On April 13, the United States deployed the Massive Ordinance Air Blast, nicknamed the "Mother of All Bombs," on an Islamic State-controlled cave in eastern Afghanistan. Despite the bomb's capabilities, the Islamic State's local radio outlet remained unaffected by the bombing. Officials in Nangarhar are also questioning why "American forces are not letting anyone visit the site of the bombing" according to an April 18 New York Times article. What is your reaction to the use of the bomb and the U.S.'s secrecy?

Taminder Singh ’20

The use of such a significant bomb on such a small area is completely absurd. The former president of Afghanistan took to Twitter to condemn the act and said that Afghanistan should not be a testing ground for U.S. weapons. The U.S.’s being secretive and not allowing anyone else in is worrying due to the fact that the U.S. might not see what it expected. In all honesty, every time a government does not show its fallout to other countries, it is to be considered that something went wrong. I think such an act by the government is not safe, and does not follow protocol, for due to checks and balances the President should check with Congress and ask for approval for attacking in Afghanistan. The U.S. has never officially declared war on ISIS, so all that is going on right now is unconstitutional.

Taminder Singh ’20 is majoring in Economics and Computer Science with a minor in Politics.

David Piegaro ’20

Some reports claim that Afghani military personnel did clear the area after the strike. The same reports claim that nearly 100 ISIL militants were killed by the blast. Others report that Afghani military personnel were barred from entering the area. I don't know which to believe and I'm not sure why the administration has been reluctant to comment. I hope to see a report detailing the effectiveness of the strike issued soon. We should always advocate more transparency. That being said, it’s safe to assume that at least some ISIL members were killed. This is a very good thing. As ISIL's strength wanes so does its ability to wreak chaos in the region. Aerial bombardment minimizes the risks faced by our forces or their Afghani allies. The military personnel who chose to utilize the MOAB know far more about such things than I do, and I trust they chose the best device to reach their tactical goals.

David Piegaro ’20 is a member of Brandeis Israel Public affairs Committee

Prof. Yehudah Mirsky (NEJS, SCIS)

The question we usually ask in military operations and elsewhere is “what is the objective” and “are these the means best suited to it?” Ordinarily, the use of one type of ordnance or another is a tactical decision entrusted to the military commanders on the ground that civilians second-guess at our peril. But this is different, precisely because of the way the administration seems to have hijacked the Pentagon spokesman's normal procedures, touting this action in distinctly unprofessional ways. This, taken with other ham-handed defense-related messaging indicates that, having worked to discredit and utterly politicize the judiciary, the intelligence community and more, the Trump administration is set on politicizing, and thus undermining the credibility, effectiveness and even legitimacy of the U.S. military. Here as elsewhere, this tough-guy bluster reveals a stunning disdain for, and lack of faith in, American democracy.

Prof. Yehudah Mirsky (NEJS, SCIS) is a professor of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies and the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies.

Alex Friedman ’19

The right in this country frequently has a rather phallic lust for flashy warfare. Our last Republican's 'Shock and Awe' strategy comes to mind. That's not to forget 'Rolling Thunder,' but history is complex. Regardless, here's the problem: if you have to use your largest conventional weapon to strike a meaningful blow against an enemy, that is not a good sign about how your fight against them is going. Additionally, when fighting a group like ISIS, the more narrowly tailored your attacks, the better. It has been said before, but if you use a bomb that kills ten enemies, but you anger forty new people into becoming fighters, your attack was a failure. I think strikes like these look masculine and dramatic, while playing right into the hands of the terrorists. As far as secrecy goes, there could be dozens of reasons. Speculation, at this stage, feels like creating conspiracy theories. We should be far more worried that there is an ISIS group in Afghanistan that is entrenched enough that we thought only the MOAB could stop it, when Afghanistan already has an effective terrorist group of its own.

Alex Friedman ’19 is a double major in Politics and Business.