Just more bullying?

A letter to the editor of Salon painted the US retaliation against bin
Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban as simply "more bullying" -- the original
bullying being the US policies that victimize many in the Islamic world.

The letter is here:
http://www.salon.com/news/letters/2001/10/10/imperialism/index.html

My response letter to the editor is pasted below.

Mike

*****

Mr. Alford's argument seems to have two prongs.  First, the Sept. 11 attacks
were carried out by, or on behalf of, those "bullied" by US policies and
actions.  The attacks -- and presumably the barbarity and propensity to
barbarity of the perpetrators and their supporters -- are thus a response to
US policy.  Second, the US response to the attacks -- attacking bin Laden
and the Taliban that supports him -- is simply more "bullying" that is not
only morally wrong, but will breed more strikes by the bullied (here,
presumably, bin Laden, the Taliban, those who support either of the first
two, and those that they purport to represent).

The flaw in Alford's argument is that there is little support for the notion
that bin Laden and the Taliban (assuming them to be the culprits) have
anything but the most passing interest -- indeed, an interest of convenience
-- in the plight of those admittedly victimized by US policies: e.g., the
Palestinians, the Iraqis, or even the Afghans.

It is only the victims of US policies affecting life-and-death interests who
might conceivably have a moral claim to the use of deadly force against US
civilians -- on the premise that the US itself used close to force resulting
in or threatening death against those victims.  Thus the Palestinians (by
Israel as the US proxy), the Iraqis (bombing of Baghdad, sanctions,
continuing bombing), the Afghans (pre-Sept. 11, sanctions), and the Sudanese
(destruction of critical pharmaceutical factory) might have a claim for the
use of force against the US -- perhaps even against US civilians given these
victims inability to take on the US military, and US policies that injured
civilians.

These victims might have a moral claim to the use of force against US
civilian.  Arguably, those who took up the cause of such victims might  have
the similar moral claim to use of force, as proxy for the victims.
Moreover, cessation of US policies that victimize the victims might cure the
victims' and their proxies' need and desire to use such force.

Neither bin Laden nor Al-Queda are such victims, however.  It is fanciful,
moreover, to claim that they have legitimately taken up the cause of
legitimate victims, because only recently have they begun to include, e.g.,
the Palestinians or the Iraqis in their rhetoric.  Even the Taliban does not
seem to have taken up the cause of its own Afghan victims, although it might
have and probably should have.  Rather, the Taliban itself terrorizes and
oppresses its people, administering one of the most brutal and repressive
regimes in history.  Any claim the Taliban makes to representing the Afghans
must be viewed in light of its abuse of the Afghan population.

Because none of the current targets of the US response are either
legitimate, prior victims of US policy, or have even the minimum moral claim
to the use of deadly force against civilians, Alford's depiction of the US
response as simply  "more bullying" cannot be accepted.  Until and unless
the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 atrocities can be shown to be actual
victims (or their legitimate champions) of US policies with life-or-death
implications, the US retaliation against those perpetrators is morally
justified.  To put it in Alford's metaphor, we do not have here the case of
an abusive husband killing the beaten wife who dared hit back.

Neither bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, nor the Taliban are beaten wives, but rather
*at most* insulted and belittled wives.  We should no sooner accept as
payback the Sept. 11 atrocities than we should accept as justifiable the
shooting of a domineering, but not physically threatening, husband by an
insulted wife.  Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, after all, had until just this week
as their primary concern the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.  This
complaint hardly rises to the level of those of the Palestinians, the
Iraqis, or the Afghans -- no matter how many coats of cultural relativism
are applied!   Moreover, the Taliban, which should be championing the Afghan
people, is just plain psychotic, as many Afghans themselves declare.

Alford is correct that US policies victimize far too many in the Islamic
world (as doubtless elsewhere).  Correcting those policies would be the
right thing to do, and likely reduce the level of "enemy-of-my-enemy" for
the bin Ladens, among the truly victimized.

There is *not* however, any moral equivalence between the Sept. 11 attacks
and any US policies toward the actual perpetrators, their direct supporters,
or any people whose causes the perpetrators had *actually* taken up.  The US
response, therefore, in so far as it is limited to retaliation against the
perpetrators and their direct supporters, is both morally justified, and
perhaps the only route to exercise of the self-defense imperative.