John Locke Supports War in Afghanistan - With Caveats
This is the letter I wrote to Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Barbara Lee:
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Congresswoman Lee:
As the United States prepares to respond to the recent terrorist attacks, I ask that you urge President Bush to act with the greatest possible restraint. Though I fully support military action -- including the deployment of ground forces -- to capture Osama bin Laden as well as oust the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the U.S. cannot afford to kill innocent Afghanis, the result of which can only inflame anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and make us no better than the terrorists whom we are fighting. The U.S. will be infinitely better served if our military campaign is coupled with an equal effort to provide humanitarian aid to the citizens of Afghanistan.
For example, as the number of Afghani refugees in Pakistan grows, the U.S. should send massive quantities of food and shelter to help the refugees. As we move military forces into Afghanistan, we should commit equal resources to help the Afghanis in the areas we have liberated. Finally, after we have ousted the Taliban, the U.S. must commit significant resources to help Afghanistan recover fully and permanently, such as rebuilding housing, irrigation, and transportation systems. Much as we helped rebuild Japan and Europe after World War Two, we must rebuild Afghanistan after the war is done. Otherwise, a repeat of our failure in Afghanistan after the Cold War is inevitable.
Make no mistake; I fully believe that we are in the fight of our lives. A lack of military response will indicate weakness, prompting further terrorism. A lack of restraint and indiscriminate killing will only inflame hatred, also resulting in further terrorism. Only a concerted effort to combine a measured military response and humanitarian aid can be successful. Without a successful resolution to the global terrorist threat, the next attack may be biological, chemical, or nuclear, and will likely be far worse than we experienced in New York City.
Sincerely,
John Locke
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Congresswoman Lee:
As the United States prepares to respond to the recent terrorist attacks, I ask that you urge President Bush to act with the greatest possible restraint. Though I fully support military action -- including the deployment of ground forces -- to capture Osama bin Laden as well as oust the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the U.S. cannot afford to kill innocent Afghanis, the result of which can only inflame anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and make us no better than the terrorists whom we are fighting. The U.S. will be infinitely better served if our military campaign is coupled with an equal effort to provide humanitarian aid to the citizens of Afghanistan.
For example, as the number of Afghani refugees in Pakistan grows, the U.S. should send massive quantities of food and shelter to help the refugees. As we move military forces into Afghanistan, we should commit equal resources to help the Afghanis in the areas we have liberated. Finally, after we have ousted the Taliban, the U.S. must commit significant resources to help Afghanistan recover fully and permanently, such as rebuilding housing, irrigation, and transportation systems. Much as we helped rebuild Japan and Europe after World War Two, we must rebuild Afghanistan after the war is done. Otherwise, a repeat of our failure in Afghanistan after the Cold War is inevitable.
Make no mistake; I fully believe that we are in the fight of our lives. A lack of military response will indicate weakness, prompting further terrorism. A lack of restraint and indiscriminate killing will only inflame hatred, also resulting in further terrorism. Only a concerted effort to combine a measured military response and humanitarian aid can be successful. Without a successful resolution to the global terrorist threat, the next attack may be biological, chemical, or nuclear, and will likely be far worse than we experienced in New York City.
Sincerely,
John Locke
posted by John Locke | 8:12 AM
|
0 comments
