I was listening to a press conference with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld a week or so ago. He is engaging and an adroit communicator. However, his response to a question from a reporter struck a nerve. I will paraphrase the reporter’s question – and the secretary’s response – as best I remember. In essence the reporter asked: Should we succeed with our immediate objectives in Afghanistan, i.e. the downfall of the Taliban, the elimination of bin Laden and the Al Qaida terrorist network – what then would be our responsibility to Afghanistan?
Mr. Rumsfeld’s response seemed to be a diatribe on the rights of all sovereign nations to self-determination. In effect he said, once the United States’ objectives in Afghanistan are met, we’re outta there! When pressed Mr. Rumsfeld did concede we might have some vague humanitarian obligation.
I realize Americans are viewed in many parts of the world as bullies – that our rhetoric must be carefully structured in this conflict – but I hope most of us are aware that more than a token humanitarian effort will be required when these initial objectives are met. Afghanistan represents people impoverished of education, housing, sustenance and hope. It is one of many sewers where ”rats” most ably adapt. If, after all is said and done, we simply throw a few bags of rice at it – we beckon recurrence.
After such horror, what a shame it would be to awaken another day holding the exterminator’s bill, left without a penny to pay or any sovereign border protecting our dismay!
Lynnwood
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.