LETTER: Bombing better than nothing

Dear Editor,

I haven’t formed a firm opinion about the bombing of Afghanistan, but I’ve eliminated at least one possible opinion. This is the logic presented by one pacifist, and it doesn’t seem cogent to me.

Everyone watches CNN and trusts it, that’s a given. We hear from them that al-Qaida considers the U.S. air strikes acts of terrorism. This isn’t necessarily true, but if their definition doesn’t seem right to us, then ours must not seem right to them, so neither is credible. Therefore, we’re as wrong in killing what we call terrorists as they are in killing what they call terrorists.

After all, America has done its share of bad things like failing to ensure children in Iraq get fed. Furthermore, we have our own terrorists, (people who bomb abortion clinics, set fire to churches, etc.) and it isn’t lawful to bomb them or the Irish who terrorize each other, so we shouldn’t bomb al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Finally, war is bad, so we shouldn’t attack other countries or groups. Such retaliations are just to get revenge. The proposed alternative is to peacefully talk the Taliban and other governments into arresting their terrorists and turning them over to a United States or an international court which would surely sentence them to death. Another obvious possibility is to do what they want us to, though no one has dared suggest that.

Does that sound like sound logic to you? It doesn’t to me, but that’s the pacifist reasoning with all the rhetoric removed. So try again. Meanwhile, I think bombing is better than nothing.

Benjamin Spendlove