Fair enough, with the following quibbles and bits.
I reject the premise that because I assail the stupidity of an action, I am necessarily bound to improve upon it. If you plan to un-pin a hand grenade and stuff it down your pants, I will scream “STOP!”, rather than take the time to write up a position paper. Nonetheless, a quibble.
As to answering posts not directed to oneself, well, now, best leave that alone, don’t you think? This is a free-for-all, in the best sense of the word. Ain’t it cool!
Lastly, am I correct in my assumption that our only point of contention is Afghanistan? Since it is the only point your are arguing, do we find sublime agreement on my other rants? Points. My other points.
As you have addressed yourself to me with perfect civility, I am honor bound to respond accordingly. You will, I am sure, appreciate the strain this puts on me. If my post should break off suddenly, I have probably started to hemmorage. But I shall try.
You will recall, I am sure, that Our Leader, the Man Who Would Be Churchill, began spouting war rhetoric immediately. Alternatives were not considered, elucidator not consulted, grievous errors not amended. But they weren’t listening to Colin Powell either.
I would have treated the matter from the beginning as a criminal action. Bury our dead, bind our wounds, start the clean-up, and pointedly, and publicly, refrain from any precipitous declarations and/or actions. At that point, we had the sympathy and support of the vast majority of the civilized world. How long has it been since we had that?
What an opportunity to join with our fellow nations in information sharing, cooperation, etc. How better to show our friends as well as our enemies that we are firm, sensible, and not to be stampeded into foolishness.
Petty vengeance and rash retaliation should be the province of school boys, not great nations. As a civilized nation, we accept our obligation to humanity not to assume that their lives weigh less than our own. We must accept that our awesome military power imposes an almost unattainable duty to be wise, cautious, and steadfast.
Now: if we had exhausted every avenue short of military action, and had come up short, the question might reasonably arise again. Then the issue would be: is military force clearly necessary to prevent further attacks? Is it clear that our likelihood of success is so high that collateral damage is acceptable? When we know, as we did, that such military goals cannot and will not be met without victimizing the innocent, common decency demands that we be gravely hesitant.
As to tactics? I would first move to fight a war of the “green cards”. I would let the world know that anyone who actually helps us in our struggle will be welcomed instantly, he and his whole family, unto the thirdest of cousins, however removed.
I would throw massive support to the concept of an international court, rather than the willful unilateralism we have displayed. If they won’t execute them, so be it, we are concerned with eliminating a threat, not with retribution. We would have retained the sympathy and respect we had gained, and have exemplified the moral lesson that we will not smite the innocent. Let the evil-doers fear us, and none else.
We would have shown ourselves to be giants: patient, focused, and humane. We would have shown that the world need not tremble before our might, indeed, they might take comfort in knowing that the Superpower is a humane and enlightened nation.
We would actually be the dream that patriots carry in their hearts, and yours truly would dance in the street waving the biggest flag I can find and singing patriotic songs as loudly as my happy voice can muster. Tom Paine will not have lived in vain.
I trust this is sufficient exposition. However, if goaded, I could belabor the point more or less mercilessly, if being dunned into a coma is your idea of a good time.