On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Julia Thompson wrote: > > "The Taliban must be destroyed," I think. IIRC, it's a riff on "Carthago > > delenda est," or "Carthage must be destroyed." Which, considering what > > Rome did to Carthage, probably isn't the best of analogies since the > > historical prcedent involved laying waste to an entire nation--precisely > > what we claim we don't want to do. > > But you note that what was said was "TALIBAN delenda est" and not > "Afghanistan delenda est." I'd take great exception to the latter. If > the Taliban can be destroyed without doing much damage to the rest of > Afghanistan, then it's a reasonable sentiment, IMHO.
My problem with using that particular Latin phrase is that it invokes a historical precedent which suggests that in order to destroy the bad guys (the pirates and army of Carthage in Rome's case, or al Qaeda and the Taliban in America's case) it's appropriate to erase the entire population from the face of the earth. I'm sure that's not John's intent--I suspect he's merely going for dramatic effect--but there's a mixing of historical metaphor and precedent at work that sticks in my craw. If a person says, "Destroy the Taliban!" it's easy to see that he only means to destroy the Taliban. But if a person says, "Taliban delenda est," he invokes the example of Rome's actions against Carthage and implicitly suggests that we follow that example. By analogy that would mean annihilating Afghanistan (and maybe even Pakistan) if that's what it takes to destroy the Taliban. Again, I'm sure that that's not what John intends. But I think that one can't borrow the historical allusion without also borrowing the baggage attached to it. Marvin Long Austin, Texas "If you will not grant me victory, then grant me vengeance!" Conan the Barbarian "Blessed are the peacemakers." Jesus Christ
