Editor,
I ask why? I find the letters and attitudes regarding Sept. 11 and the ensuing conflict in Afghanistan increasingly amazing yet cynically familiar. They remind me of the cheap arguments and superficial polemics that graced our palettes during the Persian Gulf War.
We are either for the conflict in Afghanistan or against it. Our patriotic feeling for the United States is defined accordingly.
For the majority of us, we have endured a collective national shock, and the only recourse that we have is to swaddle ourselves with love for all things "American." We feel outraged and violated by the events of Sept. 11, and most of us want to assign culpability and bring the guilty party to justice - whatever that means.
Some of us need to rationalize these events by scrutinizing our foreign policy of the last four presidents with crystal clear vision and explanations that seem childish in their simplicity. Referring to the Mujahideen as "freedom fighters" comparable to the founding fathers of the United States seems ludicrous.
So, are we making a grave mistake or are we embarking on a road of righteousness that the rest of the world will appreciate years from now? Is this a valuable argument? Should anything be done at all?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
There are those of us who believe that there is no justification for war. There are those of us who believe that we should not hold back and the full firepower of mass destruction should be wrought on the party we have deemed guilty. Whatever the outcome, not all of us will be happy. However, that our national psyche has been changed is debatable.
Most of us still get up and go to work. Perhaps our lunch topic of discussion focuses on these events but we are not really changed. We still refuse to look at the issues that drive these sorts of events. We refuse to look at different options. The choices are clear - war or no war.
A world devoid of politically motivated violence, which is what we regard as peace, is not an option. If we engage in war the threat will exist. If we were to refrain from war the threat would still exist. If each of these options do not yield the desired result then, why are we not exploring other options?
Why must people die here and elsewhere before we are moved to look at these situations?
The information exists now more than ever with the Internet. Why is it that the www.indiatimes.com makes a reference to a deceased American commando being transported to Pakistan out of Afghanistan when the same individual is referred to as an aid worker in www.abcnews.com?
Why is it that a mere two months - give or take a few days - after the Sept. 11 events, most people have resumed their same lives with little or no attempt to understand the true nature of this issue?
We live in such a resource-rich area of the world yet most of us cannot qualify why we should wage war. Why would we even want to ignore this? Don't we know that we have joined the ranks of the rest of the world?
Violence of this nature is a daily threat in many areas of the globe yet, we feel genuinely mortified not by the actual events but by the thought that our vulnerabilities have been exposed. That we are not perfect and we are not the "winners of the cold war." Then we engage in superficial discussion about supposed freedoms and security.
"Well, nationalize airport security but you'll have to answer to the National Rifle Association about that gun bill." Ironic how the politicians who were vitriolic with regard to federal intervention in anything two months ago are now screaming for federal air marshals on flights.
I ask why? Why do we have this infuriating ability to view events and their historical references with a short-term mindset? Why don't we question ourselves? Why do leaders of well-known armed organizations that the U.S. government has labeled as terrorists have better and more articulate responses to the events of Sept. 11 than tenured faculty of the UNM History Department? Why?
John Brandt
UNM staff
