Questions emerge as America fights back

BY JANE PEK

OLEG NIKISHIN/GETTY IMAGES Northern Alliance soldiers gather at the Kaheestan Brigade base on Mon., Oct. 8, in the province of Kapisan in northern Afghanistan.

The war rages on. Following the first phase of air and missile attacks, which were aimed at destroying the Taliban's limited anti-aircraft capabilities, the Pentagon is expected to deploy helicopter gunships in addition to commando units in a regional hunt for terrorists.

The U.S. government's stated goals are threefold: 1) to punish and help overthrow the Taliban, 2) to combat terrorism, and 3) to provide relief aid for the Afghani people.

While Congress, the U.N., and the vast majority of Americans have remained staunch supporters of the Bush admin-istration's tactics thus far, some professors at Yale remain skeptical.

Lea Brilmayer, a professor in the Yale School of Law, questions the legality of a U.S. offensive against the sovereign state of Afghanistan given the "private actor" status of the terrorists. "What responsibility does the government of Afghanistan have?" she asked.  "Do they have to turn him over? Former war criminals of other countries live in the U.S."

However, it remains an open question whether or not bin Laden was indeed a "private actor" or a participant in state-sponsored terrorism.

"There is no question about the moral justification in killing off the Taliban, [since] they have aligned themselves with bin Laden," William Odom, political science professor and former army general, said. "They have chosen to back the killing of several thousand people."

Proponents of the recent retaliatory actions point to the bombing of Libya and the former Yugoslavia for precedent. Brilmayer countered, "You can't say that it's legal. It's simply an exercise of power."

But despite Brilmayer's skepticism, she concedes that war might be inevitable. "This is a very terrible thing that might be necessary," he said.

The Connecticut Peace Coalition disagreed, demanding, "How about addressing the issues that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden keep bringing up?" 

The two biggest issues, as identified by the Coalition, are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. sanctions on Iraq. The Coalition claims that both issues should be discussed before a moderating body such as the U.N.

While certain groups within U.S. borders have protested the military engagement in Afghanistan, the international community has generally endorsed the U.S. offensive. The European powers have made a strong vocal show of support for America. France and Germany even brought up the possibility of joining the war. Britain's participation on the first day of air strikes shows that "we have at least one good ally," as Odom put it.

However, Brilmayer warned that the U.S. cannot overlook the "tremendous amount of opposition" or "the embittered individuals" it will come up against. 

This is especially true of U.S. relations within the context of the Arab world, she added. "U.S. relations are not ruined," she said. "But [they] could be in the next month or two." Anti-American de-monstrations in Pakistan might be a harbinger of worse things what's going on," Brilmayer said.

The current student body grew up with the Persian Gulf War, with its images of cruise missiles coursing through night skies on their way to targets that seemed only to exist in digitized satellite photographs.

Many have become accustomed to the far-reaching arm of U.S. military might that has, in the past two decades, largely avoided an all-out war in favor of more limited strikes that protect U.S. troops and last only days. What lies ahead might be something far different.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently warned that this current conflict is but one part of the long-term campaign against international terrorism. "We're in for the long haul," he said.

The possibility of sending in ground troops—and perhaps even reinstating the draft for that purpose—. The loss of American life in combat remains a real possibility.

Back to News...