View of Some Aid Organizations

My standard disclaimer: I don't know the answer to this recent crisis. I don't know what military or nonmilitary options, or what combination would save the most lives. But I do think the nonmilitary options and more restrained points of view have been insufficiently discussed in the media.


In that light I offer this link which points to the feelings of a lot of aid organizations:


http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/news/media/pressrel/010919p.htm


This article provides one representative's comments on why he feels that way. As you can see, military intervention will likely mean some associated consequences which make these decisions heartbreakingly difficult.:


http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/news/stories/010914s.htm

"the nonmilitary options and more restrained points of view have been insufficiently discussed in the media."


This is undoubtedly true. The mainstream media have basically been cheerleaders.


I too do not know what course we should take. I do know that some of the attitudes our country has taken (for example, that if you're not for us you're against us, that god is on our side, that this is simply a battle of good vs. evil, that our demands are not negotiable, that the other side hates us because of our democracy) are attitudes that made for a lot of trouble and mistakes during the Cold War and beyond. I have not seen any discussion of this in the mainstream media either.

An eye for an eye. Not bombing the terrorists into submission is equivalent to kissing bin Laden's ass.

",the Taliban have banned opium production "


What a joke.


"Without seeds they will be unable to replant for next year."


They have plenty of seeds, poppy seeds, and their poppy crops are flourishing like never before.


"But any military action which disrupts the flow of aid to millions of equally innocent Afghans would be equally immoral."


War is Hell.

"But I do think the nonmilitary options and more restrained points of view have been insufficiently discussed in the media"


What makes you believe that there are "nonmilitary options" that will satisfy the justice demanded by this action? I'm not religious. I demand justice. You help the killers or kill my brothers,, well... There is an argument against capital punishment in this country. I have always sat on the fence on this issue. I hate killing. I hate the thought of executions. I hate the thought of innocent people being wongly put to death. But I always try to put myself in the position of the parent of the victim. Then I weaken and think what would I do.


vince

"What makes you believe that there are "nonmilitary options" that will satisfy the justice

demanded by this action?"


Well Vince, a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, I guess it depends somewhat on what you would feel is justice. I'm not sure I would necessarily equate killing the guilty parties with justice. Of course one of the challenges here is distinguishing between justice and revenge. At any rate, I would actually feel more satisfaction if they were captured and imprisoned for life. But that's me. Obviously many feel otherwise. I've seen well reasoned arguments for torture as well. If I were the parent of a victim maybe I'd want to see the perpetrator captured (then tried?) and forced to endure a life of humiliation and torture. But then, at some point, maybe I'd feel I was just putting myself on his level and would decide I needed to rise above violence. I don't know. What is justice?


Also, some nonmilitary options (e.g., diplomacy, sanctions...) might be best suited for dealing with the nations that support these terrorists. As for the terrorists themselves there may be military, but non-lethal (capture) options for at least some. But the freezing of assets, as is now happening, and other options can apply to terrorists too. I realize some of these things do not, in and of themselves constitute justice.


Finally, while I want justice too, I am even more interested right now in what would most effectively prevent the loss of more innocent lives.

>>,the Taliban have banned opium production


> What a joke.


What a riduculous thing to say.


>> Without seeds they will be unable to replant for next year.


> They have plenty of seeds, poppy seeds, and their poppy crops > are flourishing like never before.


They have few seeds, including poppy seeds, and their poppy crops cannot flourish.


>> But any military action which disrupts the flow of aid to >> millions of equally innocent Afghans would be equally immoral.


> War is Hell.


Ignorance is no excuse, it's the real thing.

Larson,


Please site your sources. Though it seems like a minor issue, I went looking for confirmation or disconfirmation and found:


http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1029/a02.html


http://archive.nandotimes.com/global/story/0,1024,500310481-500499165-503512081-0,00.html


Why did you post your comments?

"I guess it depends somewhat on what you would feel is justice."


John,


I guess that's the thrust of it. What is justice? Our law makers have tried to establish suitible punishments to fit each crime. I am personally willing to let the courts punish the perpertators. However, in this case I am very close to believing that the perpertrators include the governments of a few countries to be named later. It is naive to believe that the governments of these countries will be brought to trial either voluntarily or by force. So what do you do? What is justice in this case? I believe that if I am correct then justice may only be found by military action. But I'm open to all arguements. Of course, I'm 54 years old with a life expectancy (poker stress not withstanding) of maybe 20 more years. I'd like to see justice done in my life time.


vince

Okay, here's one.

From what I read the ban only went into effect in late July of 2000. The State Department report you give is dated December 8, 2000. It could easily have been out of date by the time it was published. The sources I gave were more recent.


Note that it would have been easy for the state department report to discount the credibility of the ban given reports that opium production had *been* at all time highs under Taliban rule, just prior to the ban:


But under the Taliban production had increased spectacularly - to the point where Afghanistan became the world's largest opium producer. Last year it produced 75% of the world's heroin. Now the poppies have been replaced by fields of lush - but profitless - wheat. (from http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n622/a04.html )


Here's another more recent report from MSNBC which says:


That in less than a year Afghanistan has gone from being the biggest opium producer in the world to providing a trickle of the global supply may be the single-most successful drug moratorium in modern history.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/564809.asp#BODY


There are tons more articles stating that the ban has been hugely successful. Following is a Christian Science Monitor article which describes the success of the ban and says of your State Department report:


But even this report noted that it had no direct evidence that the

Taliban's ban on opium was not being followed this year.


http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/04/03/fp1s4-csm.shtml


You made flat statements such as "What a joke", and "their poppy crops are flourishing like never before", as if you *knew* these things to be true. It appears you didn't know after all, and, in fact, were in all likelihood quite wrong. I suppose some don't mind that, but I believe it just distracts and interferes with discussing or learning on a forum such as this. I ask you to qualify your statements when it is warranted. Let readers know your level of certainty, as they will be misled otherwise.

I don't see sanctions as the answer. There effectiveness in bringing about change is low (around 35%) and take a long time.


Also, they aren't particularly humane. We took the sanction route against Iraq and we are now accused of starving a half million Iraqis. This, despite Saddam choosing to continue his obsession with weapons of mass destruction and monuments to himself rather than feed his own poeple.


We could apply sanctions to Afghanistan and starve a half million of them (3 years of draught there, no oil reserves, and no food reserves), or we could topple the Bin Laden organization and hope the replacement government is better.


Pat Charlton

I was really just trying to point to a couple of nonmilitary options. In another post I too pointed to problems with the sanctions against Iraq, pointing out that "as a result of [the sanctions] I hear assertions that countless civilians are suffering terribly." Certainly sanctions which such impact on innocent civilians may be no better than, or may be even worse than war. But there are innumerable sorts of sanctions, some of which might make more sense. Now I don't know much about this, but I see there have been some efforts to look at how to construct sanctions without such inhumane effects. e.g., this site talks about it:


http://www.smartsanctions.ch/


Let me be clear that I am not touting the content on the site. I've barely looked at it. I just thought it was notable that there has been some investigation of whether sanctions might be applied without hurting the innocent to the degree they often have so far.


You suggest, "We could apply sanctions to Afghanistan and starve a half million of them (3 years of draught there, no oil reserves, and no food reserves), or we could topple the Bin Laden organization and hope the replacement government is better."


We could, but the post with which I started this thread points to a problem with the latter that has already begun, and which appears to have the potential to starve the same number of people, no? But if we could topple the Bin Laden organization using some sort of non-violent methods, that might be another story. The freezing of assets going on now is obviously one such method. No, I can't suggest many other methods off the top of my head. But give me a few months and I may have some thoughts about it. (Soon I may, however, post a couple of things I've found on the Net.)