You are correct up to a certain point. In the case at hand, giving Bin Laden and whoever else is behind this any consideration would be 100% counterproductive. Eradicating Bin Laden and his associates will eliminate the short term threat. But if what they want is immediate attention, then we are closing the barn door after the horses got out. It was there 24 x 7 on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc. Too late.
Now where I disagree: we do need to attack why it is attractive to recruits to “join the cause”.
We destroyed the Fascist governments in Germany, Japan and Italy, but then we took the at the time extraordinary action of embracing the people of those countries economically and politically. We helped to rebuild.
Why? Because we believed that the economic disasters that they suffered in the 1920s and 1930s, to some degree brought about by our own vindicativeness, helped foment the monsters that came into power. So we do need to examine our own role, if any, in creating some of these monsters.
I want to be clear on that last part. Did the Allied powers created Hitler? No, absolutely not. Did we help to create some of the conditions that allowed him to thrive. Absolutely yes.
Could we have prevented a Hitler from happening? Yes, but we didn’t. However we did fix the conditions after WWII via the Marshall plan. This is a case of first eliminating the symptom (Hitler) and then eliminating the root cause (devastating post WWI reparations and a ravaged economy). With 20/20 hindsight we would have prevented the root cause. We have learned from history before. Instead of a new monster/threat arising from the ashes of WWII, a new partner arose.
The difficulty often lies in identifying the correct history to learn from.
Guinastasia You are free to disagree with the military [specifically guerilla] training the US gives to those resistance groups it has backed over the years. In many cases, I’d tend to agree, but I am not aware of the US creating, teaching, or condoning the use of terror.
Just as a retired or honorably discharged veteran holding up a 7-11 is not an indictment of the entire US military, neither are terrorists who happen to have had US military training at one time.
Maybe in other areas in other times, in far different circumstances when we thought we were on te side of right – but not in the case of the origin of Osama Bin Laden’s network. The Mujahadeen, of which Bin Laden was a part 20 years ago, was fighting to repel an invasion of Soviet forces. The Mujahadeen never were a terrorist organization. The U.S. aiding the Mujahadeen was fully justifiable.
Now then, as for Sandanistas and others the U.S. may have backed – that doesn’t matter any more. The U.S. can’t look back on past foibles with regret and guilt. Thanks to the WTC tragedy, the rules have changed for the U.S. and all nations. Global terrorists, from this point forward, cannot be tolerated. The U.S. must adopt this stance now regardless of any past “terrorist” suppport activity.
Hipocracy? Then so be it. That can’t stop the U.S. from doing what we have to do today. The past is done with.
I think there is an appreciable difference between training an understaffed and tactically deficient army the means of guerrilla warfare and advocating terrorism. Do you disagree?
Do you mean the Symbionese Liberation Army? The ones who bagged Patty Hearst? “Falange” IIRC was the Spanish Fascists. Maoist I got, but Symbiotic?
Yessiree Bob! What a triumph! Tracked down and killed every damn one of them. Sure took care of Israel’s terrorism problem. Peace and harmony prevails. You bet.
Gonna skip some…
Utter balderdash! Lumping the Black Panthers together with Black September or Al Queda is either, as you say, ignorant or disingenuous. An immediate retraction is called for.
You gotta be kidding! Living in fear of your neighbor 24/7/365 is success! Ye Cats and Little Fishes, whats your definition of failure?
What Bin Laden wants, what he has made abundantly clear, is Armageddon, Muslim style. It is his dearest hope that America will behave like a world-class thug, What we would call “collateral damage” is his version of manna from heaven.
Here is a terrible truth: there may be that there is nothing we can do, with all our tanks, planes, and bombs, except to make things worse (yes, I do regard the the death of innocent civilians as “worse”, by definition.)
If that’s so, can you take it? Can you stand there and take it? Or will your craving for vengeance rot out your good sense, your humanity, and finally your soul?
Guerrilla warfare and terrorism use vastly different tactics. They share some similarities, yes, but knowledge of guerrilla warfare hardly makes you an expert in terrorism.
What does the fact that at one time we aided Bin Laden have to do with anything?
We also trained McVeigh. Are we responsible for his actions?
How about corrupt policeman? Are the academies to be held blameful for training them?
Are we supposed to have no contact and assist no one ever for fear that at some point in the future they will do something bad, and it’ll be our fault because we had something to do with them?
Should we not pet a dog because it might bite somebody, someday?
What are you insinuating?
Why are you pursuing this line of reasoning when it’s clearly fallacious and has already been beaten to death?
Do you mean like at the end or Return of The Jedi when the Emperor is telling Luke to use his anger and strike him down, and then his journey to the dark side will be complete?
Being a little overly dramatic, aren’t we?
::face reddens:: Um, yeah, you got me there. How embarassing. The “Symbiotic Maoist Falange” was actually a sarcastic reference to the SLA that I read somewhere, and I got the parody confused with the original. Oy.
I’ll take those as conceded then. Stoid only needed one.
Sorry. I stand by that one.
Based on the fact that they are surrounded by sworn enemies, I think it would be foolish for them not to have a healthy fear. Don’t you? And nobody’s hijacked there planes for quite some time. Their buildings still stand in Tel Aviv.
6-10,000 dead civilians, 4 hijacked planes, and the collapsing of the two most prominent buildings in our most prominent city.
Personally, I’d rather live in fear than die in ignorance.
That’s what we did the last time Bin Laden attacked the WTC.
If you’ve read anything I’ve written on this incident you’ll see that I have strongly argued against retaliation out of a misguided need for vengeance, or anger.
In spite of this I’ve been attacked for having just such a stance on several occasions.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction on your part to assume, and a presumption to claim to know my motivations when you haven’t bothered to examine my words.
I’d appreciate a retraction as that is not my sentiment.
I don’t understand. If we refuse to acknowledge the motives of the terrorists then any retaliation will necessarily be irrational, since the decision will be made while willfully ignoring relevant facts.
Who said anything about ignoring the relevant facts?
My argument (despite the hyperbole of the title,) is that we should be careful that the terrorist acts do not bring credence and attention to the terrorist’s causes. If they do, we validate the act and they accomplish their aim.
In a war, do you consider the motives of the enemy to be irrelevant? This is, afterall, what the OP wishes us to ignore. Or am I reading it incorrectly?
Here I thought all your posts were intended to support a, shall we say, stern foreign policy. I utterly missed the dovelike cooing. You hid it so well, completely missed it. Far out. Peace, brother.
I coulda swore you spent some verbal ammunition defending the Militrary Options. But if you say that aint so, then it ain’t so. In which case, I’m still wrong, 'cause I still think so. Thats as much retraction as I can muster.
Dont have nearly enough time to explore that Black Panther stuff with, leave that be.
Consider only: is it possible that no military option is feasible? For whatever reason? And if so, then what do we do?