Originally appeared December 5, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.
SURINA KHAN, head of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission in San Francisco, recently circulated an interesting op-ed commentary in which she questioned whether the U.S. "military campaign in Afghanistan is justified."
Strangely, Khan seems to believe it is not. Now let's think about that.
"Will we be safer after the bombing campaign is over?" Khan asks rhetorically. Why, yes. Thank you for asking. We will be lots safer. I felt safer right after the first American bomb was dropped on Taliban military facilities. Finally we were fighting back against people who have bombed U.S. embassies, U.S. ships, U.S. cities.
The primary goal of the military action is to disable Al Qaeda, the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks. But the Taliban regime sheltered and protected Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. Disabling the Taliban was simply a necessary preliminary to being able to search for bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.
The fewer Al Qaeda chemical/biological war experts, the fewer Al Qaeda training camps, the fewer arms depots, the fewer surviving Al Qaeda strategists and leaders there are, the safer the United States is. Here is how to remember: More Al Qaeda, bad. Less Al Qaeda, good. No Al Qaeda, best.
Oddly, nowhere in her op-ed piece does Khan so much as mention Al Qaeda or bin Laden. But somehow, that seems like discussing World War II without mentioning Hitler or the Nazi party.
"Will the bombing help us bring the Sept. 11 criminals and future terrorists to justice?" Khan asks?
Why, yes, exactly so. Thanks for asking. The U.S. cannot bring terrorists to justice if it cannot search for and find them. If the U.S. is able to kill Al Qaeda leaders and terrorists, that promotes justice by preventing their ability to commit further attacks on this country.
Alternatively, if and when the U.S. finds terrorists alive, it can grill them for information about past terrorism, future terrorist plans, other Al Qaeda members, financial supporters and so forth. But again, gaining free access to Afghanistan was necessary for that search process.
Khan ominously warns, "The death of civilians from our bombs - 'collateral damage' to use the military term - will bring new volunteers to the cause of terrorism."
Stuff and nonsense. First, there has been little such "collateral damage." Bombs and missiles guided by lasers or using Global Positioning System have been remarkably accurate. Gratifyingly few civilians have been killed - far, far fewer than the number of, ahem, civilians killed in the World Trade towers.
Second, rather than volunteering for anti-U.S. terrorism, Afghans seemed elated to be free of the repressive Taliban regime. They celebrated, they played music, they danced, they crowded into movie theaters, men shaved. As one Afghan man told National Public Radio, "We are grateful to the Pentagon for what they have done."
Afghans were no longer whipped if they failed to pray. Women could show their faces, go out in public alone, begin going to school. People could criticize the regime. Could we call these "collateral benefits" of the bombing? You bet. But not Khan.
But you might ask, why does the IGLHRC take a position on U.S. military actions in Afghanistan. What is the gay angle? Funny you should ask.
"IGLHRC takes a clear position against the bombing of Afghanistan ... our concern grows out of our commitment to defending the full range of human rights."
Well, let's see now. The bombing that helped defeat the Taliban regime brought about freedom from religious repression, freedom of movement for women, freedom to be educated, freedom for the press and other media, and the real possibility of democracy for the first time in decades. Are these part of "the full range of human rights"? One might have thought so.
But Khan seems interested in playing the Human Rights card only when it allows her to criticize the U.S., never when it would forced her to acknowledge U.S. virtues.
Straining to find a rationale for her position, Khan then says she is concerned about the 52 Egyptian men tried on charges related to homosexuality. Khan says she fears the U.S. would not oppose their conviction in order to keep Egypt as an ally against Al Qaeda.
We have all criticized Egypt's persecution of gays. But the idea that Egyptian courts would cater to U.S. desires seems as doubtful as the idea that Egypt's support hinged on U.S. silence about the trial. In any case, about half the men were released and the others given 1-3 year terms.
By contrast, under the Taliban regime homosexuals were executed, and by barbaric means. Somehow, supporting efforts to eliminate a regime that murders homosexuals might seem an even greater priority for the IGLHRC than protesting one that imprisons some for a short while. But not for Khan.
And could the IGLHRC pause to mention that the Egyptian persecution of gays is simply a government response to pressure from Islamic fundamentalists for moral purity codes, exactly the same source of anti-gay persecution as in Afghanistan. No, not a word.
Finally, in a breathtaking display of reckless innocence, Khan blurts out, "Bombs cannot deliver justice."
But, of course, they can.