• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Valdez is a second-year undeclared student.

By Frank Valdez

Many anti-war activists insist on thinking of this war in terms of abstract concepts and ephemeral ideals, stripping the problem of its human face – except of course when it benefits their arguments.

Think of the poor Afghan who might not be able to rebuild his house after it’s been shelled, insists one Daily Bruin columnist.

Well, what if I chose to dwell, instead, on the phone calls from survivors trapped beneath tons of smoldering rubble, calling their relatives on cell phones, saying goodbye and telling them that they love them for the last time?

What if I chose to dwell on what it must’ve been like for them, in the dark, filled with a stifling, oppressive heat, barely enough air to breathe, pinned beneath a concrete slab, feeling the lifeblood ooze from shattered limbs?

But, no, let’s forget about the human face of it all. Let’s talk instead of concepts and ideals:

1. “Poverty is the root of the terrorist problem.”

So now it’s up to us, as rich Americans, to solve the age-old problem of poverty. The answer according to pacifists? Billions of dollars in foreign aid to poor countries. What a beautifully American way to solve a problem! We can buy the bad guys and pay them to be on our side! The problem with this line of thinking is that it is not poverty, per se, that gives birth to terrorist organizations.

Many organization in the Middle East – both religious and secular – are formed with the noble goal of alleviating the desolate situation of the people. The problem arises when these organizations come into conflict with the established autocratic regimes that treat all dissidents with the same iron fist. The roughshod ways of these governments cause the most extreme groups to break away and adopt a confrontational, “listen to what I am saying at any cost” manner.

Problems for the U.S. begin with the tendency of our foreign policy to align itself with these suppressive regimes in order to promote stability in the region and guarantee the flow of oil into our refineries.

But who could blame us? With so many factions vying for power it’s hardly up to us to decide who should rule. But because criticism of their own regimes is strictly suppressed and because we are such visible targets, an extremely anti-U.S. bias has developed. Groups begin to blame the U.S. for their problems with corrupt regimes, targeting American interests with violence orchestrated by well-financed organizations.

But the fact is, whatever point these well-heeled hypocrites with their fat bank accounts were trying to make about the deplorable state of their people, it got lost when they killed more than 6,000 others.

2. “It’s the fault of capitalism.”

While it’s true that U.S. foreign policy tends to adopt a self-serving attitude – so what? We are a country looking out for ourselves. Where’s the blame in that?

The fact is that we are dependent on oil in order to provide goods and services for the people here at home. Since America can’t produce it, America must buy it. And in order to ensure our ability to buy it, then we must promote stability in the region that supplies us.

We’re such imperialist pigs, claim the activists. If we weren’t so worried about always looking out for ourselves, we wouldn’t have to deal with terrorists. I’ve got a news flash for the anti-capitalist war protesters: Capitalism is here to stay.

An aggressive U.S. foreign policy is what keeps us on top of the economic heap, and I for one am glad I’m only paying $1.50 a gallon. Next time you’re at the pumps, think about countries whose economic foreign policy doesn’t emphasize gasoline prices as much as ours does. In countries like Germany and Japan they pay around $1.50 a liter (yes, that’s right – one fourth of one gallon) for gasoline at the pumps.

3. “We should stay out of everybody else’s business.”

This is absolutely not an option.

Part of the fallout from having such an aggressive foreign policy is that we Americans have to assume a leadership role. If you want the privilege of being one of the wealthiest countries in the world then you have to shoulder the burden that comes with it.

As the world’s richest nation, we are sought out by countries around the world for all kinds of aid, ranging from billion-dollar economic aid packages to debt forgiveness. Our agriculturalists are sought after to teach farmers new and more efficient techniques. Our educators are sought after to teach women and children how to read and write. Our lawyers are sought after to tackle human rights abuses all over the world .

While our motives for helping aren’t always purely out of kindness, I do know that whatever emissaries we send deserve to be protected from the violence they might encounter.

It’s a brutal world out there. How does a rogue government, who has no qualms about murdering its own people, feel about the rights of foreign aid workers? In yet another example of the Taliban’s treachery, even now, there are eight foreign aid workers being held hostage by the Taliban, on the pretense of proselytizing.

Surprisingly, even when confronted with evidence of the Taliban’s lies and outright treachery, some anti-war activists continue to think that this whole war is unwarranted (“Innocent Afghans don’t deserve attacks,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 19), wrongfully accusing our attack on the Taliban as an attack on the people.

But even if the death of 6,000 Americans is not enough of a reason to go on the warpath, consider the actions of both the United States and Afghan governments since the attacks. What the U.S. government did was quickly build a worldwide coalition against terrorism, gathering evidence very carefully to establish the guilt of the presumed perpetrators, and present this evidence to the members of the coalition in order to justify its actions.

Without a doubt, the U.S. could have been firing Tomahawk cruise missiles within minutes of the attacks, but instead it waited before retaliating. Meanwhile, the Taliban was busy vacillating, first claiming that Osama bin Laden wasn’t in Afghanistan, only to admit later that he was still a “guest” in the country.

Next, the Taliban and it’s supporters began to demand evidence of Osama bin Laden’s guilt, claiming that the evidence presented so far was insufficient even though the rest of the world accepted it.

Realizing that lies and deception were getting nowhere, they began to try to paint this as a war against Islam, lauding the “martyrs” who perpetrated them.

In effect, the Taliban and the al-Qaeda network have grabbed a tiger by the tail. The U.S. position has been made abundantly clear. We are not warring against the Afghan people. This is a war against the Al-Queda terrorist network and the government that harbors them.

Consider the situation that day, on Sept. 11. Four airliners hijacked, 6,000 people dead at one fell swoop. Unthinkable treachery at the hands of terrorists bent on the advancement of their cause. How is the U.S. supposed to handle that?

The U.S. has been criticized for its actions since the attacks by numerous anti-war protesters. After all, it’s easier to criticize than it is to do. But instead of offering viable alternative solutions, these anti-war activists offer nothing more than insisting war is bad.

I agree.

But if not war, then what else?