Sam Novack's Tuesday column on the burning of Qurans in Afghanistan (Feb. 28, "Apology unaccepted") highlights the problem with how so many of us view the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
Sure, you can make an argument about how the United States should not apologize to anyone for our offenses against "our enemies," but that is an argument drenched in a naive and moralistic self-righteousness about our perceived mission in Afghanistan - good vs. evil, democracy vs. extremism, tolerance vs. intolerance. The United States has a military objective in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban so that a U.S. political objective can be achieved - namely, the legitimization of a stable, democratic, pro-American government. A positive relationship with the U.S. and positive perception of the U.S. cannot be achieved by insulting local culture and values, even if it was "inadvertent." So, unfortunately for Novack and his cowboy sensibilities, our political objectives do require our "bending over backwards to avoid offending anyone," especially if it is the people with whom we are trying to build a future.
Kelsey Goodman\nCLAS IV
Read More
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 10 hours agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 19 hours agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
GILLIKIN and JOHNSON: U.Va., please rescind your Federal Executive Institute bid
By Steven L. Johnson and Matthew Gillikin | 2 days agoBy withdrawing its competing bid and endorsing the Charlottesville City Schools’ bid, the University has a high-profile opportunity to strengthen its partnership with Charlottesville City Schools.
