I’m with you on the uncertainty, Rhythmdvl, but there will be times when we know exactly who and where they are. With confirmation, these people should be killed, no exceptions, no prisoners except those who might potentially allow us to kill still more terrorists. These people are worse than useless as prisoners–better to kill them outright in combat, if possible.
Family members in a confirmed terrorist training camp? Their presence indicates support. They’ve just become combatants, and to hell with them.
The military aspect of this response should be short and precise. The idea is to shut down the training facilities, by killing as many people associated with the facilities as possible. It shouldn’t take very long before those camps are empty. We’ll wait for them to come back, or watch for them to set up elsewhere. Every time they congregate, I want a head in crosshairs, until they realize that they cannot continue as they have in the past.
We, not they, have the luxury of time and money, for Americans will not soon lose their resolve as a result of the events of September 11th. Therefore, we can afford to be very careful about who we liquidate and how. Even so, minimization of civilian casualties is not particularly necessary, because the enemy is both evil and clever enough to supply their own bodies to support their propaganda if we do not. We need to redefine these peoples’ concept of “innocence” anyway, as they have so succinctly redefined ours.
Forcing Al Qaeda and the Taliban to disperse is the easy part. Aside from the “maintenance” job of wiping them out when they coalesce, the military aspect of the mission is largely complete once they are dispersed. From there the job falls into the realm of diplomacy, politics, and espionage.
Once dispersed, Al Qaeda is required to communicate with one another over distance, something we have a distinct ability to crack, track, and act upon. They will have to begin to trust people they do not know, and some of those people will be ours. When they are reduced to that level, we will have already won a significant, but not decisive victory. It will be the first small victory in a war that civilization can and should win.
As I seem to be in the company of persons who pride themselves on thier hard-headed realism, let us think the
unthinkable. What if there was no military action on our part? Impossible, I hear, we must strike back. Why?
Will the terrorists be deterred? Don't be ridiculous. If they can do us harm, they will. If they can, they will, regardless
of whether or not we have retaliated! How will dropping a bomb, or a thousand bombs, on Kabul stop a madman
from blowing up a building? There are situations where all our military might is useless. This might well be one of
them.
What, then, is the probable result of our attacks? Very likely, we are playing directly into Bin Laden's hands. He
wants us to bomb, the more, the better. He knows it is impossible to commit military action without killing civilians,
shrapnel is sloppy. Is there anyone posting here who is so ignorant as to believe that bombs can be targeted so
as to injure only the guilty?
So: what if we did the unthinkable? What if we bury our dead, mourn our heroes and say to the world "We cannot
attack the guilty without injuring the innocent. That is immoral, and we will not do so. We will sooner suffer an
atrocity than commit one. Further, we stand ready to extend our assistance to the hungry and suffering of
Afghanistan. We refer our case to the U.N. for deliberation, confident that no civilized nation will support these
actions, and we ask that body for a decision as to the correct course of action in dealing with a criminal, and the
proper stance in relation to a regime that protects him."
The only way for BinLaden (May he simmer in Hell in a pool of bacon fat) to succeed in his stated goal of
provoking "Holy war" (oh, vile oxymoron!) is with our cooperation. Which we are doing. How might we help him
more? By expanding our military attacks to other Muslim countries. Which action our leaders are currently
contemplating, "make no mistake about it".
If vengeance and retribution is precisely what will give most aid and comfort to our enemies, who then is
"traitorous"? The wooly-thinking naive peace protesters, or our hard-headed, realistic leaders?
As I said, this is unthinkable. Until you think it.
Well, elucidator, I would point out that up to now the United States has done almost exactly that which you describe. It has been categorized as the “law enforcement” strategy and it is what led to ten long years of wrangling in order to bring two men to trial for the bombing of Pan Am 107.
The day the U.S. abdicates its independence to the extent of asking the U.N. how to handle an attack on the homeland, or how to conduct its foreign policy – that’s the day I find another country to live in. But we’ll never see that, thank God. Since when did we abdicate our status as a sovereign nation? Since when did doing so look like a good idea?
This is an extremely narrow, tactical and dare I say, shortsighted, view of our objectives. If we do all the things that you say but just create lots of people who now view the U.S. with more hostility than before, we are likely to breed as many new terrorists (or more) than we kill, and/or just end up with a quagmire in Afghanistan.
As for the other folks (and you) who are critiquing the food drop as more of a political move to make Westerners feel better about this military action than anything else, I am unfortunately concerned that you might be right.
So, I guess I will say that while it may be true that the food drops will be ineffective both in helping to feed people and helping to change their opinions on the U.S. action, I don’t find the argument compelling that they will be a significant help to the Taliban either even if they fall into their hands.
I agree with this statement except that I would expand it by eliminating the phrase “protesting this war” (and, to make it clearer, change “alternatives” to “solutions”). Alas, those proposing military options don’t seem to be held to the same standard!
Over the last ten years or more (yes Bush Sr included)
our military and our foreign policy have
both fallen like a leaf. Our troops should
never be under the charge of anyone
but an American.
the Somalia fiasco
Bosnia
on and on
It’s unbelievable that we have troops deployed
all around the world. In some places they need to be,
in others, they don’t. We had better right this ship.
It is debatable the extent or the resources that were put into the “law enforcement” strategy. But, even assuming it’s effectiveness has not been that great, have you ever worried that we might be trading one ineffective strategy for another? Only, now we might be pursuing a strategy (particularly if we followed your suggested course of actions) that will lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists in the eyes of much of the rest of the world…hell, perhaps even in some of our own eyes.
Personally, I am really on the fence about the current military action. However, reading these postings of people like Sofa King and Southern Style really pushes me more in the pacifist direction. You guys scare me.
I think the U.N. serves an important role in international relations (though frankly less effectively in the last ten years). That role does not, and should not, include dictating to sovereign nations how they respond to acts of aggression or how they relate to other sovereign nations.
The U.N. does not rule the world, and we do not submit our decisions regarding security and foreign policy to them for pre-approval. We do not, we should not, and we will not.
That said, there is obviously room for an organization that can foster diplomacy and coalition-building between nations. There is real good to be done in terms of fostering human rights and furthering healthy living conditions throughout the world. There is an important role to be played by a global ajudicatory body such as the World Court in resolving conflict of law issues, assuming countries are willing to be bound by its legal decisions.
All of that can be accomplished without compromising our sovereignty, as we would do in any scenario involving turning to the U.N. and asking “what do we do now?” Besides, which the U.N. does not become an effective world leader just because every country is in it. It is as prone to bureaucracy and bloat as any other organization structured around The Committee. The racism summit and the recent decision regarding who should or should not be on the Human Rights Committee might well give observes cause to wonder why anyone would consider the U.N. capable of directing affairs on a global stage, even if sovereign nations were willing to allow it to do so, which IMO they should not.
The ClinGdog Gdogistraton put WAY TOO MUCH emphasis
on the UN as a machine to put our problems in and
wait at the other end for the packaged product.
I agree with your point (and I was just adding by the way)
but we have made the UN into this machine. We better
think again. I say it’s not isolationism to think for
ourselves. We did this by listening instead of thinking.
As a slight hijack, I agree with nearly everything you said, Jodi, except for this. The Economist and at least one academic review of these conference have attributed the blame for the outcome of these conferences on first, a lack of cohesive strategy between Western countries, and, second, the US sending junior diplomats to the conferences. Same thing happened at the Geneva conference on human rights in 1993, in which the US was out-maneouvered by a coalition led by China Iran and Syria. Americans shouldn’t blame the forum of the UN, as they repeatedly do, for this outcome: they should blame their diplomats for repeatedly bungling the job. jshore says:
Me too. Bloody and brutal revenge is just going to create martyrs and breed patriots to the fundamentalist Islamic cause. The road you guys want to take the US down will cast you in the same position as Israel. Do you want to be living in a state of siege for the rest of your lives?
The current attacks seem to be entirely justified. But the concept that families who are in military camps are fair targets crosses the line. **Sofa King ** says:
You say that they’re there for “support”. That’s correct - they’re not there to support their husbands, they’re there because they need support and would not be able to survive otherwise. Do you really think a mother and child would be able to last long in the Taliban’s Afghanistan without a male to support them? Families will be killed in bombings, which is tragic. We don’t need to relish this as part of the desire for vengeance, or even shrug our shoulders and say, “Well if they’re there, too bad, they made their choice.” People like you do scare me. Your attitude is heartless. A lust for blood will only bring misery.
Sofa King also says:
Three words for you: rule of law. As fundamental to Western democracies as freedom of speech and freedom of association. When those madmen attacked the WTC and the Pentagon, they attacked Western priciples, vales and freedoms, which include rule of law. No one should be above or beyond the law, and it should be applied fairly and justly. Why do you forsake one of the values which the terrorists seek to destroy?
This is a war of words. These military threats of early October serve to uphold our position. The real war is in the swaying of the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, and, possibly, any thoughful Terrorist. This whole action serves as a precedent for the next generation of what will and will not be tolerated in the global community.
As I see it, translators just don’t cut it. There is too much room for interpretation. Use the flying radio station to promote our reasons and visions through the actual words of President Bush. He needs to be speaking in their language, even if phonetically.
The translation of OLB yesterday was highly edited. The translator started saying that Muslims in the USA should cut off the head (then it went silent)…but we knew the end of the sentence (ie. of the Americans, kill as many as you can and you will be in heaven…) This guy is schizophrenic. He uses the same patterns to create some solidity to his lies.
We need to start publicizing the other names responsible for this and stop giving OLB the glory of our focus. Start talking about Ayman al Zawahiri. I can’t believe this monster was a pediatrician! Publish the whole list of Terrorists Most Wanted.
We also need to have our leader speaking to the people in their countries own language. As I already wrote, phonetically is fine, it adds more validity.
A positive use of this was when John Kennedy spoke in Berlin. Bush needs to do it now.
And Rhythmdvl brought up a good point. The CNN Reporter who was in Kabul on 9.11 said that their satellite phone “went missing” about a week before the attack.
OLB, or someone who looks him, has it for sure.
I suspect though, that he is already dead as of yesterday afternoon.
I don’t know about you, but I am attempting to hold those who promote military retaliation to the same standard. It is why I vehemently protested anyone who advocated the initiation of nuclear response in the current crisis. I agree that we must keep such a measure open as an option at all times, but its initiation is verboten.
We cannot “bomb the Taleban with love”, we cannot wait for an impotent and fractious UN to take action and we surely cannot even think of doing nothing at all (as has been suggested).
That leaves military action. What form shall it take? Are we supposed to fight the Taliban “honorably” without air support in a sustained ground campaign just to avoid collateral civilian casualties (which is impossible anyway)? Would the tremendous increase in our side’s loss of life justify such a cosmetic measure? I say no. Should we allow the Taleban to participate in some postwar coalition? Again, I say no. The Taleban must be rooted out and brought under control through sheer force. Whether this requires internment camps or summary execution is hard to say, but again, I care not.
I am beginning to think that we need to set up internment camps for the Taleban leaders in the middle of the Australian outback or the Nevada desert. I do not think that it is viable to contain them within Afghanistan proper. I think that prospective converts to the Taleban brand of ideology need to see that there is a fatal price for such an alignment. If we encounter armed resistance when attempting to enter caves while flushing out these vermin, then a measured response will be required. If there is not an immediate surrender, then a chance should be given for any women or children to exit. After that maybe tear gas or if needed, straight gasoline.
We are not talking about a pretty campaign. What we are talking about are psuedo-religious fanatics. These maniacs are cowardly enough to place innocent people in harm’s way in an attempt to deter the valid attack of a rightfully angered enemy. It is not our fault that they are cowardly. The innocents that die in such a callow feint are killed by the Taleban, not us. Yes, we should make some attempts to mitigate such unneeded deaths, but it may not be entirely possible and we should not let this deter us from the full prosecution of the Taleban.
Please remember that even if thousands are killed unnecessarily, it is nothing compared to the millions of lives we are trying to protect from a potential terrorist nuclear attack. Rest assured that such a nightmare will happen if they are given half a chance. I invite anyone to dispute this simple fact. This must not be allowed to come to pass. Sadly, many innocent people will be put in danger by these despicable and craven cowards as we exterminate them, but exterminate them we must. What are the alternatives? I see none. Many cries of “war monger!” will change to howls for vengeance once the first American POW is shown being decapitated by the Taleban on primetime television.
We are not dealing with rational people. There are no deals to make, as the Taleban proved by their unwillingness to hand over bin Laden. The Taleban’s insistence that they would rather have Afghanistan obliterated than to give him over is proof positive that they are madmen and have none of the Afghan people’s interests in mind. We are compelled to abandon our compunctions to a previously unknown degree when it comes to the annihilation of these scum. International perception is of little value to us if we continue to be attacked on our own soil. I attempted to cover this in my “What Price Perception” thread, but people were unwilling to consider the extremes we shall probably encounter in this campaign. I do not claim to have all of the answers, but abdicating our responsibility to our own populace for their own safety and security is surely not an option. Neither are we allowed to turn our backs on the rest of the world we so consistently aid in times of catastrophe. It is a given that more slaughter will follow inaction upon our part.
The atrocity in New York was an attack on the entire civilized world. If there was ever a time for the USA to be the world’s policeman, it is in the apprehension and execution of these murderous thugs. The Taleban have allied themselves with the perpetrators of this heinous plot and deserve a fate identical to bin Laden’s or any of his operatives. They have utterly invalidated their right to continued existence on this planet and we owe it to all involved to assure they meet a most expeditious end.
But I guess I would state the problem more broadly. I see the problem not as being whether these particular people will be able to terrorize us in the future (although how one in reality will be able to track down and “eliminate” or bring to justice all of these particular people is a question in itself). Rather, I wonder about how to minimize the dangers terrorism poses for us. If our actions create two terrorists for every one that we kill, then this does not constitute a solution. [By the way, I am not claiming the current actions initiated by our government will do this…although I think it is fairly obvious that some of the more extreme actions proposed will, and by “more extreme” I am talking about things still far short of the positively nutty idea of using nuclear weapons.]
This is the problem I have with those proposing military solutions. I think that, just as it is incumbent on the pacifists to explain how their actions will reduce the dangers of terrorism, it is also incumbent on the “militarists” (for lack of a better term) to explain how their actions will reduce the dangers of terrorism. Explaining how you would tactically go about hunting these people down, destroying the government that supports them, … (which I think is somewhat vague and naive in some of its presentations at any rate) does not constitute a complete answer to this question.
Of course, I will readily admit that asking for such an explanation may be demanding too much of those advocating a strong military solution and I am not claiming that it is even possible to foresee the future course of events well enough to do this. On the other hand, I think it is no greater a demand than is being made on those who want a non-military solution.
Well, any military action is bound to breed anti US sentiment. And it probably won’t be limited to just Afghanistan. You do agree that those are at least the * current* objectives, right?
Unfortunately so. Seems others are echoing the sentiment
So then, the air drops amount to little more than littering?
If this is little more than a feel good gesture, I think it’s too much of a risk to take. What if one of those planes gets shot down? If we agree that they aren’t doing much to help the situation, then why are they there at all?
Couldn’t those aid packages be sent to Iran and Pakistan to help with the displaced that are already there? There would also be no need for air drops then. The supplies could be safely unloaded on the ground which would leave considerably less risk to the pilots and crewmen of the planes.
My example may seem a bit “over the top”, but I was trying to show intensity, not necessarily strategy. (Then again, I wonder if pouring hundred of gallons of gas into the caves in North Vietnam would have had any real effect?)
My poorly stated point is that we don’t have a lot of options here. We must drive out or kill the Taliban and all of its significant leaders.
Their current strategy seems to be to hide out in their array of caves. We can bomb the hills, in which case any civilians hiding out with the Taliban will suffer the same fate. (We’re bombing Taliban military installations now – bombs don’t descriminate between a uniformed guard and a civilians delivering “pizza”.) We can try and starve them out. But do we really know what stockpiles they have in their hideouts? Or how many of the lower echlon would be sacrificed to ensure sufficient supplies for the leadership to persevere?
Our options are somewhat limited. But we mustn’t let these limitations keep us from our objective which is the eradication of the Taliban leadership and support structure.
There is currently another thread that debates “if you could go back in history and kill one person who would that be?” The same arguments that say that if we could go back in time and kill Hitler in 1938 the world would be a better place apply here. The biggest difference is that we know a large number of people that have yet to kill anyone, but they are prepared to die to fulfill their promise to kill innocent women and children in their reign of terror.
In the U.S. a person is arrested for threatening to kill someone. The Taliban is thousands of men that threaten to kill “as many as possible” and have already killed thousands. Yet they subscribe to no law except those that they choose to endorse. Their ruthlessness enabled a band of a few thousand to “steal” a country with a population of millions.
My example may have been poor strategy, but the intensity of the sentiment must be held by those in command or we will certainly lose this engagement.
I forsake nothing. These people are outside the bounds of the United States. They committed and supported what would be an act of war if it were not for the fact that neither Al Qaeda nor the Taliban enjoys much legitimacy as a nation. As I said, confronting them in combat allows us to pursue the most pragmatic and efficacious strategy–one which these people understand implicitly.
If we put these people in prison, thousands more Americans will die as others perform reprehensible acts in order to gain their release. Furthermore, we have no obligation and may not even have the right to bring these people to justice here in America.
I’m scaring people? You should be scared. Four weeks ago an organization that doesn’t even rate as a revolutionary group used our own people to kill more of our own people. Yesterday, demonstrations broke out across the Islamic world as we attacked the government that is harboring the people who did this.
Think for a moment what that implies. It implies that a goodly number of people in the world feel that not only are we, the United States, deserving of having our own citizens used as weapons against ourselves, but that we are not justified in pursuing those who did this.
That’s your international law for you in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people, possibly more. Do you think that’s justice? Do you think you’re going to win these people’s hearts and minds? Do you really believe that this was an isolated incident? It is part of an escalating war against my country which has already reached massive proportions. The next step is weapons of mass destruction.
There is one thing alone that these people will respect, and have always respected. That is the complete and utter destruction of anyone who endorses such behavior. Until we as a nation turn that corner and realize what must be done, be prepared to have Americans die in droves while you worry about the fate of your enemies. I guarantee you they are not worried one whit about you.
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With
them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our
God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with
the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring
the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their
little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports
of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee
for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their
lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the
white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source
of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble
and contrite hearts. Amen.
If it were just the Taliban and Bin Laden’s group we needed to exterminate, this would be a different debate. But there are a few other places where terrorists can go, with or without the tacit or explicit sanction of a host country. There are also other places where terrorists can be created. We need to reserve as much of the international capital as we can in order to prosecute this war beyond Afghanistan’s borders.
For argument’s sake, let’s limit the areas to four places: Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Indonesia. Also for argument’s sake, lets say that unedited footage of U.S. forces committing war crimes is broadcast to the world. I say war crimes, because I can’t think of any other term for the summary execution of persons merely suspected of being members of Bin Laden’s group.
If the U.S. uses unacceptable (in the rest of the world’s opinion) force in rooting out the Taliban et al in the short term, how easy will it be to prosecute the war on those fronts? As unhappy with Bush’s election as I was, I am surprisingly pleased with the diplomatic job he’s done so far. What if Turkey, Uzbekistan or even Pakistan for that matter, withdraws its permission for the U.S. to use its airspace? How could the U.S. prosecute a multi-front war without even timid support from surrounding regions? What do we do if the riots taking place in Indonesia turn their violence toward America? Land troops there as well? Fight all four nations ostensibly on our own? Even if we have England, France and Germany on our side, it makes it much more of a West v. Islam war than it ought to be.
Can you see why, though it would make a good story for the U.S. to act unilaterally, we really do need other nation’s support to effectively pursue the long-term goals of the war? Bush is not just dropping bombs on an isolated country, he is also garnering support from the world community for his actions. ‘Screw the U.N.’ might be on the forefront of his mind, but he knows that without at least going through the motions, he will not have the benefits of significant world support.
In other words, lets not piss off the world by using unreasonable force. Keep as much of the world on our side for as long as possible, and surgically, as cleanly as possible, eradicate the cancer step by step. We’ll gain more friends in the long run much better this way than if we just declared war on several countries at once.
** Dylan_73** I apologize, I just noticed I missed your post.
I don’t think very many have radios, let alone having the electricity to broadcast. So, although I’m not certain, I’m pretty sure not many are aware of food drops. Any yellow package with a US flag on it might be seen as bomb that didn’t go off rather than dinner.
Again, that would be great. But I’m hard pressed to find a link between the air drops and the motivation to rise up against the Taliban.
Okay, first of all, we cannot carry out any mission without some civilian casualties. However, any civilian deaths that come from our retaliation cannot be equated to the deaths that occurred here September 11th.
A country’s government is directly responsible for the overall safety of its citizens. Our citizens were killed, and we must retaliate in order to prevent more murders. If the Afghan people are at risk, we cannot help that. Their leadership has put them in a position to be at risk. I know it is not fair but a lot of things in life are not. And no, my argument does not mean that I think that OUR government has done enough to put OUR lives at risk.
Another thing that’s driving me nuts is the referring to Sept. 11 as acts of terrorism. They are acts of war even without a clear state backing. Terrorist acts generally are meant to cause a few deaths and some shock. When a group (whether an identified state or not) plots for months an attack that takes THOUSANDS of lives, completely grounds a country’s aviation, strikes a fierce blow to the main military compound, causes billions of dollars in damage, and brings terror to every citizen of that country, that is not a terrorist attack. Those are the sought after effects of acts of war.
I’ve been hearing a lot of shit lately about WHY bin Laden and others hate us. If you hated a state senator, would you consider it just to wipe out 5,000 of his constituents? We are doing the right thing (or as right of a thing as is possible) in light of the circumstances. As a world power we do not have a choice unless you never want to be able to fly cross-country or walk down an unprotected street again.