WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 (UPI) -- The UPI Think Tank Wrap-Up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events, and position statements released by various think tanks.
Institute for Public Accuracy
(The IPA is a nationwide consortium of policy researchers that seeks to broaden public discourse by gaining media access for experts whose perspectives are often overshadowed by major think tanks and other influential institutions.)
Afghan Women Warn Against the Northern Alliance
Fahima Vorgetts headed a women's literacy program in Kabul and fled Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979. (Her sister, operating an underground school for girls in Kabul, fled the country in 1999 when the Taliban learned of her activities.)
"For years we have been trying to raise awareness about the situation of women in Afghanistan and for years we were being ignored. We had to beg people to arrange an event. Now people are listening to what we say about the Taliban, but they must listen to what we say about the Northern Alliance not to repeat the same type of tragedy for the country as a whole and especially for the women of Afghanistan.
The Taliban are horrible and Afghanistan will be much better off without them, but we must not forget that the Northern Alliance committed so many atrocities, so many crimes during their rule between 1992 and 1996 that they made it easy for the Taliban to come to power.
Afghanistan has suffered for 23 years. There is no school, employment, streets, factories or bridges left. The bombing is making it worse; it's causing more damage. If you want to stop terrorism you must help the country by providing infrastructure, investment, education and aid. The war must be against poverty and ignorance, that's the only way to bring real peace to Afghanistan and consequently to the United States.
The outside world spent billions of dollars to build up the Mujahadeen. Now it should spend money to help bring some real peace."
Tahmeena Faryal, spokesperson for the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, the oldest women's humanitarian and political organization in Afghanistan.
"Despite the claim of the U.S. that only military and terrorist bases of the Taliban and Al Qaida would be struck and that its actions would be accurately targeted and proportionate, what we have witnessed for the past many days leaves no doubt that this invasion will shed the blood of numerous women, men, children, young and old of our country....
The U.S. and its allies were supporting the policies that helped foster Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban. Today they are sharpening the dagger of the 'Northern Alliance.' So many of those now involved in what has come to be called the Northern Alliance have the blood of our beloved people on their hands, as of course do the Taliban.
Their sustained atrocities have been well documented by independent international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and others. From 1992 to 1996 in particular, these forces waged a brutal war against women, using rape, torture, abduction and forced marriage as their weapons. Many women committed suicide during this period as their only escape.
Any initiative to establish a broad-based government must exclude all Taliban and other criminal Jehadi factions, unless and until a specific faction or person has been absolved of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, the people will again be plunged into the living hell that engulfed our country from 1992 to 1996 -- under elements now involved in the Northern Alliance-and continues to the present under the Taliban.
The continuation of U.S. attacks and the increase in the number of innocent civilian victims not only gives an excuse to the Taliban, but also will cause the empowering of the fundamentalist forces in the region and even elsewhere in the world."
The Acton Institute
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters: What's the Difference?
By John Bolt
Though political correctness seems to be on the wane after September 11, its second cousin, moral equivalence, has not disappeared. One occasionally still encounters attempts to minimize the horror of that day in calls to "understand" the plight of those whose cries for justice are championed by the masterminds of the day's terrorism.
It is hard; we are then told, to know exactly where the line exists between terrorists and the brave would-be liberators of oppressed people-freedom fighters. Besides, many nations in the world have come into existence after lengthy struggles for liberation.
Many pundits assert that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is purely a matter of perception. When our guy kills in battle, he's a freedom fighter; when our enemy does, he is a terrorist. Similar acts get different labels depending on who is doing the labeling.
In making a judgment on freedom fighters versus terrorists, there is more at work than a "perception." I am convinced that there is a metaphysical difference, not just a perceptual one, between these two descriptors. It is helpful to get at the difference with an analogy, a consideration of the important difference between two of the seven deadly sins: greed and envy.
Though often lumped together and seen simply as the desire of one person or group to possess what another owns, greed and envy are not identical. Greed has to do with acquisition-we desperately want what another has. Theft is the culminating sinful act of greed.
Envy, on the other hand, is not directed at some item we want that belongs to another, but at that other person or group. Its aim is destroying the happiness of others. Envy seeks not to acquire but to destroy, rejoicing in the misfortune of others. Vandalism and arson are two of the best examples of acts that have their roots in envy.
While greed can be assuaged, envy cannot. It is never satisfied until its object is destroyed.
Let's apply this difference to terrorists and freedom fighters. The issue at hand is not whether fighters for a noble cause often act in reprehensible, cruel, and destructive ways. Such actions, however, have as their goal acquiring or re-acquiring something valuable, something highly desired. This may be land, sovereignty, or political goals such as liberty or economic equality.
Freedom fighters usually come from oppressed or marginalized groups that have been deprived of something important, such as a homeland, and their struggle is to obtain it or gain it back. In other words, if there is a sinful motive in the dreams and actions of a freedom fighter, it is likely the sin of greed.
This is not so with terrorism. Terrorists are less concerned with acquisition than they are with destruction. They are usually clever enough to cloak their motives by hijacking the popular will of an oppressed people, but their wrath is not appeased when they acquire what they say they want.
For example, would the war against Israel be over once the Palestinians got their own homeland? Most likely it would not.
The real goal of terrorist groups is not acquiring but destroying. Terrorism is thus qualitatively different from armed movement for freedom and liberty. Terrorism is not like greed; it is an extreme form of destructive envy.
The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acts of terrorism. Though the acts were ostensibly cries for help for the Palestinians, there was no strategic military purpose involved. The attack was pure destruction, an act designed for one end-terror.
Recognizing this difference will help us to refrain from trying to "understand" the terrorists or giving their acts any nobility or value. The willful destruction of the World Trade Center with the loss of over 4,000 people does not deserve such noble sentiment.
Envy can be neither sanctioned nor understood. It is a hateful attitude that, when played out, results in evil, destructive acts. It is a nihilistic poison that corrodes the soul of the one who envies and endangers the well-being of the envied. The same is true of terrorism. Terrorists will never be satisfied until the object of their hatred is destroyed.
Facing off with these nihilistic forces of terror is a frightening task, no doubt. Failing, however, to make appropriate moral distinctions about the true nature and motivation of our enemy strengthens the terrorist cause all the more. In this ongoing confrontation with evil, engaging in this type of moral equivocation is not something that our nation can afford to do.
(John Bolt is a professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary.)
The Cato Institute
Proposed Medicare "Reforms" Will Hurt Seniors, Consumers
Congress and President Bush are currently debating whether or not to add a new prescription drug benefit to the $221 billion-a-year Medicare program. This new benefit could end up giving American seniors fewer choices at higher prices for prescription drugs. However, most Americans, and most seniors, know little or nothing about Medicare and the efforts being made to reform it.
Sue A. Blevins, author of a new book from the Cato Institute, "Medicare's Midlife Crisis," and president of the Institute for Health Freedom, argues that the growth of Medicare has forced seniors into a regime that restricts their health care choices, jeopardizes the doctor-patient relationship and threatens to invade medical privacy. Blevins shows how we reached our current situation regarding escalating health care costs and burdensome regulations.
According to Blevins, Medicare has "undoubtedly reached a midlife crisis and is going to require a major overhaul during the next decade. The fiscal squeeze on Medicare will be aggravated further by growing demands for more comprehensive medical services, including prescription drugs and preventative care." Blevins continues by saying that growing political pressures and spending commitments will force the program into debt.
Over the next decade, Medicare expenditures are expected to more than double. Yet, fewer workers will be able to cover the costs of the growing senior population. As a result, seniors will face more out-of-pocket health care costs.
Sooner or later, Medicare will affect nearly every American. "The current Medicare mandatory enrollment policy gives the federal government the final say on hospital and doctor fees, and it effectively prevents seniors from contracting privately with the doctors of their choice." The bottom line, according to Blevins, is that Americans "should not be forced into a single-payer government health care system," like Medicare.
Such a program limits health care options and prevents seniors from spending money on the treatments of their choice.
