There’s a huge difference between having foreign affairs in different countries and actively interfering in them. The latter approach is far more likely to produce terrorist attacks.
Isn’t Osama bin Laden pissed at the USA because of our military presence in Saudi Arabia, a presence I might add that was requested or approved of by the Saudi royal family after Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia?
And as a response to that, Al-Qaeda is formed and begins terrorist operations against the USA and elsewhere including the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassy in Kenya, 9/11, the bombing in Spain, the bombing in London, many captures and beheadings, etc…I’m sorry, what was it we were supposed to do about it exactly?
Tell them “we’re sorry for being in your holy land?”
Fuck that.
So our choices are wimpy or brutally stupid? That’s it?
How is militarily responding to the biggest attack on US soil ever brutally stupid?
The Iraq war was stupid, brutally so, but the war in Afghanistan, not so much. At least not in it’s inception. Maybe in the way it’s being conducted is up for debate.
I’ve often heard or read the (meme?) that “the only thing those people (Ayrabs) understand is force”
Is there any truth to that or is that something people just say?
The Cheney assassination squad story was based on this one from last March 9:
Make sense, people? It should.
That’s who Hersh was referring to in his pre-article Minneapolis talk.
There’s truth to it when used about anybody who says it themselves. If you make yourself believe it about “the other”, then force is the only “language” you yourself will try to use. And then the evidence is that force is the only language YOU understand. Look at most of our recent wars for examples.
Besides bringing the conspirators to justice after 9/11/01, we had perhaps one arguably appropriate ancillary mission in Afghanistan, which was to eliminate the Taliban as a viable political actor, justified by their support for international terrorism. That mission implies a corrollary obligation, to deliver enough aid and support to allow Afghanistan to develop a credible independent political system. And then get out.
That obligation would’ve required the troops GWB sent to Iraq, plus a whole lot of direct aid. A Marshall Plan for Afghanistan would’ve been appropriate. We might’ve even been able to do that and withdraw most of our troops after a decade or so. Such a consideration should’ve factored into our strategic decision whether to pursue the ancillary mission itself, one might think.
Now… I think we’ll be lucky to prevent a much bigger South Asian conflict than Vietnam ever was. And it’ll involve every major power before it’s done, and possibly create some new ones.
I hope I’m wrong. But I’m in the same group of unqualified amateurs that saw the ugly reactionary storm that was coming in the US before the end of that September of '01, and warned about the folly of Iraq during the elections of '02.
So if you believe I’m wrong, instead of just hope I am, please give me some supporting data and argument. Because I’d really like to believe it too.
There’s a lot of people like that. The Sioux, Comanche, Japanese, Communists, Koreans, Communist Koreans, Filipinos, Mexicans. They have no respect for human life.
Well, to be fair, the communist regimes that have existed on this planet are more responsible for death and woe upon their own citizenry than even the fascists.
America may deal the death to other countries, but to it’s own in the form of gulags, executions, disappearing in the night? Not so much. Unless you count Vince Foster, of course. He was about to blow the whistle on the whole humidor.
Aiming for not evil at all. Less evil doesn’t interest me.
Arabs were civilized centuries before we were thought of. Ever use Arabic Numerals? They were trading around the known world centuries ago. To imply they are some backward people who have to be whipped into shape is a pathetic excuse to use power over diplomacy. We have been attacking countries for most of our existence. We have interfered with sovereign countries over and over. Who is uncivilized? Power and force are our tools of trade.
That is a remarkably naive interpretation of history. That may have been so many moons ago, but isn’t true now.
As for this “creating enemies as we go” argument, the enemies are already in place. If we kill 1,000 Taliban fighters and in the process kill 32 civilians, and of the survivors, 48 decide to join the Taliban cause…I’m OK with those numbers.
I guess I’m heartless like that.
Apparently, nothing that involves reality does interest you.
Who’s ‘we’, kimosabe? And what has this got to do with anything?
A time or too, yes. And your point is…?
Uhuh. So were a lot of peoples. Again…your point would be…?
Are we talking about Arabs in general, or Afghani’s? I must have missed someone saying either group were backward people needing to be whipped into shape, or that this was used as an excuse for power. Smells like a strawman to me.
We didn’t go into Afghanistan because the Afghani’s were backward (both economically and politically…probably had something to do with decades of civil war, coupled with a vicious war with the Soviets and magnified by the levels of poverty and religious fundamentalism that has gripped the region over that period). We went in because that’s where AQ had bases, and the quasi-government in control of the country supported AQ and refused to hand them over to us. It’s really as simple as that.
Let me ask you (and the others on your nominal side)…why do YOU think we went into Afghanistan? I ask this because I just spent several futile pages discussing this very topic in another of those 9/11 CT threads, so I’m curious where you and others stand on this. After the CT thread nothing would shock me, so fire away.
Again, who is ‘we’? The US? The West? Human beings in general? Our lizard alien overlords? The Illuminati?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by ‘uncivilized’ exactly. It seems to me that, in general, the most ‘civilized’ nations are usually the ones who commit the most wide spread mayhem, historically…while the ‘uncivilized’ generally are limited to the amount of inhumanity they can accomplish to a purely local level. I’d have to say that, relatively speaking, the Taliban were certainly more brutal and ‘uncivilized’ than the US could ever match…they were simply limited in their brutality to purely local levels.
Very profound. The difference between the US and, say, the pre-invasion Taliban were that the Taliban used power and force on a purely local level (and with a much heavier hand), while the US (and other super powers) use force and power on a global level. It’s simply a matter of degree. Not that I expect you to understand this, mind, but I figured I’d at least comment.
That’s true. But, you probably missed the fact that AQ (it’s Al Qaeda btw, not El) did not have any bases in Saudi, while they did have such bases in Afghanistan…which probably explains why we went to Afghanistan instead of Saudi. Well, that’s why I think we went there…I await, with bated breath, your own explanation as to why we went to Afghanistan.
BTW, your last sentence is a total strawman…no one, not even that idiot Bush, said that going to Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) was going to end terrorism.
-XT
Give the man a cigar, he got it! Dems suddenly aren’t very anti-war (or torture, or whatever other Bush cause) when it’s a Blue hatted Dauphin at the head of the Imperial Project. What a surprise.
RE: Afghanistan, what’s that Mark Twain quote? “There are many humorous things in the world, among them the white man’s notion that he is less savage than the other savages.”
Very humane. If you can bend the numbers to make a profit, then killing is fine. We are making numerical progress. But what if we are not? What if our cruelty is making more enemies than you can kill? Perhaps we have to accelerate the killing machines. Nice treadmill of death you are on.
Now, we’re getting somewhere! Cold, hard, realistic numbers, something we can work with! So, 32 innocent lives snuffed out to kill 1,000 enemy soldiers, that is within the ratio of acceptability? Good! How about 64, then? 128? 256?
At what point do you scruple? At what point do you say “Hold! Enough!”?
And how many of our own? If I’m right about this (and I have been right when you were wrong, despite my tenuous grip on “reality”…), then to win this thing is going to require a lot of casualties on our part. How many are you OK with?
The Viet Cong/NVA were willing to lose ten of theirs to kill one of ours. And they were atheists, they didn’t think they were going straight to Paradise if they die in battle. How much more or less committed do you expect the Taliban fighters are? In your hard-headed and realistic estimation, how many of our best and brightest should we expect to sacrifice to this noble end? And how many is too many?
I think you can probably guess my answer, but then again, I’m just a fuzzy-thinking civilian, and a hippy to boot! No doubt your answer will be much more grounded in fact. So, what would that be, then?
As many as it takes to accomplish the mission I suppose. Now, besides destroying the Taliban (if that’s even totally possible) and maybe putting a huge dent in the opium production (which hasn’t happened as of yet), I don’t know what the mission really is beyond that.
And sorry about the snide remark upthread…alcohol has a way with a fella.
Wow. Must be one hell of an important mission then.
Ah. Well, I’m sure we’ll find a mission after we’ve spent enough blood and treasure. And killed enough collateral civilians.
Is the Afghanistan war vs. terror a good war? I have to agree that Exhibit A in this case is:
We did not attack Saudi Arabia.
Yah sure there are some AQ camps in Afghanistan. It is extremely difficult to get any details beyond that. For example
-how many camps?
-got a map of their locations for me?
-How many AQ guys are we talking about? How many AQ guys followed Bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan? If the answer is zero, it demonstrates that AQ is a function of money more than of either Bin Laden or of Afghanistan.
xtisme:
-There weren’t any AQ bases in Kabul AFAIK. Or in 99.9999% of the rest of Afghanistan Territory either. The terrorists trained in, um, Florida, Spain, Germany, etc. Talk about staging and logistics all you want, if terrorism was the point we could have eliminated the camps (you’ve heard of 'projection of force, no?) and been done with it. The Taliban are assholes, yes, but they are not our problem.
-The Taliban were only nominally in control of the country. How did they support AQ? Couldn’t do anything about them is more like it. It hasn’t been demonstrated that the Taliban knew anything of the 911 plans, for instance. In the CT thread you talk derisively about, there never was an example of a single transaction demonstrated between the Taliban and AQ. No money or weapons changing hands, unless you can provide proof… And no, being within the borders of a lawless land doesn’t count as an official government sanction. Transactions from the Saudis to AQ? Um, yes.
-It hasn’t been shown that the Taliban could ever turn over AQ. We can’t either, so wtf? Might as well declare war on anyone who doesn’t sprout a tail if that is your standard.