| | Quoth Joel Catala:
"I still think that, apart from the apparent self-delusion and corruption of the American Administration, the toppling of the Taliban and of the tyrant Hussein are a good for itself."
So do I -- if they are taken as singular, stand-alone events, entirely bereft of any context. Who doesn't like seeing dictatorships, of both the fascist and theocratic variety, taken out?
However, they can't be taken as singular, stand-alone events, entirely bereft of any context. They each have costs, and they each have consequences.
The most obvious cost has been, as of yesterday, 1,665 dead Americans, 15-20,000 maimed Americans and somewhere in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars, for Iraq. Only 100-odd American deaths, and less money, for Afghanistan. Of course, the US got less for the money and blood in Afghanistan, too (the idea that the Taliban has been "toppled" is absurd -- the US controls the government district of Kabul, the perimeter of Bagram Air Force Base, and not much else; warlords affiliated with the puppet Karzai regime control perhaps 35% of the country; the Taliban remains at large in, and holds effective sway in, the rest).
I don't believe in sacrificing American lives, American money and American freedom for the altruistic purpose of determining how other people will govern themselves or allow themselves to be governed. I am, in other words, not a Kantian.
What's especially sad is that the costs have not even achieved the allegedly desired consequences. The invasion of Iraq added 25 million people and an extant, scattered arsenal to al Qaeda's recruitment, funding and armament pool. The transition of the US from emergent to full-blown police state can't be blamed entirely on the two wars, but they have certainly been a factor.
Maybe you think what has been accomplished is worth the cost. I don't. Furthermore, I don't regard other people's lives and money as rightfully mine to dispose of in undertaking such projects.
Tom Knapp
|
|
