Historian Howard Zinn says nobody wins in war, and then recounts the recent history of American wars post World War II,which seems to prove his point. The war in Korea restored the status quo, Vietnam was lost at great cost, the same might be said for Iraq, and the same looks like happening in Afghanistan. Republican McCain wants to win in Iraq while Democrat Obama - much like the Australian Government wants to commit to winning in Afghanistan and the Pakistan no-go areas where Osama bin Laden is reported to be.
Writing in The Boston Globe, Howard Zinn observes:
Yes, Al Qaeda - a relatively small but ruthless group of fanatics - was apparently responsible for the attacks. And, yes, there was evidence that Osama bin Laden and others were based in Afghanistan. But the United States did not know exactly where they were, so it invaded and bombed the whole country. That made many people feel righteous. “We had to do something,” you heard people say.
Yes, we had to do something. But not thoughtlessly, not recklessly. Would we approve of a police chief, knowing there was a vicious criminal somewhere in a neighborhood, ordering that the entire neighborhood be bombed? There was soon a civilian death toll in Afghanistan of more than 3,000 - exceeding the number of deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks. Hundreds of Afghans were driven from their homes and turned into wandering refugees.
Two months after the invasion of Afghanistan, a Boston Globe story described a 10-year-old in a hospital bed: “He lost his eyes and hands to the bomb that hit his house after Sunday dinner.” The doctor attending him said: “The United States must be thinking he is Osama. If he is not Osama, then why would they do this?”
We should be asking the presidential candidates: Is our war in Afghanistan ending terrorism, or provoking it? And is not war itself terrorism?
The principle in these matters is simple. You might win the invasion, but are bound to lose the occupation, and the longer that the invader stays the greater cost until the wise course is to withdraw. Are there any exceptions?
It would be wiser to resolve conflicts by nonviolence, and in the process develop a civil global society based on justice with economies based on human needs while sustaining the biosphere.
