U.S. justifies bombings, calling victims 'terrorists'

Published: Monday, August 31, 1998

Monday, August 31, 1998

MISTAKES: Retaliatory attack on Afghanistan killed innocent people

On Aug. 7, bombs destroyed American embassies in Kenya and in Tanzania, causing over 1,700 casualties. These acts were universally deplored as cowardly and senseless. Just two weeks later, the American government sponsored some senseless violence of its own, supposedly as a form of retaliation. And to my amazement, these acts have been widely praised. They will receive no praise from me.

The United States acted by having its navy ships launch 75 Tomahawk cruise missiles on Aug. 20. Fifty of those missiles targeted an alleged meeting place of terrorists in Afghanistan. The rest were directed at an alleged chemical weapons plant in Khartoum, Sudan. (The Sudanese claim it was a pharmaceutical plant.)

While the purpose of the attack in Sudan was to destroy the alleged weapons factory, the targets in Afghanistan were not buildings but people. Thus, the 50 missiles sent to Afghanistan were equipped with the latest in people-killing technology: devices that release shrapnel on impact. This technology proved effective enough to kill 21 and wound 53, according to Afghan news services. Eleven more were wounded in Sudan, according to the Sudanese government.

Many questions beg to be answered, but one rises above all the rest: how does the United States justify taking 21 Afghan lives? In other words, can our government persuasively argue that those 21 people deserved to die?

U.S. officials have responded to that question with a one-word answer: "terrorist." By describing its targets as havens for terrorism, America justifies all damage done, because any person affiliated with terrorism deserves to die.

In fact, death is perhaps too merciful for terrorists in the United States. Terrorists are the villains of every action movie, and they always hold innocent women and children hostage while seeking an all-too-hefty ransom. They always die in the end, and they always deserve it. Terrorists have replaced communists as the most heinous villains in the American imagination.

It's a characterization that we should not accept. Our government is using the term "terrorist" subjectively, and very few groups would use that term to characterize themselves. They call themselves "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries." How the U.S. government labels a group often depends on the politics of that group. The Contras in Nicaragua might be considered "revolutionaries," because we have allied ourselves with the Contras. An anti-American group that uses similar tactics will inevitably be referred to as terrorists.

The actual meaning of the word "terrorist" refers to those who use violence without respecting certain international laws of war. But in modern warfare, non-terrorist soldiers are as likely to kill innocent civilians as are terrorists.

And so it's difficult to distinguish one from the other. Both use violence, and with the use of bombs and missiles, innocent people are killed by both soldiers and terrorists. So it's not fair for us to refer to a group we know nothing about as terrorists. By calling its victims "terrorists," the U.S. government does not prove that they deserved to die. Our leaders might as well justify their actions by calling the victims "jerks."

The U.S. government can still refer to the groups that allegedly met in Afghanistan as groups that might be responsible for the bombing of American embassies in Africa. Would that be reason enough for their execution, by method of Tomahawk cruise missile?

I'd still answer with a resounding, "No!" I know of no battle that I would fight for reasons other than self-defense. (The administration is not claiming self-defense: "We're going to be on offense, as well as defense," National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said.) Peaceful negotiation is always the right way to resolve conflict.

There is a book by Dr. Seuss about violence called "The Butter Battle Book." It's kind of scary. Two rival societies form bigger and bigger weapons to use against each other, and soon their very existence is at stake. The book is analogous to the real-life proliferation of nuclear weapons, which threaten our very existence.

While weapons build up and lives are lost, actual conflicts are not resolved by violence. The winner of a violent conflict (as in a war) is not necessarily the person who is wrong or the person who is right. The winner of a war is whoever is stronger. But the conflict will remain until the two sides can come to an agreement, and an understanding cannot be achieved through violence.

Going back to the missile strikes, the United States is choosing to solve its problems, to fight its battles, through violence. Every time a country (or a rebel group) chooses violence instead of negotiation, more people die. In this case, 21 more.

And so I think their deaths cannot be justified, even if I were to make all of the ridiculous assumptions that our country seems to be making.

First, we seem to assume that any group of "terrorists" would consist only of murderers. There is no chance, according to this assumption, that any member was new to the group and innocent of any wrongdoing. And it's impossible that certain members of the group were dedicated to violence while others were not.

Our country assumed that there was no chance that there might have been non-members of the group at the meeting. Our nation assumed that no innocent women and children accompanied the man of the house to his meeting.

And for further justification, we assume that this group would certainly have attacked Americans again. It's not possible, we assume, that some members may have disagreed with such a course of action. In fact, we assume that it's not possible that even one member might have dissented. Our elected representatives believed that every single member of this alleged terrorist group would participate in future attempts upon American lives.

Well, my favorite cliche is, "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me." That's exactly what's happened in this case.

It is possible that all of those assumptions are false. I believe it's even probable. Innocent women and children probably are among the dead or wounded. And there are almost certainly group members who died who had not committed crimes before or who had not planned on committing them. It's possible that while the group had committed terrorist acts in the past, it had recently decided to move away from violence. Not one of these people would then deserve death.

It's even possible that the alleged terrorist group repeatedly referred to doesn't even exist. For as often as media reports have used the word "terrorism" throughout these events, another word has been just as commonplace: "alleged." We have no evidence that either of the targets housed people or weapons that were linked to the bombings of American embassies in Africa. We are only told, repeatedly, that U.S. intelligence had substantial evidence to back all of these claims.

It's wrong to blow up a building with innocent people in it. A few of the people at the alleged meeting in Afghanistan may or may not have been responsible for such an act. But in the end, the American military attack was as immoral as the one it allegedly responded to. Labeling the victims as "terrorists" only adds insult to injury.

Peace.

Dittmer is a fourth-year geography, environmental studies and economics student. Send feedback to dmittmer@ucla.edu.