War. Doing the terrorists' job for them since 2001.

Ok, I could run on at the mouth for hours on this topic. But it's late, I'm still in the damn offic because we haven't got internet in our otherwise sweet-as house yet, and statistically speaking, no one responds to my long posts.

I had a sudden realisation the other day, wandering around town. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorism right? Iraq was a lways dodgy from the get-go, but Afghanistan is considered pretty legitimate in that Al Qaeda was known to be hanging out there.

So we invade Afghanistan to protect the lives of US citizens from terrorist attacks.

Does anyone else notice the enormous flaw in this logic?



2,976 people died in the 9/11 attacks.

To date 951 US citizens have died in Afghanistan, 2,853 seriously injured (source).


How exactly does marching several thousand of your young men and women - specifically your 'best and brightest' if the US military is to be beleived - directly into hostile ground where the enemy is well establish, going to protect US citizens from harm?

Let's make this clear, I'm not bringing politics into this at all or questioning the underlying factors at play (which is a first for me). Just for fun, let's just think of this from a cold, tactical point of view.

If my enemy wants something, I don't want them to have it.

If they want to kill my fellow citizens, distress me and make others hate me, then my best course of action is anything that will prevent him acheiving these aims.

Can anyone explain to me how taking my citizens on to my enemy's turf, attacking the country as a whole, and usurping it's social status quo in any way acheives this?

The point is that war is not only morally questionable, it's downright illogical. It does not acheive the ends you want. It does not make sense.
 
A journalist named Gwynne Dyer wrote a particularly good article on the whole mess a few days ago.

You can't fight ideas with violence or the threat of violence. The same reason banning the hijab or burqua won't work, making it compulsory to report parents with substance abuse problems won't work, and Richard Dawkins trying to convince Catholics they're wrong via evidence won't work.

All of these attack the symptoms, not the underlying causes. The only way forward in all of these circumstances is education.

Want to destroy Al Qaeda? Remove their support and recruitment base by educating and helping the poor in Afghanistan.

Want to overcome the isolation of women that a burqua or hijab can bring? Expose them to feminist writings, liberal society and other alternative ideas.

Want to remove children from the influences of substance abusing parents? Help the parents overcome the substance abuse via injection rooms, de-criminalisation and harm minimisation, as has been successful in Holland (less than 2% of the Dutch use marijuana).

Want to convince Catholics that god probably doesn't exist and the pope is just an old dude? Good luck with that...