On the evils of terrorism

"A huge explosion in a truck Thursday killed 24 people south of Kabul, including 16 schoolchildren, 4 policemen and 4 bystanders, local officials said, as the death toll among foreign soldiers fighting in Afghanistan rose.

The explosion, which also wounded five civilians, happened in Logar Province when a truck loaded with wood turned over. When the police arrived, militants apparently detonated explosives in the vehicle, causing a blast that scattered debris almost a mile from the scene, officials said.

Attiqullah Lodin, the governor of the province, said that the children had gathered near the overturned truck and were killed when the blast went off. 'Sixteen schoolchildren aged 8 to 12 were killed along with policemen and other civilians,' Mr. Lodin said. He said two shops close to the blast were completely destroyed and rescue crews were working to try to find victims trapped under the rubble. He predicted that the death toll could rise."

Yesterday, I wrote about civilian casualties caused by US/ISAF airstrikes. Today, however, it seems necessary to also comment on the killing of innocents perpertrated by those fighting against the US/ISAF and Afghan government.

The attack described above would likely be considered immoral by most people. Although the attack had the intent of killing Afghan police, children were killed indiscriminately in the blast. The deaths of the civilians are predictable in such bombings, and it defies reason to suggest otherwise.

The militants seem willing to sacrifice civilians in order to achieve their larger goals. In other words, according to them, the ends justify the means. Yet, could their larger goals be achieved through other means?

Philosophers have long found justifications for violence. Generally, the basic assumption is that in order to survive sometimes one must resort to killing. The ends justify the means. Furthermore, according to many philosophers of war, those who reject violent means, such as pacifists, also typically give up hope of overcoming an aggressor.

Yet, there is a strain of pacifist thought that believes self-defense can be achieved through non-violent means. M. K. Gandhi embraced absolute non-violence, however, he believed this did not mean complete passivity.

Gandhi’s philosophy of “non-violent resistance,” or Satyagraha, became the ideological underpinning of a massive social movement that not only achieved its ends, but also left history with an example of how to overcome a powerful adversary through non-violent means. This example changed the course of not only Indian history but also the world’s, as leaders like Martin Luther King and others used non-violent resistance to achieve their ends. Based upon this success, people might reconsider many of the traditional justifications for violence.

Gandhi believed that, “We reap exactly as we sow,” and he argued that using brute force to achieve one’s goals only perpetuates the cycle of violence. He went on to say, “The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.” Gandhi wanted to not just free Indians from British rule; he wanted to eliminate all violence. This rather simple notion, however, is extremely difficult to put into practice in a world plagued by violence. Yet, if the cycle of violence is to be broken, then non-violent means of opposition may be necessary.

According to Gandhi’s concept of non-violent resistance, one actively resists “evil” through non-cooperation and civil disobedience. He wrote, “You can govern us only so long as we remain the governed.” For Gandhi, and the Indian independence movement this idea came to mean mass resistance to English rule of India. This resistance came in many forms: boycotts of goods, courts, schools and legislatures, and running parallel institutions to perform these functions, non-payment of taxes, strikes, and more.

Non-violent resistance, however, also occurred through the willing acceptance of jailings, beatings, and even death. He called on his followers to be non-violent “soldiers,” willing to die for their cause. For Gandhi the ends justified the means. He believed that empathy for those jailed, beaten, and killed would elicit pity from the oppressors; and that they would eventually see the evil in their actions.

Gandhi thought that, “the force of love and pity is infinitely greater than the force of arms.” Empathy, truth, and love are fundamental to human nature, according to Gandhi, and they are the driving force of world history not violence. He argued, “the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of the success of this force is to be found in the fact that, in spite of the wars of the world, it still lives on.” This long-term view allowed Gandhi to endure short-term suffering.


Which brings us back to the militants in Afghanistan. In the short-term, they may kill a few policeman and soldiers, but they also kill many innocents. The militants may frighten some who stand against them, but they surely provoke opposition as well. More importantly, they perpetuate the cycle of violence, bringing them neither peace nor freedom.

It is well past time for the militants of Afghanistan to find other means to achieve their ends.