Justification for retaliation against acts of hatred proves to be very difficult to develop, maintain, and most of all prove. The September 11th assault that "was so sudden and so shocking that it seemed to obliterate many of the doubts that were the legacy of the country's tortured Vietnam experience. Polls show that up to 90% of Americans support a military response," wrote Mark Barabak. However was this support justified? Would a military response that would destroy yet another nation be moral? That would tear apart families, leave orphans, and spawn more hatred and vengeance? I believe that not only does the current military intervention in Afghanistan do all this but it creates other damages to nations other than Afghanistan nor does it account for the lives lost in the battle that is supposedly between right and evil, but rather in my eyes, evil and those who want to get back at evil.
             The pulverizing of a battred country just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians have already been killed by U.S. bombing in pursuit of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon has confirmed numerous instances of "collateral damage," including a 2,000-pound bomb that struck a residential area near Kabul. The United States' perceived disregard for collateral damage may lead many to conclude that we are waging a war against Muslims writ large. In so doing, we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of people who are necessary in the fight against terrorism.
             Our attacks on population centers are causing a huge refugee problem that neighboring countries can't handle. By October 12, 350,000 people had amassed in the northern Panjsher Gorge and over 150,000 had fled to the provinces of Tahor and Badakhshan.(Barabak) United Nations officials predict that 1.5 million will leave their homes, risking mass starvation in the brutal Afghan winter to escape the bombings. (Kurtz)
             This influx of Afghans into Pakist...