agree Sam Stone,
It’s not too hard to understand that the
Taliban and its army has to be whittled down
and taken over (by the NA). This is a must do.
We’ve got to kill this goose at least.
I say we send Madonna over for a free concert: if everything goes well, the Taliban will all either die of culture shock or convert en mass into raving capitalistic pig-dogs. And if it fails, well there’s at least one less over-blown cultural icon for me to worry about (and believe me, I worry about stuff like this).
Well, Sam, you did not seem to reply to any of my points. Do you disagree that this will increase rather than decrease terrorism? Keep in mind the government has already warned that terrorism will increase because of this.
You claim no civilians have been hit. Sorry, I just don’t believe it. You think that terrorist training camps are 100% terrorist, no civilians around? You think no bombs could have missed their mark? In any air attack, there WILL be civilian casualties. Remember the interviews with the Afghanis after Clinton sent a few missiles over to strike suspected terrorist camps? They certainly thought there were civilian casualties, and they were mighty pissed about it.
As far what I was expecting, I think there aren’t many easy answers here. I believe small swat-team like groups acting in secret is probably the way to go. Perhaps it’s happening but we don’t know about it. In which case, good! But the air attack is quite clearly counterproductive for the reasons I’ve already stated.
You are welcome to try and tell me how bombing Afghanistan will result in mass goodwill over there.
The women beaten in the streets or executed in the soccer stadium for showing ankle looked pretty unhappy to me. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of women displaced, murdered, or precluded from participating in society in any meaningful way simply for being who they are. Why the outrage over women fleeing NOW? Selective outrage?
As for rejoicing, I have read several stories concerning how Afghani women are more than ready for the end of the Taliban’s rule–including some who say they would take up kitchen knives and boiling water. I think not bombing would be a greater crime, after building up the hopes of the less freedom hating people of Afghanistan.
I think euro-pacifism (consisting of a general contempt for all things military while offering no concrete soulutions to the intractable problems which cause war) is intellectual cowardice, and far too prevalent. War is bad, bombing kills people. I applaud the brilliant analysis, now what?
Avumede, I think you need to reassess what you said. In a couple weeks (days, hours?) it will sound silly. I will bet this bombing is prepatory and will not kill as many civilians as the Taliban do in a year (week, day?) Air attacks are necessary to enable any ground actions we will take. The Afghanis are used to some bombing, since their OWN GOVERNMENT does it to them on a daily basis, and not with precision munitons either. Artillery also. Geez, more selective anti-American outrage.
Are you familiar with what the Taliban have been doing to non-friendly ethinc groups, or those who just ask “what are you doing in my house?” They kill them. Sebastian Junger has been reporting this stuff for weeks on MSNBC. Human rights groups have been documenting these atrocities for YEARS.
As for the “increase terrorism” argument. It seems difficult to imagine Al Qaeda being any more motivated to kill us all than they already are. What are you saying, now they are REALLY angry? Al Qaeda: Somalia, 2 African embassies, U.S.S. Cole, first WTC bombing, Pentagon, 2nd WTC bombing (not a comprehensive list). I would love to hear your sure-fire solution to the radical Islamic terrorism problem that does not involve some bombing. Sending in troops without air support is moronic, by the way. I am all ears.
Nothing the US does short of surrendering and giving the Taliban everything they want (money, other aid, US out of the Middle East politically and militarily, destruction of Israel, etc.) will generate mass goodwill there so trying for such a result is futile. It is not an option.
What is being done is what must be done for now and a Marshall Plan type thing must and probably will follow. I don’t see any better way that will work in reality.
The so-called “Northern Alliance” isn’t a single group but a collection of anti-Taliban groups…the Tajik rebels being the main one but not the only one. They are far less severe than the Taliban. For example, the area they control is the only part of Afghanistan were woman can work, go to school and wlak outside without full coverings and male relative escorts.
Beagle, I hope I am indeed wrong. And Iconoclast, I hope you are right, a Marshall Plan type of action would be desirable at the end of all this. Whether it happens is uncertain, and whether it is successfull in a country where many of the hard-line would kill us to have us out, even if we are helping, is even more uncertain.
Remember, this is not only about “Al Queda”. They are only one of many terrorist groups. From what I am seeing and hearing these days, the fanatical Muslims many Middle East countries will support terrorism against America (and England, surely).
Whether we think the bombing is no worse than normal for these people is obviously besides the point. The point is what those who might contemplate terrorism (those who are on the fence) against the US would think about it. If it can be used to inspire more to violence, then that’s all that counts. Terrorism will increase.
And, yes, I’ve known about the horrors of the Taliban for years. The left has been most vocal about them, and certainly no one is defending them. I’d love to see them ousted from power . Except that I’d like to see it happen in a way that does not cause more hatred of the US, and also is sustainable. I think the NA is clearly not sustainable, and as I’ve said before, the enemy of our enemy is not our friend.
If Sam doesn’t mind me stepping in with my own opinion.
Terrorism will increase in the short term, as operatives lying in wait for several months/years jump out of the woodwork in ‘retaliation attacks’. But that just means that we’ll see in five months all the terrorism we would have seen in the next five years. How much? No clue.
But, terrorism will decrease in the long term. If we prove here, now, that any government that supports terrorists will not be abided, then the terrorist organizations will have more and more trouble trying to find places to set up training camps, banks to use to transfer funds, militaries will to sell equipment and training, etc. Without the ability to base in Afghanistan or Sudan, bin Laden’s organization would be much weaker.
This is not a ‘short-term stop terrorism’ plan. This is a long-term plan. Because no short term plan will work.
Why should we care about mass goodwill over there? No matter what we do, someone will hate us- we’re too pro-Israel, or too pro-Palestine, or too pro-Christianity, or too right wing, or too left wing, or too democratic, or not democratic enough.
Trying to be liked by everyone is impossible, and certainly will not stop terrorism. Someone will always be pissed off by the things we do, whatever we do.
I know the US Senate has already proposed a Marshall Plan type recovery program for not just Afghanistan, but the surrounding region as well. I hope it is something we see some follow through on.
AS for terrorist attacks, the US, and the rest of the West would have been targets for them even if the US did nothing at all in response to 9/11.
I agree that such attacks, or attempts at attacks will increase inthe short term as in-place agents come out to strike but after that a general decrease in large-scale terrorism will occur.
According to this and other sites I’ve seen, the US and Euorpeans want the aid of the Northern Alliance for the fight, but want their agreement that the former king of Afghanistan, who has been living in exile in Italy for 20 years, will once again lead the country. I think they have been making some headway on this proposal.
For anyone who hasn’t seen it, check out http://www.rawa.org.
I’ve also heard from a few places (I recall one being CNN’s man in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago) that there is actually a decent amount of goowill for the US in Afghanistan, since we did help keep their country from being taken over by the Soviets. Also, we have been the biggest supplier of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan for a while now. This gives us some inroads for winning over some useful support.
Exactly, an Army marches on their stomach.
Erek
Thanks for this link, Ogre! For any who are not familiar with The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afganistan (RAWA), here are two articles.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010917/wl/wiredwomen_1.html
ABC News, Sept. 18, 2001: Arrested and Under Net Surveillance
“Under the law of the Taliban…membership in RAWA is punishable by death.”
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/10/02/fatima/index.html
Salon, Oct. 3, 2001: The Taliban’s Bravest Opponents
“Determined to expose the frightening abuses of the Taliban, women [of RAWA] began to hide video cameras under their burqa and document the executions and public floggings which take place every day under the Taliban.”
I just heard on CNN that “the purpose of the rations being dropped in Afghanistan is to show the people of Afghanistan that the war isn’t against them, but rather against the ruling Taliban.”
I’m not sure if I see that message being conveyed via drops of little yellow packages full of peanut butter.
First off, those who are there are either going to be dead or too scared to leave the confines of the rubble to retrieve the rations.
Secondly, those who do survive probably won’t care what the US has dropped in the way of rations.
Also, if there is a potential danger of the rations being used by the Taliban Army, wouldn’t it be safer (and potentially less detrimental to the current effort) to stop the air drops of food?
Up till now, I guess the humanitariam missions served a purpose. But I don’t see a reason for continuing with them now.
I would like to post some things about this thread.
One: What is hte Marshall Plan, I can’t seem to recall
Two: We did bomb cities such as Kabul and Kandahar
Third: From what I hear the former King is not only too old to rule, he doesn’t particularly WANT to rule, and the people don’t really care for him to rule.
Fourth: The Northern Alliance is made up of some of the warlords that brought instability to the region that the Taliban kicked out to establish more stability.
Fifth: I am sure that a starving person that found the food is going to rejoice, even if they may hate the US in two years, they are going to love the food today.
Erek
Because it’s the right thing to do?
Because we’re better than those we fight against?
Because we show that we are caring, that we DO care, and that we’re not the Great Satan?
The Marhshall Plan ocurred in what-the late forties, early fifties?
Stalin had cut off any aid or imports into Eastern Berlin, efectively starving them until they gave in. Under Truman, the US went in with plans and dropped off huge amounts of food, toilet paper, soap, etc etc.
My information might be a little off-it’s been awhile since I studied this-but it was a great success. We sent word to Stalin that the aid would continue until he gave in.
Guin, you’re thinking of the Berlin Airlift. The Marshall Plan was the US plan to rebuild Europe after the war. We spent billions of dollars helping the Germans, British, French, and the other countries who’d been devistated by the war rebuild their nations. We did learn one thing from WW I, in that if you punish a whole nation for the actions of its leaders, you end up with a far more dangerous foe, the Marshall Plan was an attempt to prevent this from happening. So far, it seems to have worked.
Guinastasia
I’m not sure if this post was in response to mine. If it wasn’t, I apologize. It sounded like you were responding to me.
Right thing to do? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “right thing to do.” In what way?
I agree that in peacetime, air shipments of supplies and food can be very helpful to a population. This is also the case if the US were responding to some natural disaster.
But we’re at war. Even if it isn’t with the Afghan people, Afghanistan is getting bombed. I highly doubt most Afghanis care very much if the “right thing” is done right now or not.
Yet again, I’m going to need you to clarify this point a little bit. Better in what way? Militarily? I agree. But if you meant morally, I think that is probably going to depend on whom you ask.
Guin, don’t kid yourself. The US will always be considered the great satan by some. All the air drops in the world will not change that. That stems from a much more broad based criticism of US foreign policy than it is a lack of air drops during war time.
The biggest concern I have for the air drops is that they can very easily fall into the hands of those we are trying to defeat.
You’re worried that we are going to be defeated because the Taliban army has peanut butter? I think as long as there is any amount of food available in Afghanistan then it is going to go to the Taliban ruler and the army defending them. So, I really don’t see food falling into the hands of the Taliban as being any grave danger to us.
Aside from that point, what Guinastasia said. I have mixed feelings about this military strike (particularly as it is still early yet to know what it has accomplished and how many civilians have been killed) but the humanitarian component of dropping food certainly makes me feel better about it rather than worse. And, it also seems to me to make it more likely, rather than less likely, to accomplish our objectives.