We are closely allied with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco and Kuwait. We are more tenuously allied with Yemen, and our relations with Sudan have been improving over the past 18 months.
Besides, as John pointed out, our friendly relationships with these governments are part of the problem.
Whatcha talking about, Willis? The only country there we have arguably let twist in the wind was Ahfganistan after the Soviets pulled out. Our relationships with the above named countries (except Sudan and Yemen, which are newer) have been stable for at least 20-odd years.
And how would we do that without military action, either directly or by supporting armed anti-Taliban factions. Should we say, “Hey guys, we’re here to rebuild your country. You don’t mind seceding power, do ya?”
True.
We have offered to improve relations with the new, more moderate leadership in Iran (leaving aside for right now where true power resides in Iran). Thus far, they haven’t accepted.
One of the peace protestors I talked to had the point of view that Russia benefitted Afghanistan by building schools and forwarding human rights. She also said that America was a terrorist nation because we dropped 'da bomb on Hiroshima.
IMO, the protestor’s point of view consists of a mixture of revisionist history, cultural relativism, good intentions, and pixie dust.
If me modify our foreign policy because of these attacks we send the message “hey World! We Americans are a bunch of pussy-ass bitches! All you have to do is attack us and we’ll roll over and change our foreign policy for you.” Is that really the message you want to send?
We should continue to support Israel because they are our ally. You don’t drop one of your allies because it suddenly becomes too hard.
Well, some of the protesters are “them”. I read an article which quoted from a family member of one of the victims; I believe her brother had died and she very strongly felt that she didn’t want the brother of some other innocent person to die in retaliation for the death of her brother. While I am not claiming that a majority of the victim’s families feel this way, some do. So, you have to be careful about trying to speak for the victims of this horrendous act.
At the rally I attended, the majority of the speakers seemed to feel that American capitalism was the root cause of the problems in the Middle East, and that we should stop “exploiting” third-world countries there and elsewhere. Personally, I disagree: The main reason that I’m opposed to the military actions in Afganistan is that I believe that they will strengthen our enemies, not weaken them. So, we’ve destroyed several of their airfields. What would they have done with airfields, anyway? They’re using our planes and our runways, not theirs. Suppose we catch (and presumably kill) bin Laden. Why, then, someone else will take his place. We’ve wiped out several training camps. The reason people were in those camps in the first place is that they’re considered expendible for the “cause”.
On the other hand, though, our bombing is providing excellent grist for the terrorists’ propaganda mill. Everyone in America is talking about how the attacks in New York and Washington have strengthened our resolve. What, you don’t think that we’re doing the same thing for the Taliban? The only difference is that the terrorist leadership doesn’t mind losing people and resources to further their goal.
I do not believe that there is any short-term solution. The only long-term solution is education and communication. It’s not bin Laden or his organization that are the ultimate enemy here, it’s the ideas which drive them to do what they do. We need to fight ideas, not nations, and it’s teachers who do that, not soldiers.
I’ve noticed that most pacifists really have no understanding of military strategy or military force as a political tool. The fact that you don’t understand why we bomb their airfields demonstrates that to me. Also, killing OBL does not mean another terrorist takes his place. He does not hold some job title like Secretary of Terrorism that suddenly creates an opening if he’s gone. If there were other individuals out there who have the same ability to lead, plan, and execute terrorist attacks, logic (another trait that pacifists seems to wave by-by to)
dictates that they would be operating simultaneously.
What you are forgetting is that we have limited influence in the countries where these ideas are created. We have no control over what they teach. We need to fight terrorist soldiers and the nations harboring them because we need to show that their ideas only lead to distruction.
The problem is that OBL and his followers have already made up their minds and are unlikely to change them. Whenever you have two opposing and unreconcilable viewpoints, force is the only way to impose your will (or your rights.
In any event, the Taliban do not want to give up control over Afghanistan. The only way for Afghanistan to rebuild as a nation is to forcibly remove the Taliban so the international community can give the Afghan people the food, aid, education, etc required to become a respectable nation. We can either remove the Taliban quickly or let the Afghan people take another 30 years (if ever) to get rid of them themselves.
I realize that bin Laden doesn’t hold any official position, and that most of his potential replacements are already operating. That doesn’t change what I said. There are a number of irrational people in the world who are willing to do things like fly planes into buildings. Some of them currently follow bin Laden. If bin Laden is somehow taken out of the picture, then his followers will not suddenly become rational. Rather, they’ll just start following some other charismatic nutjob, and they’ll be just as dangerous as before.
You’re right, I don’t understand why we’re bombing their airfields. Care to explain it to me?
Of course this is mostly conjecture on my part, but it seems to me the the goal is to remove the Taliban from power (as opposed to simply bombing them into compliance). Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history should know that dropping bombs on a country generally only strengthens their resolve (ie Battle of Brittain, Vietnam, WTC bombings, even the first A-bomb didn’t crack the Japanese). If I know this, I’m pretty sure our professional military knows this. So I am led to believe (based mostly on politicians statements) that we are either preparing to send in some kind of limited ground force or provide support for Northern Alliance forces in order to remove the Taliban.
The specific reason we are targeting airfields and antiaircraft artillery is simple. We want to establish air superiority over Afghanistans. Once we can move in their airspace with impunity, we can provide relief drops, deploy Airborne troops, or even advertise happy hour specials from a Cessna trailing a banner if the mood strikes us. In any event, we are not destroying their airfields because someone flew an aircraft into the Pentagon.
The whole premise of national military power is really as a deterent. Unfortunately it has worked too well. No nation on Earth could stand against our nation in head-to-head open warfare. Hell, Afghanistans entire armored (ie tank) forces are the equivalent of a single US armored brigade…from 1970. Our enemies know this so they are fighting a type of warfare where they can negate our advantage of overwhelming firepower. They hide amongst the civilian population and attack us in our vulnurable areas using makeshift weapons. Their leaders deny knowledge of their participation so that we look like the aggressors.
I agree with you that it will take more than just brute force to win this war. This is a thinking mans war. Comparing this to WWII or Desert Storm is like comparing chess to WWF Wrestling.
Andy Roonie had an interesting comment Sunday on 60 Minutes. He said that the best thing America is good at is selling. We should be selling America around the world.
OK, I guess that does make sense: We’re bombing the airfields to make things easier for the next phase of military operations. I’m still not convinced that the later operations will be profitable either, but if one accepts that as a given (as, presumably, the American leadership is), then I can see the strategy.
The military operation is the easy part. The hard part will be rebuilding Afghanistan. I don’t think it is an impossible task. I have a Lebonese friend who just came back from a trip to Lebanon. The country looks a lot diferent than it did 30 years ago.