I have not advocated a cessation of all bombing. I suggest a possible course of action in which we suspend strategic bombing of Kabul and the Pushtun region, while hovering over the front lines like a hawk, severely punishing any Taleban effort to reclaim lost property against the Northern Alliance–and loudly proclaiming our condemnation for the Taleban for violating Ramadan while we do it.
We have (in my opinion) NOT been fighting a good propaganda war. We have made lots of fine speeches (in the U.S. and Europe) about not waging war on Islam, however, bin Laden has floated three separate tapes to al-Jazeera and other outlets giving his version of the story. Bush has deliberately refused to comment on those tapes and we have made no specific effort to rebut them, dismissing them as “ravings.” The problem, here, is that the “ravings” have gone unanswered among the people whom we need to persuade. bin Laden has specifically lied in those tapes, and we have evidence (that we can cull from Arab and Muslim news sources) to prove he is lying, yet we have chosen, instead to ignore him and let him proclaim the message, without rebuttal. Instead, we have let al-Jazeera hold a couple of interviews with Powell and Rice, letting their news team set the agenda of the questions and the edits to the answers. (E.g., bin Laden has made much of his “long support” of the Palestinians, yet we can provide evidence that he has never paid any attention to that issue until the most recent intifada (and there are reports that he has spoken slightingly of the Palestinians–that would be a great coup, if true.))
An appearance of respect for Ramadan (while not allowing the Taleban to mount new attacks) may not win any hearts and minds, but it will provide cover for friendly governments with less than friendly populations and give us an opportunity to begin to fight the propaganda war.
As to the Northern Alliance, they may chafe at our lack of total support, but they are going nowhere without our air power. It is not in either our interest or the interest of Afghanistan in five years to allow the current NA retake the country and fall right back into civil war. The current program of attempting to encourage Afghanis to build their own nation-wide coalition that is not dominated by any single war group from any single region seems to be the best overall option.
Unlike you, Kalt, most of the world’s Muslims are capable of opposing the policies of a nation - and yes, even hating them - without wishing to wipe that nation out. In fact, there are many, many non-Muslims who are extremely critical of American foreign policies, without wishing to wipe the U.S. out. This latter sentiment appears to be one with which you, an American, are quite familiar. The only person I have ever heard claiming that America and fundamentalist Islam cannot co-exist is you. The Muslims whom I know claim no such thing. Your insistence, in thread after thread, that the U.S. really is at war with Islam, has done more to convince me of that than any Muslim propaganda. I’m sure bin Laden would thank you personally if he only knew.
How low, Collounsbury - I try for a brief post and you accuse me of having sub-standard reading skills.
Yes, Al-Qaeda IS an issue. It’s a terrorist organization that not only hates us, but has actually casued us some significant damage. They not only want to start a war, they have succeeded in causing open hostilities. They have proven themselves resourceful and tough. No, I don’t want to give these guys 28 hours, much less 28 days, in which to catch their breath.
The Taleban are an issue only to the extent they support Al-Qaeda and give it a safe haven. Certainly, Afghanistan is not essential to the operations of the pan-national terrorists - goodness knows, they operated quite successfully as cells here in the United States. Basically, Al-Qaeda used the Taleban while convenient and I would not be surprised if they now discard the Taleban - and Afghanistan - as if it were a wadded up used kleenex.
We are NOT at war with Afghanistan - we are at war with the Taleban and Al-Qaeda, who happen to be in Afghanistan. If these jerkezoids moved to, say, Sudan, we’d stop blowing up Afghanistan and move our efforts to Sudan.
Um… yes, even those who don’t like us - such as Iran - have acknowledged our right to defend ourselves. They have varying opinions on what they think is the appropriate response - after all, no one (except, perhaps, OBL & friends) wants to start WWIII over this. Not surprisingly, a lot would prefer us to arrest the guilty and making this a criminal and not a military issue. That said, I gather a lot of folks understand why we are inclined to respond with the army rather than the FBI/CIA. They don’t like it, but they do understand it. For Iran to offer aid to any downed American pilot seeking refuge on their territory is quite a change from, say, the late 1970s. And definiately there is a fear of the United States using nuclear weapons. And why not? We are the only country that has proven we will use nukes in warfare.
When the British attacked the Falklands we made noises about restraint to them - how is this fundamentally different?
No, truth - perhaps to simplistic for your tastes, but definitely the truth. If you attack a country on it’s home soil you will provoke a violent reaction.
Having long terms aims and strategies is not incompatible with also having short term aims and strategies.
Unquestionably, this can not end with the current campaign in Afghanistan. We need to go after funding, we need to fight propaganda with propaganda. Since the turmoil in the Muslim world has spilled over into the rest of the world, the rest of the world is going to have to wake up and get this inter-religious conflict sorted out. When it just concerned Muslims non-Muslims had a rationale for avoiding the conflict. Now - we can’t.
But - getting back to “should be bomb during Ramadan” - we are fighting people who want to impose their flavor of religion on everyone else. You know, I just can’t stomach that. I am willing to fight that. Ceasing to bomb during Ramadan can be seen in two different ways:
Good PR to our moderate Muslim allies
Bowing to the desires of our enemies, in essence saying their religious views are more important that ours.
How this is actally seen in the world depends much on context and what, exactly, is going on at the time Ramadan begins. Certainly, if Al Qaeda attacks during Ramadan then all bets are off and any “lessening of hostilities” will be reversed.
Contrary to your apparent assumption, I have read the entire thread, as is my practice prior to posting. Perhaps I read something you wrote and did not find it worthy of comment. So sorry. Or perhaps I only wished to discuss a few points instead of many.
Regardless - I do think it is vital for people to understand that, whatever WE conclude in our own debates, it is strategic insanity for our military to telegraph ANYTHING in advance. Regardless of what our commanders decide I don’t expect to hear one way or another on the “bomb or not” question.
Good reply. Tom has really covered any of my comments, but I will say certainly a total cessation is not at all a good idea which we have not meant to advance.
My fault, I meant to write Afghanistan, as in the Taleban and al-Qaeda [in Afghanistan] are not [the sole] issue. My fault, the above statement is nonsensical.
I am more than well-aware of the characteristics of al-Qaeda.
My intended point was that al-Qaeda operations, based on what is known about the structure and past operations, do not need ObL and folks in Afghanistan to undertake current operations. After training, cells are largely independent and have financed themselves independently.
28 days of Ramadan bombinb per se do not make that much difference for al-Qaeda globally in the short run: except perhaps as their recruiting poster.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Um… yes, even those who don’t like us - such as Iran - have acknowledged our right to defend ourselves. They have varying opinions on what they think is the appropriate response - after all, no one (except, perhaps, OBL & friends) wants to start WWIII over this. Not surprisingly, a lot would prefer us to arrest the guilty and making this a criminal and not a military issue. That said, I gather a lot of folks understand why we are inclined to respond with the army rather than the FBI/CIA. They don’t like it, but they do understand it. For Iran to offer aid to any downed American pilot seeking refuge on their territory is quite a change from, say, the late 1970s. And definiately there is a fear of the United States using nuclear weapons. And why not? We are the only country that has proven we will use nukes in warfare.
[/quote]
Laying your entire understanding of the situation on post-attack declarations is not a terribly good way to go about this.
Now, there has been a world of change, that is true. Iran of course is particularly special case. Iranians have not a bit of love for the Taleban nor frankly most of the groups associated with al-Qaeda insofar as Wahhabite theology and most Ikhwaani theology considers shiites at best “bad near Kafir Muslims.” Not the sort thing which endears them to Shiites. There is, in many ways, a natural alliance btw Iran and the USA.
However, that aside, it is clear to anyone who reads more than one langauge and reads the international press that support for bombing has wavered. One has to follow the evolution of a problem. Early declarations, however worded, did not give real carte-blanche. Even in Britain support has falled signifanctly.
That says that the USA has to engage the propaganda war, and win others hearts and minds. Asserting our own POV, as emotionally satisfying as that is, does not do that. Rather it often is off-putting. It may rankle that we have to sell ourselves, even in such a situation, but that’s the truth of the matter and emotional reaction against it does us no good.
Well, it’s been a long time since I’ve thought about the Falklands.
How might it be different? Or how might it be the same? What are the similarities? Did Maggie Thatcher take bombing the Argentine mainland off the menu, for example? Simply noting this doesn’t tell us anything at all.
No, truth - perhaps to simplistic for your tastes, but definitely the truth. If you attack a country on it’s home soil you will provoke a violent reaction.
[/quote]
Rhetoric. Rhetoric because no one in this thread has said that there should not be retaliation. Rhetoric because the problem of al-Qaeda is diffuse and over-concetration on Afghanistan without due regard to medium-term and long-term goals-- that is ability to fight them elsewhere, which means intelligence-- needs to be weighted into any policy.
Rhetoric because people who are neither Taleban nor al-Qaeda but are also Muslims indeed to suffer, and during Ramadan. That is not to put the blame on the USA but rather to recognize that there are outside factors. Simply ranting about al-Qaeda and how they must suffer does not make for clear-headed policy analysis.
Yes, that is rather obvious. But if one’s short term strategy undermines more fundamental long-term strategy and also one has other effective choices for the short term, then one should rationally consider the entire menu.
Very good. The question is how to do so. That is what I spend my time thinking about. It’s not obvious.
Well, the reason why I have doubted reading skills is this has been addressed.
(a) Unless one takes the Kalt view that all Islam is our enemy, it would be hard to understand a Ramadan scale back of bombing --I do direct you to Tom and my own actual argument which was not for total halt-- is hardly saying their (our enemies) religious views are more important than ours. In fact I see no logical connection.
(b) Once more, if you read what was actually written, nothing in the modest proposal said anything about sitting back and doing nothing, even in the case of a scale-back. It goes without saying that a strike during Ramadan is answered.
US ceases bombing during Ramadan, and steps up food aid to Afghanistan. bin Laden says “The US is attempting to force our people to violate the Ramadan fast, because the mighty hand of Allah has forced them to end their criminal assaults. Death to the infidels!” (Half-witted Pakistani fundamentalists cheer, and flock to join the jihad.)
US ceases bombing during Ramadan, and suspends food aid to Afghanistan. bin Laden says “The US is starving our people, because the mighty hand of Allah has forced them to end their criminal assaults. Death to the infidels!” (Half-witted Pakistani fundamentalists cheer, and flock to join the jihad.)
US continues to bomb during Ramadan. bin Laden says “The US is waging war on Islam. Death to the infidels!” (Half-witted Pakistani fundamentalists cheer, and flock to join the jihad.)
[/ul]
No thank you. bin Laden has won the toss, and elected to receive. The bombing will continue until he and his ilk are dead or incapacitated, their training camps smashed, and those who give him aid and comfort have been replaced with any group available (who will not give aid and comfort).
Islamic fundamentalists are not going to like or support us, no matter what. It is a foolish waste of time to try to fine tune the process of killing their co-religionists to try to get it to appeal to them.
Macchievelli said it was better to be feared than loved, since men were more willing to offend those they love than those they fear. We have little chance of inspiring love in the hearts of Islamic radicals. Let us be about the business of inspiring other emotions, therefore.
Ramadan, Christmas, Mother’s Day, or National Secretary’s Week.
Well, I suppose it would be ungenerous of me to point out how many times it has been pointed out that the radicals are not the audience targetted but rather
(a) moderate muslims (unless you are of the bigot school of thought that can not distinguish between a radical terrorist and an ordinary worshipper in a religion.)
(b) Pashtun elements under Taleban rule.
Leaving aside your continued misunderstanding of the issue (and the audiences) you also don’t understand Machiavelli. Helpfully one of our list comrades just happened to post a link to online The Prince including some emphasis of the deeper portions of Machiavelli’s The Prince which somehow is lost in the comic book version.
No regards, only contempt.
Now, in regards to current situation I am decidely for a strategic scale-back/change in focus of bombing. The conquest of the North and retreat of the Taleban into Pashtun areas means strategy needs to shift to developing the Pashtun resistance to them. Insofar as published and private sources --and most importantly anti-Taleban moujahid Pashtun leaders-- all indicate that the bombardments have had the (unsurprising) effect of rallying around the flag (the Taleban), change in tactics would be well-advised.
Using Ramadan to consolidate the North, move in supplies and develop Pashtun elements strikes me as a low-cost high-return option.
I think we’re missing something here. No one has pointed out that the call to stop bombing during Ramadan is a beautiful piece of spin control created by someone hostile to the whole idea of going after OBL. As has been pointed out, Islamic states have always been perfectly content to beat each other bloody during Ramadan. Suddenly, somehow, the Muslim world has decided that continuing a war during Ramadan borders on sacrilege. Why? I can see at least two reasons. First, half a loaf is better than none. There is no chance to convince the U.S. to stay out of Afganistan entirely. You might, however, create enough public pressure to get the U.S. to cave into this “reasonable” request. Second, if you do get the U.S. to stop bombing for a month, it will be much harder to start again. Renewed bombing will be a new flashpoint and will create much greater public unrest in the Muslim world.
Having said all that, I completely agree that we should be paying much more attention to our “public diplomacy.” Given the complete military collapse of the Taliban in the last several hours, however, (They appearently have now lost Herat as well.) it is militarily impossible to take the pressure off the Taliban. Moreover, it could actually make the humanitarian situation worse. I think it goes without saying that we will be able to distribute much more humanitarian aid to people in areas controlled by friendly forces this winter than to people in areas still controlled by the Taliban. The more area we control, the better off the situation will be for everyone. I’d also point out that, from a humanitarian point of view, some aid agencies actually believe that the bombing won’t materially affect the distribution of aid one way or the other.
So how about a compromise. Keep up the bombing. But, let’s get the Turks (fellow Muslims) to provide us a thousand or so troops for food convoy duty. Tell the Muslim world that the Turks are strictly non-combatants and are there to render humanitarian assistance during Ramadan in Taliban-controlled areas. We will, of course, avoid bombing the Turks while they are distributing aid. If the Taliban reject the offer (as they almost certainly will) they are the ones who are violating the spirit of Ramadan and they are the ones who will look bad.
(a) al-Jazeera reports that Kaboul has already fallen to the Northern Alliance, similar reports from Arabic Service, BBC. Unclear that Taleban “collapsed” per se rather than they are withdrawing to Pashtun territory. Herat fell yesterday, although again according to various sources undefeated Taleban forces (likely foreign or southern Pashtu in my judgement) remain active in the area.
(As an aside, Arabic language reports indicate Russians provided substantial amount of new heavy weapons to NA recently.)
(b) The US does not exercise control over the NA. We specifically requested they not enter Kaboul. They have. Al-Jazeera reports suggest that regardless of what public statements of the Northern Alliance, they have no intention of being American lackeys. Nor do upper command necessarily exercise great control over the militias. None of these forces ressemble regular armies.
“We” do not control anything on the ground. The NA does, and that vaguely. Putting Turkish troops into a fluid situation is not a briliant idea, above all since the Turks are unlikely to want to put their hands in the meat-grinder for us.
(d) Pushing south under these circumstances is likely to provoke Pashtu reaction. Unless there are solid assurances that they are not about to be fucked, the Pashtun will not role over.
(e) The opposition to bombing hardly is restricted to sympathizers to al-Qaeda nor even to Fundies. The “sudden” opposition revolves around a number of sensitivities regarding a non-Muslim power at war with a Muslim power. It is not a matter of sarcrilege --importing Xtian ideas is not useful here-- it is a matter of a sense of respect. Most Muslims feel that the West cares not a whit for their religious sensibilities. To continue to think that these things come from the radicals and al-Qaeda sympathizers alone fundamentally misunderstands the political situation. That is not in and itself a reason to cease or alter military strategy. It is a reason to think carefully and look for ways of responding to such concerns while simultaneously pursuing one’s own real interests.
Perhaps not current operations, but what about future ones? Someone had to set up the network, fund it, plan strategy. I doubt OBL is the only significant mind behind Al-Qaeda but there is definitely a leadership and steering committe of some sort. Without them the organization becomes much less effective and thus much less of a threat.
My preference would be to keep these expletive deleteds on the run so they can’t dig in elsewhere. Long term strategy - take out the leadership. If you can accomplish it short term, even better. Bombing has a part in that strategy, as do covert operations which (if done properly) we won’t be aware of until after they’re done.
I think relying on any one tactic is not good strategy in any war. Don’t want to become too predictable.
Which does not, of course, mean we will see eye to eye on all things. Stalin was an ally during WWII - but only while Hitler was the greater threat to both the soviets and the US. Likewise, the Northern Alliance are allies of convenience. I’m sure once we reach our common goal the alliance (such as it is) will fall apart.
Hmmm… my reading has been that there has been some ambivalence from day one. The governments support us, but the populance has more diverse views. Nor do I see it as the bombing in and of itself that is the problem but such things as growing humanitarian disasters and questions about appropriate targets.
Now that the tide has turned against the Taleban and routes can be re-opened for humanitarian aid opinions may well swing back the other way. The major question seemed to be “what good will bombing do?” If we succeed in our objectives then it’s more likely to be accepted (if not ever loved) than if we fail in our objectives.
I absolutely agree breaking al-Qaeda in Afghanistan helps to break up future operations, although I have my doubts as to the degree to which we will be able to catch al-Qaeda’s leadership. They all have operated in the region for decades (since the war with the Soviets) and have deep connections. I hate to say this, but I give even odds that many will escape or have.
See my comments in regards to the Pashtun situation and recent developments. I don’t see that bombing will achieve what is needed as compared with getting a Pashtu revolt against the Taleban.
Of course, no matter so long one is aware of that and takes this into account.
I agree. Which is why Tom and I made specific note of air support. Appropriate targets are the entire issue.
Indeed, and the objectives need to be properly framed.
Okay gang: so how does the fall of Kabul modify the situation from the point of view of the OP, especially regarding Collounsbury’ and tomndebb’s proposal of a new ‘PR front’ (halting bombing, daring Taleban to break the cease fire)?
Obviously, many points argued previously in this thread are now moot, though many are not. But, if I may be so bold, this seems to be a turning point in the hostilities, and an opportunity if it can be exploited (the beginnings of new government for Afghanistan? Or at least massive relief?), or a grave danger if not (yet more civil war and chaos, possibly widening into regional conflict). Right? Or is the fall of Kabul not that significent event in the big picture?
Regarding the PR War: do we (the world community) now have an opportunity to provide more substantial relief to the population in and around Kabul and visible of support of the civilian population? Would this negate much of the concern in the wider Muslim would about the U.S. harming civilians, and permit a more aggressive campaign against the any Taliban forces in the countryside?
It seems like, at the least, the Taliban will have little access to the media going forward (though they’ve had little for a week or so, so perhaps this is moot).
My take: damifiknow, the situation is way too fluid right now.
I’m awake listening to Arabic lang. broadcasts on what seems to be happening. Let me give my initial opinion.
Ah, let me stress once more both Tom and I have argued that a scaling back to tactical support of the NA, which is not quite the same as halting per se. Just to be clear.
The change is it appears that the Taleban are drawing up positions intended to defend Pashtun tribal territory. It does not appear according to what I am hearing that the * Taleban * hard core collapsed, but rather opportunists switched side, but the Pashtun core is intact.
As I noted above, we do not need this to become a war against the Pashtun.
Insofar as the leadership of anti-Taleban Pashtun fractions have said that bombing has hurt their recruiting and insofar as “we” are in a position of strength, making a pause of some limited, bounded way may make a great deal of sense to give our friends a chance. As this can work in positive ways on a number of fronts it strikes me as worth a try.
To the first, once routes are secure, yes it will provide much more relief. In re Taleban, see comments above.
al-Jazeera. Western ignoring them doesn’t cut them off.
Thanks for the update! I checked and see similar reports myself. Don’t you just love the Internet?
True. However, the deal has always been that the NA will give us a free hand in “their” territory to hunt down OBL. I’m fairly certain that we can get them to cooperate in delivering food. They’ll certainly be easier to deal with than the Taliban.
I’m not sure I agree. First, I understand the Turks have already agreed in principle to commit a large contingent to a peacekeeping force working with a transitional post-Taliban government. Second, the Turks take their NATO responsibilities very seriously and would be unlikely to turn down a request for help from us. Third, as I understand it, if the Taliban agreed to allow the Turks to enter their territory to distribute food, they would be both religiously and culturally bound to give them safe conduct. Finally, to be cynical about it, we’re talking about “public diplomacy” here. Therefore, the important question is, how will this be perceived in the Muslim world? We’d get credit for giving alms to the poor even if the Taliban refuse the offer. Obviously, this isn’t going to make everyone love the West, but it can’t hurt.
Agree. But so what? We’re talking about how to handle Muslim public opinion during Ramadan. In any case, it appears that the NA has essentially been walking unopposed into these cities. Hard to blame them for that!
My point is that there is no historical or religious basis for stopping a war for Ramadan, regardless of who is fighting it. While I certainly don’t claim the depth of historical knowledge of you or Tamerlane I am unaware of any Muslim country, whether fighting with a Muslim or non-Muslim one, declared – or even attempted to negotiate – a Ramadan truce. (I don’t believe, for example, that the Ottomans attempted a Ramadan truce during WWI.) Muslim countries have even started wars against non-Muslim countries during Ramadan. So where and when did this idea get started? My bet is that it got started either with an Al-Qaeda sympathizer or even came from Al-Qaeda itself, especially since it ties in neatly with OBL’s and Shaik (sp?) Omar’s admitted strategy of attempting to delay until Muslim public opinion, especially in Pakistan, forced a U.S. retreat.
This is an interesting point. I have always assumed that Muslims objected to affronts to the Quran, etc. because they were sacreligious, i.e. disrespectful toward what the Muslim considers sacred. Is there more to it than this?
I agree, sort of. What’s really going on is that the radicals are attempting, with some success, to shape the debate and to mold Muslim public opinion. The essence of any good spin control is, of course, that the public at large adopts your opinion as its own.
Quite correct. Except that we have been woefully inadequate at addressing the “public diplomacy” aspect of our overall strategy. The very fact that we are being forced to debate a possible bombing halt is evidence that we have lost the public relations initiative.
The events of the last few hours may have rendered the question of a Ramadan bombing halt moot. With the “strategic rearward advance” of the Taliban forces, the NA has achieved everything plus a good deal more that it and the U.S. could have hoped for before winter sets in. The NA has now outrun its supply lines and its poor logistics will require some time to catch up. In other words, the NA is currently incapable of advancing against any determined opposition.
One of the tactical problems with a Ramadan bombing halt is that we would lose the last few weeks of decent weather. Once winter sets in, ground operations for the NA will be impractical. Now, however, the NA will have to re-group and re-supply anyway before they can continue to advance. Since 1) the new front lines will likely be in extremely difficult terrain, 2) The NA can’t advance for a while anyway and 3) we’ve already achieved the bombing’s near term objectives maybe we can consider a bombing halt.
I still like my U.S.-assists-Muslims-with-food-distribution-to-the-starving ploy, however. Think of the phot ops!
I didn’t intend to mis-characterize; poor summary on my part.
I mostly agreed (with reservations) with the original point about scaling back hostilities during Ramadan being a possible tactical PR coup that was worth exploring.
My question: is this approach now moot with the fall of Kabul? It seems we (the world community) may soon be in a better position to protect non-combatants, which, if that happens, would make the whole Ramadan de-escalation (better term, C?) a non-event: the PR advantage was that we’re respecting the religion of civilians, and the civilians are now safe and we’re mopping things up in an ugly war in the countryside.
Or maybe not. I’d guess the situation needs to stabilize quite a lot before we can all pick this apart.
I should be sleeping and lord knows how I will get any work done today but:
al-Jazeera reports that its agency was bombed in Kaboul and from Qandahar that the Qandahar airfield and other areas are “in the hand of forces of the Northern Alliance” while its agent on the ground there hears “sound of fire [as I understand not bombardment but ground fire] towards the north west” of the city.
** Qandahar **is under attack by the Northern Alliance? :eek:
I’m not going to be much good at work tomorrow either! You keep on posting, Collounsbury! Can you give us a quick update every few minutes? This is incredible!
