I disagree - the events of the past week have shown the devestation that 20 people can cause… surely that many can kill a few people.
The fact that so many people seem to think that wiping out Osama bin Laden is going to put an end to this problem is the best evidence of the profound lack of understanding of the underlying political situation in the Middle East.
The situation is complex and multifaceted and involves the totality of US involvement in the region in the postwar period. It boils down to the fact that public opinion in the region is overwhelmingly negative vis a vis US policy in the region. This extends not only to US policy vis a vis Palestine, but to the repressive political forces which the US has supported in individual states in the region.
It is a mistake to believe that the people of the region are unsophisticated people. They live there and deal daily with the consequence of US policy in the region. They are increasingly angry and the moderate leadership in some of these states is increasingly isolated and discredited as a large section of public opinion has concluded that it is powerless or unwilling to resist what is seen as US meddling in the affairs of the region to the detriment of the people who live there.
Increasingly, the third or fourth generation of this region reject the calls for moderation of their elders as treason and are increasingly drawn to the call of the fundamentalists for a holy war against the US. It is an extremely dangerous situation, and has been so for some time. It is a hard mouthful for Americans to swallow but eventually they will have to confront this fundamental reality.
Grave and unpredictable consequence could result from any massive US military operation in the region. So-called moderate government could fall to be replace by Islamic fundamentalist regimes. It’s very difficult to imagine what the US could do to prevent this once the momentum develops. In the case of Pakistan, there is the very real possibility of a Taliban-type regime coming to power and having access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Bottom line. We’d better know what the possible consequence of military action can be.
I’ll stick my already well-exposed neck out in order to suggest that any ground action in Afghanistan is pretty much out of the question (as the Soviets learned). So, let’s tally up the alternatives, no ocean front property sorta rules out the navy, that leaves? Bingo… an air strike! And the prefered method of air engagement is by using? Bombs!
Terrorists are well known for secreting themselves in large civilian populations in order to deter aerial attacks upon themselves. How do you counter that? Special forces are a real long shot and are more needed for mopping up any further attempts by terrorists. Why send in a specialist when there is a blanket solution? As much as I detest being indiscriminate in time of war, the ultimately indiscriminate acts of bin Laden’s organization murdered thousands of our people. The Taleban has acknowledeged the presence of bin Laden within their country and made no effort to expel him. Ergo, they are acting in concert before or after the fact. They must be deposed and replaced with an interim multinational government until democracy can take root.
Our track record in the world at large is good enough where a slight degree of overkill will not get us any less well thought of than we are already. I would venture to say that the majority of Muslims who are nearly if not equally as horrified as any of us are would be little shocked by near obliteration of the entire Afghani nation in reprisal. The Taleban have left a permanent blood stain on the hem of Islam’s robe. No member of Islam will be very surprised by whatever we end up doing. We are speaking of a culture that cuts off hands for stealing. Mass murder on such a scale is an unspeakable offense and merits extreme retaliation.
The few extremist groups that espouse violence, such as HAMAS and its like are generally condemned in mainstream Muslim religion. So, again, I do not see where our image will suffer much more than it already has and I do see where (as I argue in my own thread) there is immense benefit in making an example of the Afghani people for the enlightenment of all other terrorist nations. You may scoff at the term “enlightenment”, but if we are able to adequately convey our message the very first time we are forced to voice it, then we may never have to repeat ourselves again.
To be half-hearted or tepid in our response in any way will almost ensure that we will have to take a series of actions in Afghanistan instead of just one. Reprisal on a scale that begets immediate compliance would be far more honorable than a dragged out campaign. Anyone who has read Scylla’s thread in this same forum knows that I do not in any way advocate the use of nuclear weapons in this situation. I do believe that a major retaliation is in order, but escalating to nuclear attack will almost assure nuclear reprisal. However, while we continue to prosecute terrorism it should never be taken off the table as an option.
Besides, we already have the technology to create nuclear scale non-atomic blasts with fuel-air bombs. A few demonstration hits in remote areas might persuade the Mullahs to abdicate. If not, then the application of one to Kabul should inflict sufficient harm to their own enforcement infrastructure where a well armed internal rebellion could have a chance of succeeding.
To semi-quote Scylla, “The Taleban, and not us, have put the Afghani people at risk as surely as if they thrust them in front of a hurtling truck.”
This is the simple fact of the matter. If we shrink in our duty to make a punishing blow of stunning proportions against the Taleban, we will be shortchanging ourselves in every ensuing attempt to excise this cancer on humanity for once and all. There is no simple solution. We are forced to consider and implement what was once unthinkable to avert the undreamed of at the hands of suicidal madmen. These maggots are Kamikaze on a stunning scale and only a stunning retribution will give them pause.
To worry about the condemnation of morally compromised people is only to bother ourselves at a moment when we need to be concentrating on the task at hand. It will merely throw off our aim when it must be most steady. Do not forget that any one of us now alive could be instead burned and buried in the rubble. This was an attack upon every single American and nothing less than an outright declaration of war.
War is what we have on our hands. If you do not have the stomach for it then leave it to those that do. It is a nasty, dirty business on the best of days and pure Hell on the rest. What is soon to come will not be pretty and it will require the killing of many thousands to finally exterminate those who would not flinch from the chance to kill millions. Think very carefully of how limited you want this (what can only be called radical) surgery to be. This malignant polyp is so virulent that it must be removed entirely the very first time. Any recurrence is the least desirable outcome and it needs to be addressed foremost.
Believe me, I wish all this were all otherwise, I truly do. I just happen to know that it is not.
We’re in the same ballpark here, but I’m out in right field while you’re standing in the dugout. Or I’m in the bullpen while you’re selling hot dogs in the stands. Whatever. My point is that an armed response is absolutely required-we will not deter terrorism any other way than to root out the perpetrators and kill them. I contend that we must do so with an eye towards keeping the moderate Islamic factions on our side. They are there now, but to ignore that and bomb indescriminately would put them against us, and sew the seeds for more attacks, this time from people who were on our side originally. Wouldn’t it be better to use this fundamental groundswell of support from around the globe to specifically kill terrorist groups who can not be reasoned with, while at the same time strengthening moderate Islamic groups who will treat with us as equals by eliminating the radicals who keep them from gaining the upper hand?
Zenster,
You’re making a few big mistakes and assumptions here.
The Soviets sought to occupy Afghanistan. Agreed that that would be impossible. Fortunately, we need to do nothing of the kind.
You don’t- at least not how you mean. You target the terrorist while realizing collateral dammage will occur. Youdo everything in your power to limit the dammage to innocent civilians.
No, they ( the Taliban ) must be annialated, and a moderate government be allowed to take their place. Speaking of a “multinational government” is the providence of fools. People always demand to govern themselves. We must make the moderate alternative the attractive one.
If you truly believe this, my friend, you are sadly deluded. Our “track record” with these people is, from their POV, very bad indeed.
You would be wrong. You’re equating what a society does to an individual lawbreaker with how that society would react to an attack on it’s whole. That’s very dangerous.
Oh? and where do the Afghani peope have a say in what the Taliban does. You’re flailing around looking for justification.
Agreed. We need to do it right from the get go. That’s the point of my thread.
FAE bombs only produce near nuclear results when used in a confined area. The desert of Afghanistan dosen’t meet the criteria. Sorry, try again.
You’re dreaming of a bloodless solution. It’s a fantasy. If you look at the second part of the statement, however, it’s what I have been advocating.
Agreed- but with a HUGE coda. The task at hand WILL require that we kill thousands of terrorists. Civilian casualties are inevitable. As long as we are going after terrorists, we are in the right. When we seek to bomb everyone, we not only lose world opinion, we sell our American soul for the fleeting pleasure of temporary vengance. To do that would make us a pariah among nations, and rightfully so.
Finally, Zen ole buddy, ole kid, ole sock. Don’t lecture me on the necessity of war. I know it better than you. Only difference between us is that I am arguing for effective war, and you are arguing for war in general, prolly because you’re hurt. We all hurt, man. Don’t let it override your intelect.
Regardless of the President’s terminology at the moment, the United States is not, technically, at war until the Congress declares it so.
Nifty little thing, that there Constitution.
Zenster -
“Why send in a specialist when there is a blanket solution?”
"I’ll stick my already well-exposed neck out in order to suggest that any ground action in Afghanistan is pretty
much out of the question (as the Soviets learned). So, let’s tally up the alternatives, no ocean front property sorta rules out the navy, that leaves? Bingo… an air strike! And the prefered method of air engagement is by using? Bombs! "
I have already debated you on this point in your thread and received no response.
I believe pissing into the wind is the correct term for this situation so all I will say is that Dave has it right.
True. But the discussion was about an executive order, and what it actually means. We’re not talking the Constitution, we’re arguing legalities. Under our legal system now, assisination would be legal. Thank you for playing Monty, Don Pardo will now tell you about the Rice-a-Roni you have won. 
Because that sets too dangerous of a precedent. As my father pointed out, and Barak pointed out, Israel uses terrorism to combat terrorism. So Israel would be a terrorist state. If we take the holier than thou approach and start attacking terrorism, we are more or less using terrorism to fight terrorism, in other words trying to make people too afraid to be terrorists. The line blurs into a tyrannical US deciding what is ok, and what isn’t and each new administration has a different idea on what terrorism is. The line is just too sticky. Combatting terrorism is combatting war. Don’t forget that the US was started by terrorists. According to the British methods of fighting war, our guerilla style tactics, were terrorism.
The best way to fight terrorism is a swift and complete response when it is perpetrated against us, or our direct allies. (which incidentally we never have with Israel OR England.) And then, to condemn war completely, and fight war by not going to war. War IS terrorism, just because we make up rules to make ourselves feel better about it doesn’t make it less terrorism.
Erek
Man, southerners are sometimes so charming that you just can’t avoid liking what they have to say.
I’m not a southerner so I don’t know about any kind of code of honor inherent in being one, but I do agree with what you have said.
Erek
[Moderator Hat: ON]
ExTank said:
Just because somebody else is tossing around insults doesn’t mean you have to as well. Your point would have been made just fine without it, AND you wouldn’t have been getting a warning from me.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
I think that those involved in just about any part of this and of other outrages need to be taken out, I don’t think hauling them off for trial - no matter how fair - will do any good at all since it will always be seen in a certain way by the Islamic world and will cause immense security problems.
I do think that for those who think they have nothing to lose and everything to gain through terrorism need those values replacing, they need to have hope, the prospect of material improvement and control over their lives rather than have a cleric do it for them.
Education is one thing needed but when your country has suffered years of drought and war as Afghanistan has or when you see your mortal enemies steamrollering your community in Palestine, in the radical Muslim’s eye view.
They should be clothed, fed, educated and trained, given real control in their lives, their lives should be closer to ours in a material sense, and in the democratic sense.
Revolution and violence grow well in the barren ground of poverty and deprivation, we need to water it with hope and money.
That sounds like a bribe, maybe it is but it worked in the Marshall plan, without it who know what would have happened to Greece, Turkey, Italy, Japan.
Following that kind of logic the US govt would be obliged to launch strikes against all the ‘backwoods / survivalist’ militia training camps on US soil - arguably these would fit the description of “terrorist camps” which have potential to harm US citizens (especially in the light of the Oklahoma bombing).
Indeed, given the warlike pronouncements many of these groups have come out with against a variety of different nations and religions one could perhaps argue that eg. Arab or communist states have as much right to apply the principle advocated above themselves and launch attacks on the US.
As a Brit am I to assume that I shall soon see US troops parachuting into Ireland to wipe out IRA training centres?
I am in no way a fan of the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” line, but this kind of reaction perhaps serves to underline the view of many throughout this world that the US is attempting to impose its moral opinions on everyone else. The USA training Israeli troops are equipping soldiers in the fight for freedom and justice; the Afghans supporting ‘islamic’ militants are promoting terrorism. Depending on your viewpoint the opposite rings true as well.
Let’s clear the world of terrorist scum - but perhaps we might be better starting with our own (and by ‘our’ I mean those in “The West”) affairs…
The United States will retaliate against the terrorism of the WTC and Pentagon.
-
An NPR commentator said that right now the US probably occupies the highest moral ground in it’s history. No matter what retaliation is done will garner criticism from somebody somewhere. This is a given.
-
The retaliation will involve the loss of US life. This is probably stating the obvious but let’s make sure we’re all on the same page. 18 terrorists accepted the rules of kamikaze to accomplish their act.
-
The retaliation should be swift and decisive. The last thing the US needs do is enter another Vietnam.
-
To be effective the retaliation absolutely must (a) strike fear in the heart of every terrorist in the world and (b) every nation that would harbor such terrorists.
Those seem to be the ground rules.
I am on the edge of my seat with this thread, because there is a distinct indication of well reasoned and thoughtful reactions regarding the US’s future course of action. Maybe someone should bring it to the attention of the state department when it’s run its course.
That said, there are several ideas mentioned above that interest me. While I agree with the assessment that the US doesn’t need another Vietnam out of this situation, I also think that swift and decisive action is not the best course.
Another thread brought up the old chestnut that revenge is a dish best served cold; while I think all would agree that prevention and extermination of terrorist elements (rather than revenge) should drive our thinking, the strategy should be the same: retaliation needs to be measured and delivered with maximum damage to the roots of the problem. However, I truly believe there are many ways in addition to military action that we can strike a blow.
The problem of not having the capabilities to take out the enemy with “surgical precision” (obviously the most ideal scenario) is troubling to me. I definitely think a show of force is warranted (I have no idea of exactly what it should be, but I agree it must be done); I would also advocate some creative thinking about how to make the Afghani regime shrivel and die by other methods which would complement any military action. What I would like to see happen is this: along with multi-nation trade embargos, sanctions (or other means of ruining its economy), encourage massive emigration from the country, particularly the lifeblood of its infrastructure. Make it attractive for Afghani scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, hell, even lower level Islamic priests, and the like, to come to the West. Apparently some 10,000 (last I heard) had crossed the border in fear of a war starting there. If that number turned into 1 million, that’s 4% of its population. I’ll bet the Taliban would think twice if it saw its subjects draining away. Then who could point the finger at an imperialist West?
Maybe this has already been mentioned - but I haven’t seen it, so I will mention it here. Retribution, revenge, or whatever you want to call it, - should be just one key purpose behind any military strike.
I believe another - perhaps the - key purpose should be to send a clear message that the US will stand by, and defend, with our own sweat and blood, our allies and friends in democracy and freedom, when under attack.
In Japan, particularly older people who remember WWII and are, rightly, perhaps, proud of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution that bans the use of military force and revokes Japan’s right to a standing army. Many of these people have told me that the US should refrain from ‘any violence’.
I don’t think they understand the message this would send. Forget the message this sends to terrorists (attack us with impunity!). What would this say to our allies? If we aren’t going to retaliate or defend US blood, we sure as hell aren’t going to help or defend Japanese blood. Or Korea. Or Taiwan. Or the UK, or any other country in Europe. Despite the opposition to US troops being stationed in foreign countries (Okinawa troops haven’t done themselves any favor; pretty hard to spin docter the rape of 12yr girls), people realize the presence of the US is preferable to a vacuum - which is what would happen if the US pulls back into a shell.
The Economist puts it very well: 'Thanks to America, and only thanks to America, the world has enjoyed the past decades an age of hitherto unimagined freedom and opportunity. Those who would defect it from its past must not, and surely will not, succeed.
DavidB: as always sir, you are correct.
My apologies to the board’s administrators and moderators, as well as my fellow board members.
And to Dixie Son as well; my commentary was no more warranted than yours was.
Wow.
The world trade center is gone.
The U.S. is running scared from small organizations because collectively we don’t have the stomach for war, even when morality demands it.
ExTank has gotten a moderator warning for inappropriate language.
I haven’t.
NOTHING is right about this. It’s all backwards. What is the world coming to?!
Not that I’m worthy enough to question a moderator, but is “cur” considered that nasty an insult? I can think of a dozen other words ExTank could have used which would’ve been much more offensive; singling him out for “cur” seems kinda trivial to me (but again, I didn’t go to Moderator School, so what do I know?).
In any event, ExTank deserves points for style. 
Joe: I hear you, brother. The feelings of a need to “strike back” quickly and decisively can be overwhelming. Myself and others like thinksnow and Bluesman feel it especially strongly.
But please don’t let the perceived need of not only your fellow countrymen but also your national leadership as well for a rational, measured response lead to feelings of dispair; to feelings that we are sitting idly by and simply “taking this”.
Rest assured that the Green Machine (the Army) takes a while to get moving, but once going, and in concert with our other branches, is an unholy terror that can and will punish the perpetrators, and give any supposed imitators serious pause to consider such future actions.
rjung: style points notwithstanding, nor the relative mildness of my carefully selected perjorative, my comments were inappropriate to this forum.
DavidB, as a moderator, was just doing his moderator thing. It wasn’t personal, and I didn’t take it that way.
Regardless, Dixie Son seems to have departed the Straight Dope; whether as a consequence of my words or for another reason, I’m not sure which, and don’t particularly care.
My TIME Magazine came to day with some horrific photos of the raid on the WTC, including one of people jumping that is enough to raise the bile in your throat. There is an editorial on the last page by Lance Morrow that comes awfully close to my view of the matter. You might read it.