I know that there are currently quite a few protests in the U.S. especially on college campuses about the current military operations. I’m far from a war hawk, but I certainly see the need for military action. My question is, what do those who feel the military action is wrong want to see done instead?
I was a hawk. I would like to see them support the northern forces and help them rebuild their country. I think that most activists want there to be arrests and trials only of the guilty parties.
I haven’t heard the protests, so I don’t know their objections. I have a few reservations of my own, though. When you leap into a war, you should have some end game in mind. Sure, we want to cripple OBL’s network, and boot out the draconian Taliban, but what then? The corrupt fools who ran Afghanistan before the Taliban were doing the country no good. The entire economy is based on opium and heroin. Everything else is smuggled in. This is not a place you’d land in and say,“This would be a great place to start a…” Since the Russian war, most of the country lies in rubble. If we win (the Russians didn’t,) we can’t just walk away. The Bushguys surely can’t accept the heroin industry (Afghans make about 70% of the world’s heroin.) If we can destroy that, we’ll have to replace it with some other gainful industry. We’ll have to start from scratch, and build a happy country for those painfully poor people. The US got out of the colony business a long time ago, and nobody here remembers how it’s done. I believe today’s soldiers will see their sons going to Afghanistan. It’s not a pretty picture.
Their point of view is as follows:
-
Before we started bombing there were signs that the Taliban government were starting to crumble from within.
-
There are reports that many Taliban soldiers were defecting and at least one town has stopped obeying Taliban orders.
-
The Afghan people do not like the Taliban anyway so there is a feeling in that country that they would like to be rid of them.
-
If the Taliban fell then Bin Laden would be handed over by the new regime.
-
Its better if the Taliban are brought down by their own people rather than by a foreign force (especially a US “Christian” force) because:
a. Its better for the muslim world - they will feel like they are sorting their own problems out
b. Its better for the west - they can achieve all their objectives without having to risk US and British lives.
-
The Afghanis are patriotic and the bombing campaign may cause them to band together if they feel they are being attacked by an outside force. Thus more lives will be lost than if we had let them do it themselves. Even though they don’t like the Taliban they may stick by them rather than capitulate to foriegners.
-
Those who oppose military action feel we could have achieved our objectives by freezing the assets of the Taliban and Al Queida, presenting our evidence for the guilt of Bin Laden to the Taliban and waiting a bit longer to see what happened.
-
On no account will the Northern Alliance take power, they are no better than the Taliban and represent only minority ethnic groups.
Personally I support military action as long as it gets rid of the Taliban. Its more important to get rid of the Taliban than it is to get rid of Al Queida. Bin Laden may have killed thousands in NY but the Taliban persecute millions. Getting rid of the Taliban will naturally have the effect of damaging Al Queida.
They were killing 20 people a day for infringing their extreme laws. They made all Hindus wear a yellow armband (where have we heard that before?). They throw acid into womens faces because they aren’t covered up. They have strict rules on the length of mens hair and all men must have a beard. The list goes on.
The current action will, I fear, not eradicate the world of Al Queida. They are in many countries, they are an underground terrorist group, they will disperse. Even catching OBL himself will make little difference. The aim of the US Government is to make it harder for A-Q to operate by targeting countries who support them. They realise that they aren’t going to destroy them by bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan.
But at least getting rid of the Taliban may mean that some good comes out of all this.
And if we ultimately rid the world of some of the other lunatics (saddam etc) and can solve the problems of the middle east then maybe, ultimately, organisations like Al Queida will lose their support and go away.
Its a long term plan but its the only solution.
A scorpion had to get across a lake, and there was a frog going his way. The scorpion begged the frog to take him across, but the frog protested saying “You’re a scorpion; you’ll sting me!” But, the scorpion assured the frog that he wouldn’t harm the frog for surely they’d both perish.
Convinced by this logic, the frog agreed. The frog allowed the scorpion to hop on his back for the ride across. Half way across, the scorpion plunged his stinger deep into the frog’s back. “Why did you sting me? Now, we’ll both surely die!” gasped the frog. “Because I am a scorpion; I cannot help it for it’s in my nature” explained the scorpion.
In other words, you cannot work with these radicals. No matter how much we did to find peaceful ways to settle this, they’d come right back and sting us again. Besides, they’ve had three chances now:
a) WTC in ~1993
b) Embassies in Africa
c) USS Kole (sp?)
d) WTC & Pentagon 2001
And, besides…what would those pushing peace tell the families of these innocent civilian victims? How shall they tuck their kids into bed at night knowing Mommy and/or Daddy isn’t coming home ever again? Would the protestors like to explain this to them? Maybe they can try and explain it to me, too, while they’re at it - because I sure don’t understand it myself!
I’m not a war monger, but we CANNOT live like this. We’ve been patient long enough, and enough is enough. Trying the keep the peace and doing nothing will leave us at their mercy. Is that the answer? Besides, are the guilty ones just going to magically agree to appear for a peaceful sentencing?
- Jinx
xanakis, what are your sources? That information is intriguing and I would like to know more or have something to cite should I happen to use those particular facts.
Many anti-war atticles can be found at http://www.lbbs.org/
I’m not sure what part of my post you want sources on. If it’s the atrocities that occur in Afghanistan, these are some links from Amnesty International:
- Think the Taliban are devout muslims who respect Islam? Think again.
- Think there’s a difference between the Nothern Alliance and the Taliban? Think again.
These aren’t nice guys, and yet, it doesn’t have to be this way.
Back in the 70’s, before Russia invaded, Afghanistan was a relatively happy, peaceful nation. There’s just been too much outside involvement.
The Afghanis should be given a chance to rule themselves for a change.
For some reason I checked out a book on Afghanistan a few months before Russia invaded Afghanistan. According to the book it was a terribly poor country, that perscuted women and the rulers played Russia, the U.S. and others against each other. It just seems more like jumping from the frying pan into the fire IMHO.
The real problem is that we don’t want our buildings blown up.
As far as peacefull solutions to this situation, the only reasonable one would be to make ourselves less of a target for the Islamic nationalistic feelings which spawn these terrorist attacks, basicly butt out of their affairs. We can’t do that because we’ve got Isreal. We’re their stongest supporter, and they are our only truly reliable connection to the middle east, not to mention the fact that we’ve been supporting them for these last 50 years now and backing out would undermine our dimplomatic influence in world affairs. If we let the terrorists get away and don’t modify our foreign policy then we’re just inviting more organized and more devistating attacks. These people really want to kill us!
Of course when you think of it from Bin Laden’s point of view, he knew that if his plans went right, he’d have the most powerfull nation in the world hunting him and his followers down. Look at the Taliban, they knew that he did it, they knew that we’d retaliate, they knew that we’d target them also if they didn’t surrender him, so why are they still playing chicken with our military?
Either they’re crazy idealistic fools, or this is exactly what they want us to do. Not that this is going to be the start of WWIII or anything (hopefully) but you can’t help but get the feeling that we as the American people are going along with something far greater than we are led to believe.
I feel secure because I know that there are people in the pentagon who are far smarter and well informed than us plebians who have already meticilusly planed out every possible scenareo stemming from a middle-eastern crisis.
This is more of a Great Debate now, so I’ll move it.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Here’s a link to the marking of Hindus.
How would these protesters suggest arresting bin Laden and his associates without military action? Send in a policeman with a warrent?
I find it distressing that so many leftists want to negotiate a deal with a totalitarian, oppressive, fundamentalist regime. Why should they be given anything (and they demanded quite a bit in return in order to prop-up their authoritarian, ultra-conservative regime) in exchange for not harboring and protecting bin Laden? Leftists shoudl be applauding the demise of such a terrible regime.
Anyway on to these:
I have seen no sign of this…in fact, they were making quite the headway against the Northern Alliance before the US and Russia emboldended and aided them. There are certainly two factions within the Taliban, but I saw no sign they were on the verge of falling apart.
Reports from the Northern Alliance forces, which could be propaganda ploys. the Taliban has made the opposite claim, that si that NA forces have defected to them and again this could be propaganda but apparently this does happen and has been happening as a routine for years, with soldiers and warlords switching sides often as the different sides wax and wane. Hardly a sign of a new weakening then.
Also it is entirely possible that the promise of US and Russian aid to the NA and US/British attacks on the Taliban is what has emboldened these people to revolt and/or switch sides.
Some don’t like them but some clearly do. I have no idea the breakdown of how many on each side but apparently, accordign to Afghan refugees who don’t like the Taliban very much, they don’t even know who bin LAden is or waht happened in NY and DC on 9/11. So, even if they don’t like the Taliban, they aren’t going to understand the US position and flock to it either.
Not likely. Bin Laden wouldn’t hang around to be caught so easily if he say the Taliban’s fortunes going south like that. IT would be much easier for him to escape a NA action than a US/NATO one.
[qupte]- Its better if the Taliban are brought down by their own people rather than by a foreign force (especially a US “Christian” force) because:
[/quote]
True, but it isn’t a very realistic hope. They’ve had years to try and the Taliban have only become stronger in that time.
By all accounts they are running away from both the US/British forces and the Taliban.
More unrealistic thinking. There is no way we could freeze all or even most of their assets. They aren’t all ‘above-board’ and much comes from direct donations from wealthy Arabs sympathetic to him voer whos assets the West has no control. Waiting is what the Taliban wanted…they were trying every delaying tactic in the book. The evidence was shared. Pakistan saw it which means the Taliban did too. This “no evidence” thing was a BS tactic.
They aren’t wonderful but they are better. For example, they don’t ban women from working, learning and going outside on their own. The plan is to establish a government accountable to the Afghan people, one the Afghan people will accept. Sounds good to me and good for them.
[NITPIK]
Compared to the Taleban, this is pretty tame. Yes, lack of due process is bad, but hardly compares to the level of crimes against humanity the Taleban commit on a daily basis.[/NITPIK]
beagle:
Yes that AI quote doesn’t really do justice to what the opposition forces do to people. There are also cases of the mujahadeen raping and killing women before the Taliban took over and imposed some kind of order. They also tortured and killed men.
We could also try being nicer to them. Look at Egypt and Saudi Arabia for examples.
America’s problem with regards to the Middle East is that we generally get friendly with the local governments only when it suits us – and when it doesn’t, we’ll gladly leave them to twist in the wind. The only notable exception to this is Israel, and we support them no matter how questionable or inhumane their behavior is (or appears to be).
Bombing Afghanistan won’t do any good. Rebuilding Afghanistan into a friendly nation would be a good start. Pressuring Israel and the Palestinians into a serious peace accord would be a major coup. Siding with moderates in Iran would be a neat trick. Lifting sanctions against Iraq … well, that’s a tougher nut, save that for next week.
It’d be a lot of work, and would require really delicate diplomacy to avoid giving the appearance of Western imperialism, but it can be done. And whether it can be done with a Republican party that wants to ignore the rest of the world and tell everyone else to follow the US is a whole different topic all together.
The problem is, while having struck strong relationships with their government, we still haven’t necessarily won the hearts of their people. How many of the terrorists were Egyptian and Saudi? bin Laden is originally Saudi, and takes offense at the fact that our government is cozy to the Saudis and willing to help defend them. So why should making Afghanistan friendly towards us have any effect whatsoever?
Now, your suggestion is viable as a long-term solution. Assuming that there is some peace possible between the Palestinians and the Israelis; Lord knows the Israelis offering nearly all of Jerusalem didn’t move Arafat one bit. And Lord knows there are plenty of Palestinians and Muslims who won’t be happy with any peace settlement other than “kill all the Jews.” And asusming that, in our attempts to win governments over to our way of thinking, we don’t end up making them easier targets for fundamentalist takeovers- much like Egypt and Pakistan are.
And even so, until a new generation comes up that sees the United States as a friend (and how long will that take? Is racism in the U.S. gone since Jim Crow was removed in '64?) we will be subjected to constant terrorist attack. And what we saw one month ago was light, compared to what chemical or biological weapons could do. Especially given twenty years of scientific advancement.
Sigh. Now I’m guilty of what I railed against before, namely posting a criticism without a suggestion.
So. Let me state my position on what should be done.
We cannot eliminate terrorism. We cannot eliminate the hate that causes people to be willing to give their lives- or tell others to give their lives- in order to “strike a blow”. We haven’t been able to do that in our own country (abortion clinic bombings, race murders, gay bashing, etc.), therefore, we can have no expectation of doing it in other countries as well.
But, we can limit terrorism. We can take apart the large networks, disable the huge groups that raise the money, build the training camps, and orchestrate the terror on a massive scale. In order to do this, we must strike against the terrorists themselves, destroying their networks, freezing their assets, and destroying their training camps. But we must also fight against the governments that are willing to sponsor terrorism- either by funding it themselves, giving it arms, giving them training, or just turning a blind eye to those who do such. We cannot end terrorism in this way, but we can limit the scale. We can keep the networks fractured, and the individuals disorganized. And thus, we can hope to prevent future tragedy on this sort of scale.
That is the foreign policy strategy of every sovereign nation on Earth. The U.S. isn’t the slightest bit out of the ordinary in that regard.
How do you figure? The U.S. exerts a lot of pressure on Israel, who without U.S. objections would likely have done far more objectionable things than they have. The U.S. gets something out of that relationship, too; Israel isn’t being propped up out of the goodness of Congress’s hearts.
And why not? I don’t understand this. If you are not our friend, we owe you what, exactly?
We are allied with regimes such as Saudi Arabia because it is in our economic interest to be. They too repress their women, and they teach and export one of the most fundamentalist types of Islam, Wahabiism. If not for our economic and strategic self-interest, we probably wouldn’t have anything to do with them, either. But they are a key player in the Arab world and have lots and lots of oil, which we need lots and lots of. So we are their friend, and for strategic and economic reasons, they our ours. But not close friends, because the truth is at bottom we really don’t like what they stand for and they don’t like what we stand for.
But if we don’t like them and they don’t like us, and it is not economically to our advantage to do business with them anyway, then why would we? I fail to see why expecting other nations to handle their own affairs and live their own lives without our interference or assistance is “leaving them to twist in the wind.” Many Arab countries (and many more poor Arab people) don’t like the fact that America does support its friends – including Israel, which it has supported steadfastly. They don’t resent us for leaving them to twist; they resent the fact we haven’t left Israel to twist. These are not the same things.