to destroy al-qaeda and, hopefully, catch Bin Laden?
or
to overthrow the Taliban and destroy al-qaeda?
ie if America caught Bin Laden and most of the al-qaeda leadership tomorrow would they withdraw and not go on to destroy the Taliban? This would mean that America’s objectives are extremely limited to pure self-interest goals.
If, however, America is in for the long haul ie to get rid of the Taliban and install a new regime then this means that we are involved in a war of liberation.
I believe that we have realized that bin Laden and the Taliban leadership are operating hand-in-glove. If we captured bin Laden and the other al-Qaida leaders tomorrow, I’m betting we would still strive to remove the Taliban. We could argue this was to liberate the Afghan people, but it is just as much in our interests to eliminate the Taliban as it is for us to eliminate al-Qaida.
And what is wrong with a sovereign state taking actions that are solely in its self-interest? Particularly if its goals include protecting its citizens from further attack! There is nothing more fundamental than this. If a government cannot protect its citizens from foreign attack using every means at its disposal, it (the government) is not doing its job.
You know, I read an interesting opinion article in my local newspaper right after the WTC attacks. The author hoped that the U.S. would stay angry in the weeks and months following the attacks, and not lapse into our typical coma-like apathy. Failure to do so would only invite more attacks. I think the author was right on target.
I also think Senator McCain was right. We need to send ground troops in. True enough, the USSR did not succeed with ground forces in Afghanistan, but they could have, if they had had the political will to do so. So can we.
To summarize, then: our objective in this “War on Terrorism” is very simple. Wage war on the organizations and/or states that contributed to the acts of 9/11 until their ability to conduct further attacks is eliminated. Any “liberation” of any people is a secondary issue.
As much as I admire the nutty “World Socialists,” this argument is right up there with alien crop circles and the “faked” lunar landings.
History 101: UNOCAL had permission* from the Taliban to put a pipeline through Afghanistan. Due to pressure from feminist organizations who were highly critical of the horribly repressive Taliban, UNOCAL chose not to.
Your argument is specious. You seem to be claiming that rather than just build the pipeline and take the heat from some special interest groups, the malevolent oil companies - led by the World Socialists’ bogey man, GWB - plotted to destroy several major U.S. landmarks, kill thousands of people, and start a major war - all causing the price of oil to drop precipitously. The oil companies have lost billions of dollars due to the 9/11 attacks and the war. Gee, what an oversight on their part. Do something unimaginable and punishible by death or life in prison to increase supply while contracting demand, I doubt it.
Just wondering, how did the oil companies get OBL to play along? Also, it seems a little strange that 15 Saudis gave their lives to degrade the primary source of riches for their own country. Hey, I know, why not conclude that we are at war with Afghanistan because the terrorists who just attacked us - and have several other times - are holed up there?
Regarding the OP, we are committed to destroying both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You cannot do one without the other. First, we will focus on the Taliban. After the internal support for Al Qaeda is gone finding and destroying Al Qaeda will become much easier. The Taliban are so repugnant to all western (and most eastern) senses of decency the war is also about freeing the Afghani people from a medieval, brutal, and unstable government.
I can see the logic for this - that the Taliban and al-qaeda are so closely tied together that they are effectively one and the same thing. Therefore getting rid of one automatically entails getting rid of the other.
The above is the “self-interest” part of the argument.
What Im not sure about is this:
The Taliban are (should that be “were”?) a horrendous form of tyranny and they undoubtedly deserve all that they are getting. There is no doubt that the idea of ousting them in order to liberate the Afghan people is a laudable idea.
But what Im wondering is:
Does the “war of liberation” aspect to all this play any part at all in America’s thinking?
Or is it totally a question of putting a stop to these people to ensure they don’t do it again?
When I say “America” I mean both the American Government and the American people.
Does the US Govt. even partly see this as a war of liberation, as a means to help the Afghan people?
Do ordinary Americans even partly see this as a war to help Afghanistan?
Or is it totally just about eliminating al-qaeda by any means necessary and if the Taliban (or any other governments) have to go in the process then so be it?
To answer your question, the U.S. was not exactly rushing to “liberate the Afghan people” before 9/11, was it?*
If the Afghan people are helped by our elimination of the Taliban, it is merely a bonus. The U.S. government’s primary motive is (and should be) to defend itself from further attacks originating from Afghanistan.
That being said, it makes good political sense to trumpet any possible side benefits of our military retalitation, such as “liberating the Afghan people.”
*And I’m not implying that the U.S. necessarily should have interfered militarily before 9/11, either.
This all rather confuses me too. I’m still hearing reports about a cabal of powerful Washington people who are determined to make this a war against Iraq as well. Which comes under the heading of just what we don’t need.
Our goals seem confusing. No one can seriously imagine that somehow removing Afghanistan as a safe bolt-hole is going to eliminate world terrorism. One can dearly hope that we can nail OBL, declare victory and run like hell. The perhaps we can go back to regular, ordinary National Alert, rather than Extra Special Double Secret Alert, or whatever the hell it is this week.
One rather worrisome bit of news, or what may turn out to be not news. I read about a group calling itself the “Secret Army” that actually claims “credit” for the WTC bombings, and have no connection to OBL at all. I make no claims for veracity here, its some paper in the UK, but Holy Crap, Batman! What if its true?
While you’re mulling that over, you may want to take a time out and read this abstract of an article appearing today in Salon.com. It might lend some insight on the question of “veracity” in British tabloid-land.