been shelled, insists one Daily Bruin
columnist.
Well, what if I chose to dwell, instead, on the phone calls from
survivors trapped beneath tons of smoldering rubble, calling their
relatives on cell phones, saying goodbye and telling them that they
love them for the last time?
What if I chose to dwell on what it must’ve been like for
them, in the dark, filled with a stifling, oppressive heat, barely
enough air to breathe, pinned beneath a concrete slab, feeling the
lifeblood ooze from shattered limbs?
But, no, let’s forget about the human face of it all.
Let’s talk instead of concepts and ideals:
1. “Poverty is the root of the terrorist
problem.”
So now it’s up to us, as rich Americans, to solve the
age-old problem of poverty. The answer according to pacifists?
Billions of dollars in foreign aid to poor countries. What a
beautifully American way to solve a problem! We can buy the bad
guys and pay them to be on our side! The problem with this line of
thinking is that it is not poverty, per se, that gives birth to
terrorist organizations.
Many organization in the Middle East ““ both religious and
secular ““ are formed with the noble goal of alleviating the
desolate situation of the people. The problem arises when these
organizations come into conflict with the established autocratic
regimes that treat all dissidents with the same iron fist. The
roughshod ways of these governments cause the most extreme groups
to break away and adopt a confrontational, “listen to what I
am saying at any cost” manner.
Problems for the U.S. begin with the tendency of our foreign
policy to align itself with these suppressive regimes in order to
promote stability in the region and guarantee the flow of oil into
our refineries.
But who could blame us? With so many factions vying for power
it’s hardly up to us to decide who should rule. But because
criticism of their own regimes is strictly suppressed and because
we are such visible targets, an extremely anti-U.S. bias has
developed. Groups begin to blame the U.S. for their problems with
corrupt regimes, targeting American interests with violence
orchestrated by well-financed organizations.
But the fact is, whatever point these well-heeled hypocrites
with their fat bank accounts were trying to make about the
deplorable state of their people, it got lost when they killed more
than 6,000 others.
2. “It’s the fault of capitalism.”
While it’s true that U.S. foreign policy tends to adopt a
self-serving attitude ““ so what? We are a country looking out
for ourselves. Where’s the blame in that?
The fact is that we are dependent on oil in order to provide
goods and services for the people here at home. Since America
can’t produce it, America must buy it. And in order to ensure
our ability to buy it, then we must promote stability in the region
that supplies us.
We’re such imperialist pigs, claim the activists. If we
weren’t so worried about always looking out for ourselves, we
wouldn’t have to deal with terrorists. I’ve got a news
flash for the anti-capitalist war protesters: Capitalism is here to
stay.
An aggressive U.S. foreign policy is what keeps us on top of the
economic heap, and I for one am glad I’m only paying $1.50 a
gallon. Next time you’re at the pumps, think about countries
whose economic foreign policy doesn’t emphasize gasoline
prices as much as ours does. In countries like Germany and Japan
they pay around $1.50 a liter (yes, that’s right ““ one
fourth of one gallon) for gasoline at the pumps.
3. “We should stay out of everybody else’s
business.”
This is absolutely not an option.
Part of the fallout from having such an aggressive foreign
policy is that we Americans have to assume a leadership role. If
you want the privilege of being one of the wealthiest countries in
the world then you have to shoulder the burden that comes with
it.
As the world’s richest nation, we are sought out by
countries around the world for all kinds of aid, ranging from
billion-dollar economic aid packages to debt forgiveness. Our
agriculturalists are sought after to teach farmers new and more
efficient techniques. Our educators are sought after to teach women
and children how to read and write. Our lawyers are sought after to
tackle human rights abuses all over the world .
While our motives for helping aren’t always purely out of
kindness, I do know that whatever emissaries we send deserve to be
protected from the violence they might encounter.
It’s a brutal world out there. How does a rogue
government, who has no qualms about murdering its own people, feel
about the rights of foreign aid workers? In yet another example of
the Taliban’s treachery, even now, there are eight foreign
aid workers being held hostage by the Taliban, on the pretense of
proselytizing.
Surprisingly, even when confronted with evidence of the
Taliban’s lies and outright treachery, some anti-war
activists continue to think that this whole war is unwarranted
(“Innocent Afghans don’t deserve attacks,” Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 19), wrongfully accusing our attack on the
Taliban as an attack on the people.
But even if the death of 6,000 Americans is not enough of a
reason to go on the warpath, consider the actions of both the
United States and Afghan governments since the attacks. What the
U.S. government did was quickly build a worldwide coalition against
terrorism, gathering evidence very carefully to establish the guilt
of the presumed perpetrators, and present this evidence to the
members of the coalition in order to justify its actions.
Without a doubt, the U.S. could have been firing Tomahawk cruise
missiles within minutes of the attacks, but instead it waited
before retaliating. Meanwhile, the Taliban was busy vacillating,
first claiming that Osama bin Laden wasn’t in Afghanistan,
only to admit later that he was still a “guest” in the
country.
Next, the Taliban and it’s supporters began to demand
evidence of Osama bin Laden’s guilt, claiming that the
evidence presented so far was insufficient even though the rest of
the world accepted it.
Realizing that lies and deception were getting nowhere, they
began to try to paint this as a war against Islam, lauding the
“martyrs” who perpetrated them.
In effect, the Taliban and the al-Qaeda network have grabbed a
tiger by the tail. The U.S. position has been made abundantly
clear. We are not warring against the Afghan people. This is a war
against the Al-Queda terrorist network and the government that
harbors them.
Consider the situation that day, on Sept. 11. Four airliners
hijacked, 6,000 people dead at one fell swoop. Unthinkable
treachery at the hands of terrorists bent on the advancement of
their cause. How is the U.S. supposed to handle that?
The U.S. has been criticized for its actions since the attacks
by numerous anti-war protesters. After all, it’s easier to
criticize than it is to do. But instead of offering viable
alternative solutions, these anti-war activists offer nothing more
than insisting war is bad.
I agree.
But if not war, then what else?