Netters,

I have tried to resist the urge to ignore the flawed proposition that it is immoral for one to favor the use of force to remove the Armed Fools and Recreants Caboodle (AFRC) unless one takes part in the actual fighting. Because this proposition keeps being pushed on us by Ritchard Konteh, Askia, and Hassan Sisay, among others, I must yield to the temptation and give my take on the issue. (Perhaps the teacher in me makes it impossible for me to ignore a teachable moment for too long.)

 For the purpose of this essay, I will assume, given the nature of the proposition, that we have already agreed that it is in the nation's interest to wage war. Hence, I am not concerned here with the argument of whether the current crisis should be settled by a consultative conference or not. I am only concerned with the issue of whether those who favor the war option and contribute to the war effort in ways other than actually fighting on the war front would be acting immorally.

 The whole idea of government in the modern state involves the ceding of individual rights to defend oneself to a central authority whose duty it shall be to defend the state and its people. Hence, we allow that central authority to have a monopoly over the use of violence in order to effect our collective will. The rationale for this arrangement is that the central authority can defend us more efficiently than we can individually. Thus, when we take the Konteh-Koroma-Sisay (KKS) proposition to its its logical conclusion, we would have to conclude that the modern nation state, which has generally put the decision to wage war in the hands of elected officials who never take part in the actual fighting, is itself immoral. And if morality is the litmus test for our actions, then perhaps it would be immoral to save an immoral institution--the modern state. Hence, we should all just sit and let the Armed Fools and Recreants Caboodle (AFRC), itself an immoral cabal of SOBELs and RUFfians, decimate the allegedly immoral nation state.

 Economists teach that in order to get the most mileage out of our resources, we should allocate them to their best alternative uses. This requires that the sacrifice society incurs when it allocates Resource A to Objective 1 rather than Objective 2, for instance, must be lower than the sacrifice it would incur by allocating Resource B to Objective 1 instead of Objective 2.

 We know that the statistical distribution of our abilities and endowments follow the central limit theorem in the sense that most of us are average at doing most things, with the distribution falling as we move in either direction from this average. Our preferences are also very widely dispersed. For instance, there are some among us who enjoy the dangers and inherent risks of military life while some of us cringe at the thought of it. (I made a career decision to never want to be a physician when I passed out at the sight of blood following a ghastly accident near Bo.) There are also those among us who have greater ability relative to others at raising funds, for example, than at carrying AK-47s and RPGs. Some among us have greater organizational ability, relative to their compatriots, than the ability to do other things. Others have a comparative advantage in being thinkers, but are not doers.

 Hence, if we engage ourselves in using our resources in areas in which we have a comparative advantage relative to others, greater efficiency would result, thereby increasing social welfare. From the economist's perspective, therefore, it is not necessary that an artist, for example, be drafted into the army before he/she can contribute to the war effort. The artist merely has to do what he/she is best at, create wealth, and pay taxes to the state, which are used to support the war effort, for him/her to have made a valuable contribution to the society. Individuals who have military ability do not necessarily have to be artists either. For the national objectives to be served in the least costly way, people merely have to do what they do best. And they would all be stakeholders in the major decisions of the nation state.

 In the absence of government therefore (which is what the current situation in Sierra Leone amounts to), would people who do not have a comparative advantage in fighting wars be acting immorally if they do what they do best and tax themselves to finance the war effort? I do not think so, except if society wants to lose the war rather quickly by sending people like me to the war front to pass out at the sight of blood. This is why effective militaries screen for certain military-life-enhancing qualities in the people they recruit or conscript into their ranks so that they get only those who are most productive to society in the military relative to other employment. The absence of such screening perhaps explains the poor performance of the RSLMF against the RUF and the eventual surrender of the former to the latter on May 25.

 I must note that I have never read anywhere that Thomas Jefferson, for example, ever carried a gun during the American revolution. Yet, he and other "warriors by remote control"--such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin (who was actually in Europe at the time) etc.--are credited for making the American revolution possible because they chose to not be "Jack of all trades." On the contrary, they chose to do what they do best--think and articulate reasons for the rebellion--and let others (George Washington, for example) do the actual fighting. In the end, they created a country that is the envy of many. And for choosing to allocate their resources to their areas of comparative advantage, a grateful nation refers to them affectionately as the "the founding fathers".

 We must remember also that the late Ayatollah Khomeini waged a successful "jihad" against the late Shah's regime by providing intellectual and spiritual leadership to the "troops" from the safety of France. Did this fact create any ethical problems for him? I do not think so. Should it have? Absolutely not. Fighting evil from wherever one is, using whatever means that is available to one, is an enviable moral position to take, all other things being equal.

 In our own backyard, we have never worried about the ethics of a "volunteer" army until now. For the past six years, our ethics have not told us that we were acting immorally for supporting the war effort even though we did not join the army and fight. Instead, we relied on the "social contract" inherent in the modern state to support the war effort as civilians. Our ethical considerations did not urge us to oppose the hiring of the British Gurkhas and Executive Outcomes to fight our war. We were all happy being "remote warriors," doing what we could to help the effort. Now that the state has descended into a coma, why is it unethical to support the civil defense militia and/or an ECOMOG force to resuscitate it if we do not actually take part in the fighting?

 I am the first to admit that I will only bear arms in defense of a principle when there aren't other people who can do it more effectively than I could. I am therefore very grateful to the thousands of my compatriots who have volunteered for action in the various civil militia against the AFRC. As a Sierra Leonean who feels totally inept in the business of war, I believe that I can best help the cause of Sierra Leone by supporting these brave compatriots in the following ways: 1) by articulating the rationale for their/our cause; and (2) by providing them with financial and moral support. Just as the late Ayatollah Khomeini waged a Iran's successful "jihad" by providing spiritual and intellectual leadership from the safety of France, the Salone "jihad" can be fought wherever one is. One merely has to contribute to the effort as best as one could. Indeed, fighting against evil in whatever way we can is the most ethical position any human being can take. And, in my book, no greater evil ever befell Salone than the RSLMF's surrender on May 25.

 Much regards,

Kelfala M. Kallon

Department of Economics, University of Northern Colorado -Greeley, CO 80631 * Telephone: