Can't have it both ways - Radical Islam, Afghanistan, and the U.S. war on terrorism

By now, many of you have probably received, via e-mail, a letter titled “A different point of view” or something similar. This letter is supposedly written by one "Tamim Ansary" who is reportedly a columnist for a San Francisco periodical. I have had little luck confirming this fact, but it really does not matter. I have little evidence for thinking otherwise and it does not essentially alter the argument made by the individual either way.

In any case, when I first received this letter last week, I initially considered offering a rebuttal for the consideration of my friends and family, but decided against it. By the time I had received four copies of the same letter over a five day period (the last copy coming from my wife’s step-father) I concluded that a rebuttal was indeed required.

In this letter, the author, Tamim Ansary, explains that he/she is an Afghani-American who, though expatriated from Afghanistan for over 35 years, wishes to offer words of personal insight and warning to Americans about Afghanistan.

The first observation offered by Ansary is that, while certain the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden are responsible for the attacks, they have no association with Afghanistan. Ansary states;

“The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since.”

After then describing Bin Laden as plotting criminal in cahoots with the Taliban, the author continues by comparing the situation to the Nazi’s and Jews;

“When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps”. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it."”

Ansary then goes on to paint a picture of Khmer Rogue style torture, execution, crimes against women, mass graves, etc.

Well now – following Ansary’s argument so far, Afghanistan is ruled by an illegitimate, psychotic, and despotic theocracy of misogynists who’s de-facto hero, a modern day, Muslim version of Adolf Hitler himself, helps the “hated” party rule over the poor people of Afghanistan with an iron Koran.

If this is indeed the case, and all evidence seems to confirm a similar conclusion, then it would appear that the international community has been remiss in neglecting its humanitarian and legal obligations to liberate the oppressed people of Afghanistan. Ansary certainly thinks the people would be eternally grateful for such salvation.

Sounds good to me so far – not that we needed another reason to go in, but every little bit helps on the road to the high ground. I have been making the “Holocaust/Nazi” analogy all week…its nice to find another ally.

Ah! But here come the rub! For you see, having spent four paragraphs making an argument which begs for international intervention, the author now tries to explain why it is unwise. A curious position for such an advocate of the common Afghani one would think.

We are told that “bombing them into the stone age” will not work – they are already there you see. Fair enough – no one of any military understanding would advocate such jingoistic drivel in any case. Air power alone cannot win a war (for proof see WWII, Vietnam, The Gulf War, etc).

Of course, with this admission, we are now getting closer to the authors climax – With the elimination of “Carpet Bombing” alone as a path to victory, it becomes clear that ground troops would be required. This is the writer great fear. The fear that ground troops will be used and that innocents will be killed in droves!

Er – excuse me…”carpet bombing” will kill civilians in droves, and we ruled that out right? The use of ground troops generally ensures that civilian casualties are limited to a bare minimum. While accidents happen, professional soldiers target belligerents, not civilians.

Perhaps realizing that his/her argument is disintegrating, Ansary tells us that this really is not the point in any case! The REAL point is that all of this will lead to a vast holy war between Islam and the West where millions, if not billions, will perish – and this has been Bi Laden’s plan all along!

Begging your pardon once again, but are we not daily inundated with the assurances by Muslim Americans, by Yasser Arafat, by peoples and governments all across the Muslim world, that Islam is peaceful, that Islam condemns violence, that Arabs and Muslims world wide condemn the Taliban and Bin Laden and sympathize with America in her pain?

If this is true, is it not ridiculous to think that such a moral, peaceful, and sympathetic people would join the ranks of a radical fanatic (who has perverted true Islam) and rise up to fight against those who would free the oppressed and help save the good name of Muslims worldwide?

Seems to me you cannot have it both ways, and therein lies the fatal and painfully obvious flaw in Tamim Ansary’s argument.

You cannot claim the Taliban is evil, illegitimate and cruel, that Bin Laden is a psychotic heretic, and that the Afghanis are an oppressed people yearning for release, while simultaneously warning that war would run the risk that the peaceful, moral, and justice loving Muslim world might get offended and rise up to defend this Islamic “Hitler” and his “Brown-shirts”.

In 1941, the threat of Nazi Germany and the fate of the world provided the moral, legal, and patriotic motivation for massive, global and decisive action. The path is no less clear today. Let the peoples of world chose which side they wish to be on. Then we will see who are the true friends of liberty and justice and who are the enemies of the free world.