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
TAYLOR: The slush fund’s defeat is a reminder that our damaged institutions still function
By Nat Taylor | 2 days agoIt is worth celebrating this momentary triumph, if only to inspire confidence in our democracy again.
CARON: Legal does not mean accessible for reproductive rights in Virginia
By Jenna Caron | 3 days agoVirginians must affirm the VRRFA by voting it into the Constitution of Virginia and encourage their representatives to pursue consistent accessibility.
COHEN: The Honor Committee should rethink its approach to punishment
By Ryan Cohen | 5 days agoIf accountability is to remain at the heart of honor, then consequences must do more than educate — they must also reflect the seriousness of the violations committed.
