<doc.id=4036.b2>
<title> Terrorism cannot be bombed away </title>
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State in the United States of America, argues in an article in Dagens Nyheter that massive military force must be used against the terrorist group Al-quaida, led by Usama bin Laden, which is believed to have been responsible of the attacks in New York and Washington on September the 11th this year. He gives an ultimatum; Afghanistan must hand over Usama bin Ladin and his adherents, or USA will feel free to attack the terrorist group as well as all those countries that are believed to give it shelter and economical aid. In this essay I will argue against Henry Kissinger, not against his claim to catch and punish those responsible for the terrorist attacks, but the very means that he wants his country and other western allies to use, namely massive military attacks.
Before I start arguing against this article I think it is appropriate to mention some points that I actually agree on. Henry Kissinger suggests that a list of existing terror groups including the names of their members should be widely published and countries all over the world warned; that if they support these terrorists in any way at all they are going to face economical sanctions. Neither should these persons be granted travel permits. Finland has already taken such action: last year one of the terrorists who crashed in the Twin Towers in New York City actually applied for a visa to Finland. He was not allowed to enter the country because he appeared on the FBI's list of suspected terrorists. 
 These kinds of actions, however, are not enough for Henry Kissinger. Unlike him, I am not a supporter of the use of massive military force against targets in Afghanistan. Firstly, it will be the death of thousands of Afghan civilians. Bombs cannot tell the difference between a member of Al-quaida, Usama bin Ladin's terrorist group, and children. Many of the bombs are so called "dummies", which are bombs that cannot be exactly targeted. As I write this many civilians have already died and US bombs have hit even United Nations and Red Cross buildings. 
 Secondly, acts of vengeance will only lead to new threats and attacks by the terrorists and result in a never-ending cycle of violence. Today, the whole world is afraid of Anthrax spores distributed by mail and even more afraid of them being eventually distributed by air. The US air strikes provide these terrorists with new fuel to their hatred against, as they see it, the oppressive western world. What is more, it gives them an undeserved possibility to justify their evil deeds in front of the Afghans as well as the entire Islamic world. By using military retaliation the United States descends to the same criminal level as the terrorists. 
Thirdly, even if Kissinger states that America should be cautious and not present this new policy as a battle between the West and Islam, it could still lead to an increased antagonism against the western world among Afghans and all surrounding countries. Professor Ove Bring says that the right of self-defence must be cautiously used regarding the state in world politics in general. If not, the consequence will be anxiety and uncertainty around the world. Again, with the use of hindsight, this is already to be seen, perhaps most clearly in Pakistan. American flags are there burnt in fierce demonstrations every day. The conflict between Palestine and Israel has escalated, hiding behind the attacks on Afghanistan. It is going to be very difficult to avoid that the Islamic part of the world sees these bombings as indirect attacks on it and the way of life it represents. 
My next argument against Henry Kissinger's article considers his view on moral justice and self-defence. It is only natural that USA has the right to defend itself when attacked. I am aware of the fact that the United Nation's article number 51 sanctions it with the right to attack non-civilian targets in a country that is supporting terrorism. Still, if we assume that these bombings will be sustained over a long period in time, Afghan civilian casualties will be much larger in number than the corresponding number in Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, mainly due to the fact that it will be very difficult for humanitarian help to reach victims in need of food and medicine. If it comes to this, the principle on proportion will be out ruled. My conclusion must then be, even if I sincerely hope that I am wrong, that Henry Kissinger estimates American lives to be worth more than Afghan lives. 
In summary, I take it for granted that most of us know that terrorism develops from utter despair; it is the last weapon for people not seeing any other way out of their suffering. Eradication trough bombings is not the solution, however. The only humane and reasonable way to end terrorism is to work for a world that provides welfare for all humans on equal terms.

Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State in the United States of America, wants his country and its allies to use massive military force in the retaliation against the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. USA should demand Afghanistan to hand over Usama Bin Ladin and his terror group Al-quaida. Moreover, he wants USA to be very specific about the fact that it will not hesitate to attack any other country that harbours and protects terrorists within their territory. Kissinger emits a request to all supporters of this universal call to end terrorism, in order to end the bloodshed we must force the terrorist groups to flee and then destroy them. 
Dagens Nyheter 2001-09-16


References:
Bring, Ove. Dagens Nyheter. 2001-10-20
</doc>