There was some controversy lately when reports
from the International Red Cross in Afghanistan
indicated they were helping Taliban terrorists
with direct first aid, and training in first aid.
There is the problem with aiding and abetting the enemy,
but the Red Cross explains they could never be allowed
to operate if they took sides in any conflict.
Here is a direct example of the more complex
ethics is real world situations. One maxim comes
up against another. In their case they claim
the answer is obvious.


Is their position correct?

By aiding the Taliban, perhaps Taliban will allow them to aid more civilians! Because, the truth is... there are many IEDs in Afghanistan and this bombs is remote controlled. I saw in NatGeo's INSIDE, alot of US soldier has been blown by this bomb*, so it is safer if the Red Cross don't take side. It is not worth being kidnapped or looted! -I think this is a good example of "the lesser evil": go save several enemy to save hundred of people.

*also in the movies The Hurt Locker.

When two people are fighting do you 1. break up the fight or 2. administer first aid so they can continue fighting? The Red Cross is probably doing more harm than good.

But maybe they are actually doing good!! Because... you know, you really need civilian support to win this war against terrorism. -because, terrorist like the Taliban and historically similar communist insurgence during after WW2 was mostly supported and feed by the locals themselves (the local may be forced to cooperate or is voluntarily cooperate), so, by showing them some kindness, you could sway their support (or change the mind of their elder and youngsters) toward your side, hence you'll cut-off the terrorist from their supply, and eventually win the war.

A step taken towards building trust is the right step to take.

I find it interesting that the focus of most of the replies is premised off of the good guy v. the bad guy. The Taliban's acts against civilians is certainly reprehensible but this alone does not define good and bad. Lets not forget that the armed forces of this great nation and virtually every other country has too acted against civilians. The immediate issue is not whose the good guy and whose the bad guy, the Taliban probably don't think of themselves as being the bad guy, so its relative, the immediate issue is if a demonstratively neutral institution has a right to offer help equally to both sides of a conflict regardless of who acted the most reprehensible the most recently or infamously. The deeper issue is the nature of conflict itself and whether or not there are addressable issues that can reduce organized military conflict as it is currently defined. Maybe a different thread though.