Ah, yes my craven attention seeking. Well, my that would make a good pit thread. Pity. No one came.
My jabs are almost always on topic, there is subtle commentary on the poster’s command of the topic. I never take jabs where (a) they don’t seem relevant or (b) appear to be merely the products of rapid typing and posting.
Of course, you will disagree. I can only hope that it will be in the proper forum.
Otherwise, do you plan to make an argument, if only for the entertainment value?
So your errors are the result of “rapid typing and posting”, while everyone else is guilty of lacking command of the topic?
Oh, OK. Megalomania, anyone?
So when you see a protest (on any subject) being broadcast from Washington D.C., you generally assume that whoever is protesting actually conveys the thoughts and beliefs of the majority of people in the U.S.? You never spend any time considering that, perhaps, you see their protests recorded because people chanting and ranting make better TV presentations than people staying home ignoring the screaming?
Your sarcastic claims that “99.999999% of Muslims love America” are rather silly given that no one has argued anything similar to that point. Your total mis-reading of your cited comments by Salman Rushdie would indicate that you are simply more interested in being mad and setting up straw bugbears than you are in discovering what the U.S. can accomplish and what the U.S. should attempt.
Perhaps not. However, we are going to need considerably more aid (and, probably, permission) to “go into” Egypt, Algeria, Syria, or any other country where we will need to pursue al-Qaeda in the future. Your efforts seem to be more than simply short-sighted, they appear to be willfully blind to what we will need to do over the course of several years.
Sometimes, it is far, far too easy.
I guess you never learned logical argumentation.
Or perhaps you desired to set up a ridiculous straw man? Or were unaware that the above bears no relation to what I actually wrote?
Given your reading – such that it was-- of Salman Rushdie, I confess to favoring the latter proposition.
Else, I refer you back to what was actually written. I realize that makes for a different argument that the straw man you’ve clumsily tried to set up, but we all have to get with the joined up reading now and again.
Well, good not only the straw man, but we have the excluded middle (range of opinions between war and love) and probably a bit of the fallacy of composition (al-Qaeda=all Muslims, that is a part=the whole).
I am going to enjoy this.
Let’s see. You do have talent for illogically collapsing different things into one easy to comprehend whole, facts be damned, don’t you? All those Muslims were … some limited groups here and there, yes? Some unfortunate % of Palestinians, some demos elsewhere but not very many. This has been done already elsewhere so I don’t see much point other than to shake my head in wonder at the bigotry.
Again, this sort of thing has been discussed and is really red herring insofar as it has nothing to do with the argument, per se.
I don’t see a point in bothering to refute what has been discussed intelligently elsewhere, above all by Tamerlane, Muslim Guy and others.
Well, since neither Tom nor my arguments touched on any of this, all this bile is really nothing but you.
Aha. Muslim nation = Terrorist nation. Why that’s a helpful way to approach the issue.
Muslim nation providing us with intelligence and support is simply a “less motivated terrorist nation.” Well, again, very helpful. I’m sure we should simply declare this outright. It will really advance our goals.
Ah the chest-beating braggart POV. I like. I don’t need nobody. Just like in the movies. But little wrinkles emmerg. To operate effectively one needs bases. Yes, troops do not magically transport themselves nor can one effectively run logistics without good bases. Unlike in action movies, everything from special forces to air power, above all if one wants to use effective close in tactical air power, needs secure bases and secure logistics.
Now, a cursory examination of the political geography of the region will show (a) Afghanistan has no coast. Landlocked. All, again, all the surrounding countries are Muslim majority (with of course the partial exception that China has bare touch on Afghanistan, but in its Uigher majority province).
Now, to secure bases, the governments need to be secure. Meaning at least passive acceptance by the population. I’m sure most people will be able to discern a connection between not unnecessarily offending the population and stability.
Oh that would be helpful. Really bloody helpful. So they close airspace. Hmm, what do we do in Kalt world? Why, we gratiutously go to war with Pakistan, a nuclear mini-power. Of course we can conquer Pakistan and use it as a base, but now the whole-fucking country is against us in armed insurrection. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is wondering what kind of incredibly childish dumbfucks are running US policy and wondering how on earth they can allied with a nation quite so stupid, clumsy and frankly immature.
Bingo, we make al-Qaeda look almost good in one fell swoop.
My this a stunningly well-concieved position.
The scintalating logic that went into this piece of posturing leaves me… saddened and depressed at the same time.
Oh yeah, after your policy is implemented our bases in the region will just be wonderfully secure.
I’m not sure I agree with the proposition that a cessation of strategic bombing costs us nothing.
Seems to me that a cessation of bombing would mean the Taliban can gather themselves, re-establish any lost lines of communication, and re-group their defenses. Further, allowing them a breather means they can focus less on dodging incoming shells, and more on coordinating a terrorist response to our attack.
I think a cessation of bombing could cost us plenty.
Lest my last post be misunderstood, having read **Collounsbury’s ** response, I don’t advocate abandoning air strikes fo the period of Ramadan, just to let the Taleban over-run the Northern Alliance.
Actually, just thinking out loud…if the US did stop air strikes over Ramadan, would the Taleban seize the initiative and go on the offensive, thereby compelling the US to begin air strikes again, resulting in a round of finger-pointing which would make the US look like they had broken their promise?
Just a thought, and mostly speculative.
Kalt -
I find this, with respect, a simplistic view - I’m not saying you are a simpleton, in the event you feel insulted by my opinion (and given tempers seem to be running hot on this thread), but I think you are taking too narrow and Manichean a view. Whether you like it or not, national sovereignty exists in other parts of the world. Just because you don’t like what they do, doesn’t mean they will go away or can be safely ignored.
I’m not being an apologist for countries like Syria or Pakistan which appear to have promoted terrorism in the past: at the end of the day, if the US wants to achieve its objectives, it has to call in favours with countries like Pakistan - drop sanctions, shake hands and support them. the realpolitik may be distasteful, but that’s life in international relations.
I don’t believe either Tom or I have said that. We’ve simply raised the possibility of strategically revising air strikes during Ramadan in conjuction with other actions.
As I said several times, I’m not fully convinced the benefits of the strategy I and Tom outlined outweigh the costs, but on the other hand the dismissals have been unworthy in large part.
A risk to be sure. Again, for that reason I don’t necessarily fully support my own argument per se, although some PR moves for Ramadan are clearly needed.
This misundertands al-Qaeda. I do not believe that cells elsewhere truly need Afghanistan. The future production of trained cadres is clearly made easier with Afghanistan as a base but planning did not appear to take place in Afghanistan for any of these rounds. That of course is unclear but given the nature of the organization I don’t think this is something which helpf prevent current risk.
Total cessation, clearly yes.
I think there is a case for closely examining (by the people who do these things) a scenario like what was sketched out. Only by having the full array of data can one make a good judgement on the costs and benefits and even then it will be hard.
In what way do you figure he’s behind?
Especially as he offers a number of long posts containing a knowledgeable analysis of the situation, a look at the arguments on both sides, some pointed comments about the refusal of others to even address certain arguments and other logical flaws, a better reading of the Salman Rushdie article than the poster who provided the link, and forms it into a single cohesive and well-reasoned argument, while you merely comment on a sentence about grammar and his sig line. Oh, yeah, he’s really going down in flames here. Perhaps you could insult his mother or something and really clinch this one.
Collounsbury, you are a snappy one, aren’t you…
You don’t by any chance live in Berkeley, CA, do ya?
Anyway, where to begin.
I simply do not buy into the “small minority” concept of American-hating muslims. As long as America supports israel and actively protects its oil interests in the middle east, we will be at war with Islam. It’s a damn shame, too. America and fundamentalist Islam CANNOT co-exist. There is not enough room on this planet for both. As an american, my country’s interest come first. If that means wiping out the entire middle east, so be it. If it means taking over the entire middle east, so be it. There is no diplomatic way out of this.
As for military bases, we can establish them in enemy territory as our campaign progresses, using air superiority (and aircraft carriers) to break them down initially. Kinda like what we’re doing right now, actually.
“Terrorist nation = Muslim nation” … well is there any other way to see it? Even the Muslim nations which we pretend are our friends (i.e. saudi arabia) are linked to supporting anti-american and anti-israeli terrorists. So, yes, Terrorist nation is synonymous with Muslim nation. Hopefully that will change in the near future.
bombing during ramadan = making al queda look good in one fell swoop: 1) Al queda already looks good to most of the word’s billion muslims (not the americanized muslims living here in the USA); 2) the alternative is to not bomb during ramadan and give the taliban/Al queda a month to regroup, recoup, restratigize, rest, reload, etc. As I said before, that is simply moronic.
“Oh yeah, after your policy is implemented our bases in the region will just be wonderfully secure.” Kinda like the World Trade Center was “secure” before 9/11? We are fighting against islam to be secure and safe in our homeland. I think it is a given that any US bases in the Muslim World are de fact not secure in their surroundings. War is not a safe thing, ya know.
I wish I were a cheesemaker.
Sigh, Kalt you are so outgunned. Which isn’t to say you’re right or wrong (and I do have my own reservations about a Ramadan slowdown in hostilities), but your primary weapon has become ineffective.
The sad part: I read Kalt’s commentary, and I picture that angry young man somewhere in Pakistan or Iran or Indonesia or wherever, burning the U.S. flag and denouncing World Zionism. And they’re the same guy. Same approach to the world’s problems.
There’s a special Collounsbury pit thread, why not take it there?
I have no idea whether it is a “small minority,” but having read the actual editorials of Muslim newspapers (in translation) that can be found at this page over the last two months, I can certainly note that there have been more than a few “friendly” voices (and even some of the critical pieces have been written from the perpective of a differing opinion, not malice). The idea that we are “at war with Islam” is simply an unfounded claim.
Which gets us through Afghanistan, but does nothing to help us prosecute the rest of the attacks against al-Qaeda over the next several years. (I realize that you would prefer to simplistically begin WWIII, but I see no reason to cause that many deaths throughout the world, including the U.S., simply because you do not want to take the time to find out what you’re talking about.)
So Mali, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc. are terrorist nations? Egypt and Algeria (that have been actively battling the same groups with whom we are now in conflict for years) are suddenly terrorist nations simply because you’ve ignored international news/history for the last 15 years?
al-Qaeda does not look good to “most” Muslims (as you would have noted had you actually read the article by Salman Rushdie to which you linked) and no one has suggested that we avoid all bombing–only that we consider changing the bombing strategy to call the shots in the propaganda war (that you would rather ignore and start WWIII).
squeege, I never had a bad feeling for Islam/Muslims before 9/11. I’m not saying the things I have said on this thread because my mommy and daddy told me that muslims were bad and I should hate them. This is not bigotry here. I am simply recognizing who the enemy is. Terrorism is not the enemy; terrorism is a strategy. Fanatical muslims are the enemy, and there are a helluva lot more than “a small minority” of them “over there” in the middle east.
I don’t hate Muslims - I just don’t respect the core of Islam - it has lost control of its own followers and has turned into nothing more than an excuse for violence, murder, and hatred. For me to recognize that and hate it in return does not put me on the same level. And although I hate it, I am not proposing a holocaust of all the word’s muslims. I’m simply saying it is absolutely moronic to stop attacking our enemy (we know bin laden did it, and we know the taliban support him - and we are only attacking the people who we know did it) in respect for their month-long holiday. One day is one thing… maybe if Ramadan were one day (like most holidays) it would be prudent, for “our image,” to take a break. But for an entire month? That’s simply ridiculous.
What if the mullahs declare every day to be ramadan. Boy, then we’re totally fucked, eh?
I’m not going to flame Collounsbury in any stupid pit threads. I respect his opinion, I just think it is naive and idealistic. I wish I could live in his enlightened world of happy, peaceful muslims. If I could push a magic button and go to that world, I would surely do so.
That’s what happens when one is both right and able to convey it. That ain’t you, Kalt.
So, you weren’t happy with making asinine comments about Islam and Muslims in general, you had to throw in an asinine comment about a town in California? Last I checked, the population of the City of Berkeley did not pass a resolution; 'twas the City Council. But, given your apparent inability to differentiate between a part and the whole, this evidently escapes you also.
Prefereably with both a recent newspaper and a competent textbook on History or Cultural Geography.
Aha! You have now identified what is known in SDMB parlance as “your opinion.” That’s actually a step in the right direction. The next step is to post what factual evidence supports your opinion, why you have come to the conclusion you have come to.
WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH A RELIGION. There are Muslims serving in our Armed Forces who love this land as much, if not more, than many others. There are Muslim Chaplains in the US Armed Forces. Muslims have served in the US Armed Forces before, during, and after the Gulf War.
The damn shame here is your apparent bypassing of this site’s mission.
And exactly why is that? Is it just fundamentalist Islam that scares the beejays out of you or is it any fundamentalism which “has it in” for our government?
Got any proof of this wild assertion?
Your mistaken, misguided, and functionally illiterate (given your complete misreading of the Rushdie cite) opinion, thankfully, do not constitute this country’s interests.
Isn’t this concept currently known as “bin Ladenism?”
You are wrong yet again. Or is it still? Apparently there actually is a diplomatic way out of destroying the entire Middle East and the current administration, thankfully not including Kalt, is pursuing that way and attacking, you may note, ONLY the enemy. Your idea of “kill them all, let God sort them out,” although you didn’t explicitly state it, is just flat out stupid. Just to make life easier for you, and because it’s late, “stupid” is a big word for “not smart” or “dumb.”
Thanks for the laugh. Anyway, to establish a secure military base, one would kind of have to not have the entire surrounding population peeved at one. Just because you think all Muslims are Arabs and you think all Muslims hate America and Americans does not make it so. First, not all Muslims are Arabs; Arabs constitute a minority of Muslims. Second, there are a few million Muslims living in the United States, citizens at that. Third, there are quite a few folks in Pakistan who don’t want the Taliban style of government or life in their land. Fourth, Afghanistan is kind of far from the ocean, so the US administration is using diplomacy, and succeeding at it, to get the use of another country’s land to use for attack and/or support. You may have believed everything you saw on the old sitcom “Super Carrier” but even the writer’s weren’t that silly to think it was close to true.
Not even close. Refer to a decent newspaper for cites.
Yes there is. That way is what’s know as factually. There is Malaysia, certainly a Muslim nation. Not at war with the US, and its government is not demanding its population rise up and murder all Americans. There is Nigeria. Ditto about the government and population. There is Indonesia. Ditto again. There are more.
D o s o m e r e s e a r c h b e f o r e y o u p o s t !
This illogical “thinking” has already been shown to you as invalid. Why do you persist?
Your assertion here is what’s politely known as bullshit. Muslim cleric leaders have condemned bin Laden and his organization. Not to mention that you have failed to provide a cite regarding “most of the world’s one billion muslims [sic]” thinking al-Queda looks good. To many Muslims (check the newspapers), al-Queda is a disgrace to Islam.
There is more than one alternative. Just because your brand of “logic” only recognizes two options does not mean others do not exist. The coalition is exploring those options now. There are financial strictures, ground action, and others.
The World Trade Center was not a military base located in the middle of a bunch of people we managed to piss off in the last ten seconds by following the Kalt Plan of Stupidity. It was a comemrcial office building. The Pentagon is also an office building, although it belongs to the Department of Defense. (Side note: I’m getting sick of hearing the Pentagon referred to as being in DC; it’s not. It’s in Arlington County, Virginia.)
WE ARE NOT FIGHTING AGAINST A RELIGION! We are fighting against terrorists. By your inane argument, when the federal government was looking for McVeigh and his cohort, the US was fighting a war against Christianity.
Any military base of any country, no matter where that base is located, is not a 100% safe enclave.
I wish you knew what you were talking about.
You really don’t know jack, do you? Ramadan is the Arabic name for a month. Guess how long a month is? Bingo! It’s one fucking month long. Kind of like April is one fucking month long and May is also one fucking month long.
Ramadan is not a “kind of like most holidays” day. It’s more akin to a season, like Lent is a season. There’s no body in Islam to sit down and declare, “Hey, this month needs to be 365 days and to hell with what the Koran says about months and years and in particular about Ramadan.” Islam does not have a monolithic ruling body; there is no Pope; there is no Synod; there is no monolithic ruling body.
Even without such a declaration, you appear to already be totally fucked.
It sounds like you’re proposing a pretty good start:
And presumably killing millions of people. If this isn’t genocide, then what is your definition?
Kalt, I probably shouldn’t have done a drive-by posting on you. It was fairly underhanded on my part, and I partially apologise.
However, your comments offended and offend the hell out of me.
No, what’s the relevance of cheap red-baiting tactics here other than to display your inability to engage the actual issues?
I am sure other posters can fill you in on how absurd the Berkeley jibe is, although a clear reading of my postings in this very thread would do that well enough.
Wonderful. I am sure you have extensive experience and knowledge upon which to base this well-learned estimation. I’ve yet to see the slightest glimmer but hope does spring eternal.
The War with Islam thing has already been dealt with. Unless you have some reason other than empty bigotry to advance your statement, I should hope not to see it again.
Yeah, whatever. They say the same thing. America and radical fundamentalism certainly can not coexist, however we’ve have had long relationship with Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist nation if there ever was one. The question is not religion. It is politics.
Meaning your knowledge of both international relations and the region is so pitifully impoverished that you can not personally imagine a way out of this.
That you have trouble concieving of the consequences of the suggested “policy”, that your ignorance of our larger interests, be they economic or political, prevents you from looking at this in anything more sophisticated than the action movie/playground level of analysis.
However, adults will understand that there are costs to policy. That in an integrated global market, my way or the highway costs you big time. That we need other markets, goods or capital, that we need decent relations with Europe, for example. That unnecessarily offending the entire world by acting like a low-grade moron of an adolescent imposes real costs and is the fastest way to isolation and decline.
In other words, an understanding of American interests, beyond some cartoonish comic book picture of them,leads one to see that there are much lower cost, more effective policies.
Ah, just that easy. Why don’t you suggest this to the Pentagon? You do realize that the airpower from carriers has to pass through Paki airspace. Or Russian airspace. That operating in hostile territory imposes costs, large security costs. That unnecessarily adding new enemies is not generally considered terribly brilliant strategy. But then I am sure you would have given an equally simplistic analysis to Hitler encouraging an invasion of Russia. What’s a second front?
For anyone with an inkling of knowledge, yes. If one is not a hopeless bigot, yes.
The Saudi government does not support anti-American terrorists. Some of its citizens supported and undertook the same. I am aware by now that you have not quite as yet grasped the fallacy of composition, but let me give it another shot.
If one portion of a group A is X that does not mean all A is X. Nor even all X is A. Simple logical proposition.
Among its applications it allows us to distinguish between individual actions and groups.
As for Saudi support of anti-Israeli groups, that is a rather different question, although in fact Saudi support for Palestinian orgs has usually been quite thin. They hate rocking the boat. In any case, its a seperate subject.
Thanks for the display of illogic.
I find it hard to belive that you know what al-Qaeda --no u there-- looks like to “most” of the world’s Muslims. I speak the relevant languages and follow the situation as closely as possible. I have time saying but it certainly seems to me most Muslims do not like al-Qaeda like groups at all. You will note in your very citation to Salman Rushdie, that Rushdie noted the suffering of Muslims under such folks and most folks knowledge of that.
Moronic is ignorant assertions and poorly constructed straw men arguments.
You think. Wonderful. I am impressed by your knowledge of the region. Insofar as there has been but one incident in Qatar to my knowlege in regards to attacks on American bases, it strikes me your estimation is based on ignorance.
There are threats and then there is open warfare. Two different things. Again, strange mix of straw men and red-herrings. One piss-poor argument.
We are not, in any case, fighting against Islam. We are fighting bigots. Perhaps on more than one front.
No, I wish I was a cheesemaker. There was once a little thread pondering what I meant by that.
You had a bad feeling about an entire religion. No, that’s not at all bigotry, you’re quite right.
Recognizing that all Xtians are his enemy, Bin Laden has not made any single logical error, nor engaged in the faintest whiff of bigotry.
As for your estimations for how many “fanatical” muslims there are, how would you know? You display precious little knowledge of the religion, I can clearly see you don’t speak any of the langauges nor have you spent any substantial time in the region.
In other words, you’re treating us to the darker recesses of your presuppositions.
So when Catholic IRA bombed Protestants. And Protestants bombed IRA, shall we conclude thusly that “Christianity” has “lot control of its followers.” It is rather hard to wrap one’s mind around a religion “controlling” its adherents. Even the bloody Popes in Rome never controlled Christians actions in this manner.
As for your estimation of Islam as a religion… Well I have no words for this level of bile.
No comment.
others have commented on the following, I simply repeat it to emphasize:
Boy if those Xtians just declared … never mind.
Naive and idealistic? Me? You have no idea. Not one clue.
Indeed…
Never mind everything else you have said that folks have taken you ( quite rightfully ) to task for.
If you actually think the U.S. is capable of “taking over” or even “wiping out” every nation between the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian border, including that 90+% Muslim nation, our NATO ally, Turkey, you are the one who is hopelessly naive.
There is a good reason concepts like diplomacy exist.
Or another way to put it:
if all one billion Muslims all wanted to destroy the U.S., it would have already happened.
Therefore, we are dealing with a subset, an extremist subset, who happen to consider themselves Muslims.
Precisely.
Oh man I’m pissed!! I had a nice long post typed out last night but then IE crashed and I lost it all. “Never mind” I thought “I’ll pick up where I left off tomorrow”, only to come back and see that the thread has exploded and been dragged off the OP’s original topic too!
I hate it when that happens. Oh well, C’est la vie 
The original question was:
Should we bomb during Ramadan?
Collounsbury & Tomndebb have both provided good reasons why we should stop for a while. I’ve thought about them for a while and have decided that, as far as their arguments go, they’re absolutely right. It might be advantageous in the long run if we stop the bombing for a short while. It might win us some good PR points that we can exploit later in the war against terrorism, when we have to go into other countries like Iraq.
However, that fact is, to my mind, outweighed by the several reasons we have to continue the bombing through Ramadan, reasons listed below in no particular order.
First off, Collounsbury said
Well, first off it’s terrorism world wide isn’t it? al-Quaeda (thanks, I finally know how to spell it ) are an excellent starting point but overall it’s a war against terrorism itself, the whole ideology, right? As a result we must also extend our attack to those who harbour the terrorists and make it damn near impossible to be brought to justice by conventional means. In other words, we have to go through the Taliban (btw - is it Taliban or Taleban, or both?) to get to al-Qaeda.
Therefore whilst the long term goal might be al-Qaeda, the short term goal has to be the Taliban. This is why the premise that the Taliban are a secondary concern is not valid at this moment. Until they’re defeated they should be our primary concern.
Here’s how I see it:
Benefits of stopping the bombing in our plans to unseat the Taliban
[ul]
[li]It would be easier to get aid to the civilians who have been accidentally injured by the bombing. It would also help us to help the refugees on the pakistani border.[/li]
[li]It would give Taliban fighters the chance to defect to the Northern Alliance.[/li]
[li]It might help quell the force of public opinion in Pakistan[/li]
[/ul]
That’s about all I can think of. The other side of the coin is:
[ul]
[li]The Taliban would inevitably use that time to regroup, strategise, rally their troups, prepare for a ground war and generally do their level best to undo all of the work we’ve done so far.[/li]
[li]The Taliban could try to counter attack the Northern Alliance. Since we have very few troops on the ground, if the Taliban were to try to recapture Mazar-e sharif (sp?) then we wouldn’t be in a very good position to help the Northern Alliance. If we did use strategic bombing to help them we would kill a lot of northern alliance fighters as well, this might lose us some support from them and we cannot afford that. As you know, the Northern Alliance haven’t exactly got a good track record in battles with the Taliban and whilst the Taliban have been severely weakened we are not in a position to accurately assess their military strength. In short it’s not worth the risk that they’re stronger than we think they are and it’s not worth the risk of them counter attacking and taking back ground. We need to keep attacking them so that we have some time to consolidate our positions.[/li]
[li]Whilst it may be good propaganda for us, we mustn’t forget that the Taliban are fighting a propaganda war of their own and we must also concede that when it comes to the propaganda they’re beating us hands down. They could say that our refusal to bomb is a sign of weakness, that our resolve is crumbling and that Americans & British don’t have the stomach for a long war or a ground war. It’s all well and good to say that stopping the bombing is a sign of strength but it’s unrealistic to say that they would believe us over the word of the Taliban. As far as I can tell they haven’t so far.[/li]
[li]The point about humanitarian aid is a valid one but there’s no reason why it can’t coexist with the bombing. The only reason that’s been a bit of a shambles is because the US isn’t putting enough money into it.[/li]
[li]The Northern Alliance are already worried that we are stopping them from trying to take Kabul (and no, I don’t have a cite - I saw it on BBC news last night). How much of their support can we seriously be expected to retain if we pause the bombing for an entire month?[/li]
[li]Afghani civilians have undergone a tremendous amount of suffering these last months. A 30 day cessation in the bombing isn’t going to be anywhere near the amount of time needed to help them, no matter how much we pour into the humanitarian effort. We would be extending their suffering by another month.[/li]
[/ul]
Out of those reasons I feel that the first is the most pertinent. Also, the second and third arguments proposed in the ‘pro-pause’ list are flawed in as much as the absolute reverse of each could end up happening. Northern Alliance soldiers could defect to the Taliban if we frustrate them by stopping the bombing (I know it’s only for a month but I’m sure it passes far more slowly for them). There is also no guarantee that public opinion will improve in Pakistan if we pause the bombing. And as if that weren’t enough there are further reasons why stopping the bombing will be detrimental to our short term goal of ousting the Taliban.
[ul]
[li]Winter is coming up and when that does it will make it extremely tough to conduct a ground war. We should make the most of the time we’ve got.[/li]
[li]We have soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. All they want to do is get the job done and get home to their families. Leaving them in the shit for another month while we play PR is not going to be good for their morale and if this thing is going to develop into a ground war, their morale is a precious commodity.[/li][/ul]
I think that it’s pretty clear that as far as our short term objectives go, there’s no question that pausing the bombing would be a bad thing. However, there’s the question of the long term aims. Pretty soon we’re going to have to go into other countries and eradicate terrorism there. Let’s have a look at the pro’s and cons of stopping the bombing with that aim in mind.
Benefits of stopping the bombing in our long term search for al-Qaeda
Collounsbury and Tom have done a good job of arguing this side and I see no reason to repeat them and make this post longer than it already is. The (very) basic premise, however, is that if we pause our bombing then we will be in a better position to operate in other countries and get support from them.
I have to agree with you there but I have to say I don’t think that stopping the bombing will be as much of a PR coup as you’re making it out to be. For the last 2 months America and Great Britain have gone to ridiculous lengths to stress that this is not a war with Islam. Yet I read in the paper about British Muslims fleeing to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban. I genuinely don’t think that PR, no matter how good, will be effective if one thinks ones religion is under attack.
Also, by pausing the bombing during Ramadan, isn’t it a tacit acceptance that this war IS about Islam? If we are trying to be truly impartial we shouldn’t let any kind of religious event stop us. If we do make an exception for Ramadan then I think it will be a difficult position to back away from. We won’t be able to say, after doing this, that this war isn’t about Islam.
I have more to say on this subject but this post is long, and I’m tired. Excuse any typo’s, I’ve not got the patience to proofread.