Z Magazine-5 Reasons Not to Go to War

From: Michael Albert <sysop@zmag.org>
Subject: Albert & Shalom - Five reasons not to go to war

ZNet Commentary

Five Reasons Not to Go to War
By Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom

1. Guilt hasn't yet been proven.
2. War would violate International Law.
3. War would be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the
September 11 attacks.
4. Huge numbers of innocent people will die.
5. War will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.

In the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, many people find
their feelings of sadness and shock mixed with anger and calls for war.
But war would be horribly wrong for at least five reasons.

1. Guilt hasn't yet been proven.

As the New York Times acknowledged, "Law enforcement officials ... appear
to have little solid evidence tying Mr. bin Laden's group to the attacks"
(NYT, 20 Sept. 2001). If we believe in law and justice, when crimes are
committed we don't advocate that victims who have a strong hunch about
culprits impose punishment. We demand proof. We reject vigilantism. We
reject guilt by association. This is elementary and uncontestable, except
when fear and the drums of war cloud consciousness. In the case of
September 11, though an Islamic or Middle Eastern connection seems clear,
there are many extremist groups that might have been responsible. To rush
to punitive judgment, much less to war, before responsibility has been
determined violates basic principles of justice. Guilt should be proven,
not suspected.

2. War would violate International Law.

International law provides a clear recourse in situations of this sort:
present the matter to the Security Council, which is empowered under the
UN Charter, the fundamental document of contemporary international law, to
take appropriate action. The Security Council has met and unanimously
denounced the terrorist attacks, passing a strong resolution. But the
Security Council resolution did not -- despite what Washington might claim
-- authorize the use of force, and especially not a unilateral use of
force. The resolution ends by saying that the Council "remains seized of
the matter," which, as former UN correspondent Phyllis Bennis notes, is
"UN diplo-speak" meaning that "decision-making remains in the hands of the
Council itself, not those of any individual nation." To be sure, the UN
Charter allows countries to act in self-defense which would permit the
United States to shoot down a terrorist plane, for example. But it has
long been clear UN doctrine that self-defense does not allow countries to
themselves launch massive reprisal raids -- precisely because to allow
such reprisals would lead to an endless cycle of unrestrained violence.

3. War would be unlikely to eliminate those responsible for the September
11 attacks.

If bin Laden is indeed the evil genius responsible for the September 11
attacks, is it credible that he and his top aides would be so bumbling as
to wait around for the U.S. military to exterminate them? We know they
have already abandoned their training camps (NYT, 19 Sept. 2001). They may
have relocated themselves to some unknown caves in the Afghan mountains,
they may have moved into various Afghan villages, blending in with the
population, or they may even have left the country entirely. Are U.S.
bombers and cruise-missiles really going to find bin Laden and unknown
associates? It's doubtful that Washington has good intelligence as to
their whereabouts; when the U.S. launched cruise missiles at bin Laden in
1998 -- with the advantage of surprise -- its information was out of date
and he was already gone. It's likely to be even harder to find him and his
lieutenants now. War is hardly the most effective way to pursue the
perpetrators and they are hardly likely to be its primary victims.

4. Huge numbers of innocent people will die.

It was precisely the fact that the September 11 attacks killed large
numbers of civilians that made the attacks terroristic and so horrific. If
it is immoral to slaughter thousands of Americans in an effort to disrupt
the U.S. economy and force a change in U.S. policy, it is no less immoral
to slaughter thousands of Afghans in an effort to force the Taliban to
change its policy. The United States is moving large numbers of warplanes
and missile-launching vessels into the region, yet there are hardly any
military targets in Afghanistan for them to attack. It is inevitable that
civilians will bear the brunt of any major campaign -- civilians who, in
their vast majority, probably are ignorant not only of the recent
terrorist assault on the U.S., but probably even of bin Laden himself.
Ground forces might be less indiscriminate, but it's hard to imagine that
Washington's military plans won't involve the massive application of
force, with horrendous human consequences.

While the image of bombers flying over Afghanistan and bombing a people
whose average lifespan is about 45 years of age and who are suffering
terrible deprivation already -- not least due to the Taliban, which the
U.S. helped create and empower -- is horrifying enough, it is important to
realize that death and deprivation come in many forms. Even without
widespread bombing, if the threat to attack the civilian population or
outright coercion of other countries leads to curtailment of food aid to
Afghanistan, the ensuing starvation could kill a million or more Afghans
by mid-winter. Is this the appropriate response to terror?

5. War will reduce the security of U.S. citizens.

What drives people to devote -- and even sacrifice -- their lives to
anti-American terrorism? No doubt the causes are complex, but surely deep
feelings of anger and frustration at the U.S. role in the Middle East is a
significant factor. If the United States goes to war some terrorists will
probably be killed, but so too will many innocent people. And each of
these innocent victims will have relatives and friends whose anger and
frustration at the United States will rise to new heights, and the ranks
of the terrorists will be refilled many times over. And the new recruits
will not just come from Afghanistan. To many Muslims throughout the Middle
East, war will be seen as an attack on Islam -- and this is one reason
that many of Washington's Islamic allies are urging caution.
Significantly, the New York Times reports that the "drumbeat for war, so
loud in the rest of the country, is barely audible on the streets of New
York" (NYT, 20 Sept. 2001). Their city suffered unbearable pain, but many
New Yorkers know that the retaliatory killing of people in the Middle East
will not make them any safer; on the contrary, it is likely to lead to
more, not less terror on U.S. soil, and in any event, would inflict the
same pain on still more innocent people.

The dynamic of terror and counter-terror is a familiar one: it leads not
to peace but to more violence. Israel's response to terrorism hasn't
brought Israelis more security. Nor has retaliatory terrorism made people
more secure elsewhere. Indeed, it is quite likely that the perpetrators of
the terror attack on the United States would like nothing more than to
induce a massive U.S. military response which might destabilize the whole
region, leading to the creation of millions of holy warriors and the
overthrow of governments throughout the Islamic world. Whether bin Laden's
al-Qaeda or some other extremist group or groups is responsible, war might
play right into their hands, reducing the security of us all.