war is not the answer

1. on humanitarian grounds - the claim that this war will help the situation in Afghanistan is wishful thinking; even if it does, incidentally, bring the downfall of the Taliban regime we have no certainty that what follows will be better for Afghanis, and in the meantime thousands of people will have died through military strikes, famine or cold. Many of the groups now campaigning against the war have been campaigning against the Taliban prior to September 11th - we do not support them Taliban but we believe that a bombing campaign on one of the poorest, most ravaged countries in the world is not in the intrests of those we seek to help. The US is also making the humanitarian crisis much worse by forcing Pakistan to close its border with Afghanistan, so that no suspects could escape. (Telegraph, 15 Sept.) which is a major obstacle to caring for the hundreds of thousands of refugees.
2. on legal grounds - if the aim of this war is to identify and punish those who committed the September 11th attacks, why aren't we pursuing this through legal channels? The general idea is that the Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden; in fact, the Taliban refused to 'hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Times, 22 Sept). No government would consider an extradition request without any evidence suggesting that person's guilt - so why should the Taliban? The evidence produced so far is the following:
   • an openly published dossier of 'evidence' from the British Government;
   • a confidential briefing to NATO ambassadors (which won their support);
   • a confidential briefing of President Musharraf of Pakistan (which appeared to win his support).
   The dossier contains no conclusive evidence. It is described by the Independent on Sunday as 'conjecture, supposition and assertions of fact' (7 Oct.)and as 'almost worthless from a legal point of view' by the Guardian (5 Oct.) Only 9 of the 70 points refer to September 11th. Bronwen Maddox (foreign editor of the Times), it is 'striking', given the dossier's purpose, 'that apparently the most solid evidence refers to the 1998 attacks [on US Embassies]. There is comparatively little on September 11.' (Times, 5 Oct.) The Times also pointed out that the dossier did not mention the 1994 attempt by the 'Armed Islamic Group' of Algeria 'to crash a hijacked plane into the Eiffel Tower': 'Intelligence experts are sceptical' about the claim that no other group has the motivation and capability to carry out such attacks. (Times, 5 Oct.) As regards to the NATO breifing, ambassadors were subjected to a 40 minute oral presentation by US State Department counter-terrorism envoy Frank Taylor, which led Lord Robertson to declare the evidence against bin Laden 'incontrovertible.' However, the secretary-general of the alliance was contradicted by NATO diplomats who said (anonymously) 'that the US presentations could not show, beyond doubt, real factual hard evidence, apart from the names of several of the hijackers, details of where they had studied, and their backgrounds.' (FT, 5 Oct. Not much incontrovertible secret intelligence material there. Finally, the secret intelligence shown to the Pakistanis did not convince them. 'There is no evidence presented [in the dossier] that directly links bin Laden to September 11.' (Bronwen Maddox, Times, 5 Oct.) Anthony Scrivener QC summed it up when he said that 'it is a sobering thought that better evidence is required to prosecute a shoplifter than is needed to commence a world war'. (Times, 5 Oct.) The US is in fact contravening international law in its bombardments; the UN Charter explicitly states that the resolution of 'any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security', shall, first of all, 'seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice' (Article 33). On this occasion, it is not the hard-line fanatic Taliban who are rejecting negotiation and compromise - they are making offers, and welcoming the production of any evidence. It is the White House that says there will be 'no negotiations, no discussions'. (Telegraph, 22 Sept.)
3. on tactical grounds - this war will not end terrorism, as Colin Powell admitted himself. If anything it will propagate it - the image of the world's richest, most powerful country bombing the world's poorest will be seized upon by those who wish to focus the anger and misery of the world's oppressed on violent retaliation. David Shayler, former M15, said that 'any intelligence officer who has worked against terrorism will tell you that you can't combat terrorism with terror.'
4. on 'philosophical' grounds - the US had a unique opportunity after September 11th; it could have condemned terrorism whilst trying to understand and remove the causes that drive people to such actions, and shown political maturity in refusing to be drawn into bloody conflict. Instead the US is playing into the terrorists' hands, by reacting exactly as they hoped it would.
5. through experience - look at what happened in Vietnam, in the Gulf War, etc. Have we learnt nothing? How many more wars must we fight before realising that war is not a solution? Have we not progressed at all?
6. because we do not know the full story - already there is talk of oil intrests in Afghanistan, of petrol companis wanting to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and therefore needing a compliant government. There may be ulterior motives to this war that we do not know about, and the amount of propaganda we are subject to could well suggest this.
7. through common sense - what is the logic in using multi-million dollar weaponry to 'take out' military camps that are no more than tents in the desert? (not counting the positive effects this could have on the US economy that is...)
8. on grounds of equality - if the premise is that if we don't bomb Afghanistan then more terrorist actions will take place int he west, then the only difference is who is going to die, us or them. On one hand, innocent western civilians MAY die due to terrorist attacks (it is not a certainty). By bombing Afghanistan, innocent Afghani civilians WILL die (it is already happening). So what's the difference, and if killing is going to take place shouldn't we refuse to take part in it?