I know this only vaguely belongs in this forum, but having read some of the ridiculous things bouncing around on this message board over the past week, I felt I had to share this one way or the other. Mods, please move at your discretion.
Please read this article. It is very short.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html
The article makes tremendous sense to me, and it addresses my worst fears about the current crisis in the U.S. I agree that Bin Laden is hoping that the U.S. and its western allies respond with tremendous force against Islamic targets; thereby, alienating even moderate Muslims. I hope and pray that common sense and patience will dominate the U.S. response to this crisis. Our battle should be with terrorists and the people who directly support them. By harming already impoverished and suffering people, such as those in Afghanistan, we will be commiting our own crime against humanity, while creating many enemies. Ironically, I believe that the current crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the U.S. to reach out in peace and understanding to peoples and governments with whom they have had strained relations in the past. It is remarkable that Pakistan has approached the Taliban to encourage them to hand over Bin Laden.
We will better “avenge” the deaths of our innocent citizens by destroying the widespread terrorist cells, while waging peace with our global neighbors.
!
The only way to “do what needs to be done” is to insert ground forces. We will take inevitably take casualties. Since we have taken thousands already, we should be realistic about weighing the risks. There are evidently substantial risks to not commiting ground forces. Those who say it is not “worth one U.S. soldier” are unrealistic about both the “sterility” and efficacy of an air campaign.
I have no desire to bomb Afghanistan, nor do I think this conflict is bounded within Afghani borders. Without doubt Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and many other nations share some culpability for supporting and harboring terrorists.
I have no love for the Taliban, intolerant tyrants that they are. Afghanis and many other people apparently share that view. Including many predominantly Islamic nations. To indiscriminatly kill Afghani citizens would do no harm to the Taliban or Osama Bin Laden, but it very well might strenghten their regime and garner international support for Bin Laden. I would rather not act than act so rashly we increase the risk of terrorism. Neither is a good option.
I hope something good will come out of all this for the Afghani people. They have endured more than their share of manipulation and brutality from powers with no concern for their well being, including unfortunately their government.
The writer of the article mentions Hitler. Well in order to get to Hitler we had to go thru Italy and France and then Germany. All of those folks are now our friends. When we get to OsB and the Taliban then we will probably rebuild Alfghanistan like we did Germany and the rest of Europe (not to count Japan).
Except that France/Italy/etc were occupied by the Germans at the time, while Pakistan is an independant, unoccupied country (albeit with a lot of Taliban sympathisers).
Gp
in another thread, someone suggested that we bomb them back to the 20th century. go in with TVs, VCRs, solar power packs, girly mags, computers with the internet etc, build up the schools and teach the women to read and give them cosmo. that might be interesting
So, kill them with kindness? That might be like trying to coddle a porcupine.
I’d be all for it of we could be sure that they wouldn’t turn around and reverse-engineer their new VCRs to learn how to make ICBMs. Or use their new farm lands to grow even more opium for export. The borders in that region are very unstable too; I’m afraid that a little pocket of American-Muslim liberalism wouldn’t last long.
Going in to remove the Taleban from power is a splendid idea – in fact it might have been a good idea for a long time now.
Only, it is all a thousand times more difficult than it sounds at first. Look what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan: a decade of war and in the end they could only leave in total defeat. Militarily and topologically, it is probably one of the most difficult areas in the world to take over. And any war with the Taleban is bound to affect the general populace that is just barely able to survive in the first place.
I wonder if the intelligence services really have enough information on how to find those involved without going through a great deal of unnecessary destruction first.
Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions or responses. But it is important to show as much patience as possible. As they say: “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
As has been mentioned in other threads, the Taliban had significant US and Arab support when they were fighting against the Russians. Now, lacking that support, and with all outside support effectively cut off (food, fuel, and ammunition), they simply couldn’t maintain any kind of defense for anything like the amount of time they fought against the Russians.
I, too, hope that the non-Taliban populace is spared even further suffering. Poor bastards have had the Taliban standing on their necks for so long now.
Having just used the cliché about “revenge” in the hope of supporting a more thoughtful response to all this, I do realize that even “revenge served cold” is a dangerous substitute for cold and determined justice.
According to ObL Afghanistan’s culture is the best in the world, since it is free of western influences. There’d probably be as much resistence to the above invasion as to a military one.
Possibly, but with its mountains and valleys, Afghanistan offers practically unlimited hiding places to anyone prepared to fight a long-term guerilla war. And believe me, they are.
(Sorry about the discontinuity of my posts – bad timing.)
the people, but this part seems dubious to me:
“There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves.”
Correct me if I’m wrong.
One optimistic amendment I’d add to the article quoted is that a move into Afghanistan wouldn’t necessarily involve “conquering Pakistan”. There remains a (slim) possibility that Pakistan may cooperate to some degree against the Taleban, and there are also northern routes of approach through Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan for instance.
Any ground war would be very hard though, even without the support the mujahideen received from the US against the Soviets.
Dropping symbols of Western “culture” is certainly an “interesting” concept, and a much better idea than “bombing them into the Stone Age”, but it has only limited mileage the way it’s been described. To begin with – how are people without electricity going to use their shiny new TVs and PCs? (Fortunately you can also forget about back-engineering them into ICBMs for the same reason). Playboy and Cosmo, however, would confirm all the worst fears about the West for devout Muslims, and even suggesting stuff like that shows a worrying ignorance about their beliefs.
I think the writer is correct in setting out what may well be the worst case scenario as this plays out. I think it is appropriate to take a hard look at the worst that could happen before engaging in any action.
That said, and fully understanding the potential ramifications, my response to “Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?” is: I do. And I hope my country does.
I do not believe in appeasement. I do not believe in peace at any cost. I believe in justice above all things – certainly above peace.
Even a long-term guerilla war is less likely since even guerillas must eat and have their ammunition resupplied. They’d have to engage at some point thereby using up irreplacable materiel. In other words, every battle they’d fight would be a loser.
A man hiding in a cave with no food, no water, no communication, and guns that can’t shoot isn’t much of an enemy.
“Even peace may be purchased at too high a price” – Ben Franklin
“There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves.”
Given what we know about such people as Hitler and Milosevich, and given what we know about how fanatical Muslims treat their women (let alone the widows of men they overthrew), the idea of them slaughtering women en masse doesn’t seem implausible.
These guys don’t play. Women are routinely stoned to death for religious sacrilege over there. “Religious sacrilege”, by the way, can consist of showing part of a bare arm. And no woman is safe from mob justice, if she’s audacious enough to leave her home.
Beagle, the scenario you posit is probably one of the most accurate. I just dread the thought that 5,000 more from our military could lose their lives as well. The price that our nation has paid is already beyond measure. That we should have to pay another scintilla of it over again defies imagination.
That’s why my own compunctions are rapidly fading when it comes to lobbing a few cruise missiles into the 200-300 mullahs convened in Qandahar. A decapitating strike is the only fast psuedo-solution there is (because just about all of them are psuedo-solutions). We are bound to this task by the blood spilled in New York and around the world. What they have done to befoul the name of Islam is ghastly as it is detestable. We have finally found the Ebola virus of civilization, this is the flesh eating bacteria of humanity. It makes my gorge rise to think that our current administration propped up this repressive regime in May, just before they were about to fail.
Zenster, I already called you on this b.s. in your own thread. You might want to explain yourself there before you go on spreading this crap.