Collective punishment? You make it sound as if we are 19th century imperialists teaching the unruly and uncooperative natives a lesson or two. Or are we German troops on anti-partisan duties in the Ukraine? You going to advocate shooting 3 Afghans for every ISAF soldier killed by bombs or demolish villages? Some 10 years later, haven't we learnt that total reliance on military means is not the answer for everything and that it can be counter productive, irrespective of how high the body count in dead Taliban is.
Afghanistan was in a mess way before the U.S. invaded. And part of the reason it still is in a mess is because of flawed policies that were made in the first few years after 2001 by non-Afghans. Granted, the Afghans share a lot to blame for the mess the country is in but they were not the only ones to have a hand in this.
Lets make it clear that the people who launched 9/11 and other AQ attacks were not Afghan and that the vast majority of Afghans want to get on with their lives rather than ''launching attacks on the U.S. or its allies''. The fact that there is still an active insurgency that receives some level of local support in the country only reinforces the fact that something is terribly wrong and that military power has its limits - the solution now IMO is more political and economic than it is militarily. Apart from national interests, the international community, especially the countries that are heavily involved, have a moral responsibility to ensure that Afghanistan is not a bigger mess than it was prior to 9/11, when they withdraw.
I find your legalistic approach to be a very common one (nowadays it is in fact, almost a compete formalistic cliché just as it is fully devoid of any historical context) but it is sadly flawed. I really do however entirely appreciate the fact that you want to be a good and moral person as you understand it and not some mindless militant. And so do I to wish to be a moral person, believe it or not but I am trying to do it without the clichés. And furthermore, we both believe that morality is essential for a Persons’, a Nations’ and in fact for a Civilizations’ guidance for determining both their individual and collective behaviors. A sense of morality, which is always based upon some shared concepts of right and wrong and what is acceptable or is not unacceptable behavior. These kinds of moral based belief systems by necessity must always have as an element incorporated within them for the need of “proportionality”, (the punishment must fit the crime and not exceed it) which I believe is your primary objection to my previous statements, as well as the principal of individual responsibility for any such behaviors if and when they do happen. This second part is a very common Western concept but it is not as universally accepted a concept in the East. But generally I say good for you. If only the entire world thought as you do, it would not only be a much better place to live in. But then again if we did live in that world and not this one we would not be in Afghanistan right now, would we?
However the legalistic approach and the very concept of right and wrong, is not as universal or commonly agreed upon as you think. What you do not realized is that the common modern Western approach to life, as it is to our current accepted approach to war, as desirable as it may be if we are ever to someday collectively live in a world free of fear which will then enjoy the maximum amount of cooperation between different people‘s and universal prosperity among them, is that tribal people are unfortunately NOT CIVILIZED. You may find this provocative statement to be very “un-politic” even harsh but I can justify it. And Tribal is not to say that all tribes are evil.
Being civilized is not a function of knowledge, technology, science, power or even wealth but of that very thing of which we are in disagreement, morality. Only a part of the state of being as a true civilized person and living within a civilized society concerns the subject of what is considered or is not considered to be acceptable behavior. Note of "caution" is necessary at this point; for people living in different physical environments, it may dictate that some behaviors which are acceptable in one environment because they promote good social order are not necessarily universal to all societies when compared to different environments. While in other environments the same behavior would be equally unacceptable because it would tend to destroy social order in those societies living under different environmental constraints, so we cannot presume rightfully that in every case all moral precepts must always be the same or even transferable. But the biggest difference between Civilized and Tribal societies are not in the rules they chose to live by or why they have made them but how and to whom, those moral norms are applied.
In a tribal society if a member of the tribe commits a harmful act against a person or group not of the tribe, even if that act would be completely unacceptable within the tribe they will not punished by them but they will in fact be protected from rightful retribution from outsiders. But in a civilized society they will not only refuse to protect the offender from the consequences of their actions but will instead consider it their very duty, as a civilized society, that justice is done even if the injured outside parity cannot extract justice on their own. Think about it. Think very hard!
In a tribal society that does not wish to follow this simple moral and civilized principal of (to do on to others as you would want them to do on to you), to change the behavior within their tribal society which has already shown to have caused harm to others’ outside of the tribe, sufficient motivation must be applied to the tribe as a whole so that they will be compelled to control their most violent members simply because if they don’t, their actions will then cause harm to the whole tribe if they fail control them. It is a very simple concept to grasp even for the uncivilized among us.
Now there is a real objection I freely admit for a civilized person or for a civilized society, to act in an uncivilized manner when confronted with a difficult problem that is not easy amenable to civilized methods of conflict resolution. This is a legitimate concern we must address if the world is ever to advance beyond, what I think; we both would agree, are the worlds past primitive and violent ways. More generally the issue is stated, “How can you achieve moral ends and have good outcomes by the use of immoral means”? How can you separate of justify your methods from your stated goals? A good question isn’t it and one not only found within Afghanistan.
We already have death, war, and continuing misery in Afghanistan. A war which was caused by events of death and misery which might of physically happened someplace else, but was partially made possible by and aided and abetted from, Afghanistan. If the Taliban has acted as civilized people instead of as tribal ones, which is what they currently are, and if they had surrendered the perpetrators of 9-11 we would be having a far different conversation than this one.
The question we must ask and then find an answer to is what actions at this time and on our part, will in the final analyses lead to the least war, lest death, and the least misery both in Afghanistan and everywhere else? I am not talking about revenge of any kind.
That is why I think it is imperative that when we leave Afghanistan, however we eventually leave it, that there is no possible confusion that if there is a next time, it would be far and away much more unpleasant in Afghanistan if by their actions they once again force us to return. If we can impress this idea upon them and if they can be made to truly believe it, in the end there will be less war, less death, and less misery both in and out of Afghanistan which is a good thing. If Afghanistan becomes a modern county or not.
But it is completely useless to issue such a threat if they do not believe it and they will not believed it if we truly don’t mean it. You made the statement that maybe the Afghan people may have already come to the conclusion that it is better to not support, tolerate, or to protect people like the people who created 9-11. Like some of them have done in the past. I hope you are right, they have certainly suffered enough by any measure but there are still uncontrolled elements that still turn themselves in to human bombs so I think it is safe to say the fundamental problems has yet be solved.
I do not know if the process of nation building will work in any time soon in Afghanistan or not. I do not know if and when they make the transition from a collection of fractious tribal societies to gain some kind of true national identity. I hope they do, for only then will they find the peace and prosperity they deserve. But we cannot depend on something as uncertain as that and which is ultimately beyond our control to assure. If you have a suggestion another than just another cliché that address the reality of the situation I am more than willing to hear it.
And no matter what your feelings maybe about imperialistic group punishments of the past they worked in tribal societies for the very same reasons that they do not work in civilized ones. But I think we both agree that staying in Afghanistan indefinitely is not one of of those options so we musk think carefuly on just how we will leave it. And remember I said if there is a next time and only because being humane and reasonable didn’t work the first time.
