In article
<5ec93b22-a8b2-47f2-8a70-421d456a9f7c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, vello
<vellokala@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 12, 5:23=A0pm, hol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Eugene Holman) wrote:
> > In article
<deletions>
>
>
> So, basically, only thing we must regret with Afganistani war is that
> russia was not strong enough to "trap afgans into Russian territory"?
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an exercise in 19th-century type
imperialism. The USSR got its butt kicked and was ostracized
internationally, all good things as far as I can see. What is regrettable
is that the West was cynical enough about its desire to see the Soviet
Union humiliated that it supplied weapons to the mushadin, then marketed
as "freedom fighters", although they were actually fanatic Muslim
fundamentalists who morphed into the likes of the Taliban and Usama
bin-Ladin.
> Sure, with more strong army it would be possible to turn Afganistan
> into SSSR No 16. still I'm glad it not happens.
So am I. I doubt that the international community would have permitted
such a development, although I hate even to think about WW III breaking
out because of Afghanistan.
> I don't ask about how to kill small nations down more effectively,
> eugene. My guess was about moral aspect - why you think US activities
> (brutal maybe, but of no danger to the very existence of Afganistan
> and Iraqui nations) are much worse then planned annihilation of
> chechen nation?
What primarily concerns me about US military activities in Afghamnistan is
that the efforts are targeting the wrong address. The effort is claimed to
be a response to 9/11 and the claim that Usama bin-Ladin, the alleged
brains behind the attack, is holed up somewhere along the tribally
governed mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. As I understand it,
not a single operative in the 9!11 attacks was an Afghani; they were
Saudis, Egyptians, a Pakistani, and a Sudanese. Usama bin-Ladin may have
inspired the attack, and he is the "leader" of "leaderless" al-Qa'ida. The
American response of attacking Afghanistan, weak, poor, and vulnerable,
seem simplistic, given that the attack was carried out by an organization
that obeys no government, is international in nature, but has no home
base. This is certainly as stupid as it is immoral.
As to the Chechens, given that more than half of the Chechen nation has
been living in Russia as refugees, I would question the claim that Russia
was trying to to wipe out the Chechen nation. Many theories have been
bandied about concerning why the conflict suddenly flared up, but between
the collapse of the USSR and the attack on Chechnya allegedly justified by
Chechen terrorist activities inside Russia, the five notorious apartment
house bombings of September 1999, Chechen was left in relative peace.
Russia's response has been as amoral as the American response to 9/11.
Criminal acts perpetrated by a group of terrorists who may or may not be
Chechens but knows no home or headquarters are used as a pretext for the
collective punishment of those members of the nation who live in their
ancestral homeland.
What is common to both of these tragedies is that the attacks were carried
out by organizations, not governments, and their perpetrators are so
fanatically devoted to their cause that they are willing to commit suicide
in order to carry out the attack. For the past four centuries all but
colonial warfare has been between states. It was easy to resond to an
attack and relatively easy to negotiate an end to the conflict once one
side lacked the resources to continue. The aprtment bombings in Russia,
9/11, the Dubrovka theater attack, the bombing of Russian civil airliners,
and the Beslan attack, were, as far as we know, not carried out by
governments, but rather by murky organizations to further specific
objectives. This is a new kind of warfare, and bombing poor and vulnerable
countries or regions to smithereens in order to respind to it is
counterproductive unless, as we see in the case of Chechnya, the area
concerned has sealed borders and no hope of assistance from the outside.
Even then, the moral aspect that you so correctly introduce, is im****tant.
Brutal collective punishment of a nation for criminal acts perpetrated by
amorphous groupings claiming to represent the national interest or trying
to avenge a real or imagined wrong is as ineffective as it is immoral.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
|
