US Starts Attacking Afghanistan

Several people have reported that the US has begun military operations in Afghanistan. Bush is talking on CNN live right now. Bombing has begun on Kabul. More as we know it. Here the word a on CNN and The CBC.

Comments

BBC News coverage

[jonathan_atkinson]

The BBC report is here. Includes comment from a Whitehouse spokesman.

Get a map of possible targets here.

--jon

Food and Supplies

[Bonker]

I don't know if it's Bush, but *somebody* has their thinking cap on.

One of the real reaons the Soviets failed was because they were waging an all-out war to subdue Afghanistan.

Apparently, we're intent on pacifying the populace in the literal sense rather than the military sense. This will make a *Big* difference when U.S. tanks and personell carriers start rolling through for any kind of ground activity.

BBC has some pretty good graphics, including some maps of possible targets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/ newsid_1556000/1556588.stm#map

Re:According to Bush

[NutscrapeSucks]

There's probably lots of people here too young to recall what a great orator Reagan was. He was routinely on primetime television, and people placed incredible value on what he said.

A topical and interesting example Statement on the Fourth Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan I had vauge memories of this speech, so I looked it up. Somehow I doubt I'll recall anything GW Bush said 20 years after the fact.

Afghanistan's freedom fighters -- the resistance or mujahidin -- represent an indigenous movement that swept through their mountainous land to challenge a foreign military power threatening their religion and their very way of life. With little in the way of arms or organization, the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated that they will not be dominated and that they are prepared to give their lives for independence and freedom. The price they have so willingly paid is incalculable.

Let all of us who live in lands of freedom, along with those who dream of doing so, take inspiration from the spirit and courage of the Afghan patriots. Let us resolve that their quest for freedom will prevail, and that Afghanistan will become, once again, an independent member of the family of nations. -- Ronald Reagan

the next step...

[psych031337]

is probably isolating the 8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border. They could be easily cut off in this area.

Here in germany a reporter has told about his stay in the Norther Alliance area. He has seen long lines of trucks filled with material. At least 55 tanks from Russia. Crates of ammo with russian and american/english inscriptions on them.

Re:the next step...

[sigwinch]

Apparently you are not very up to date on contemporary guerilla warfare. If you want to see what a small number of psychotic troops fighting for their homeland can do, take a look at the ass-beating the USA took in Vietnam.

Hardly. The Vietnam War was a proxy war between the US and the USSR, an extended campaign in the Cold War. North Vietnam had essentially zero industrial capacity for fighters, bombers, aircraft, firearms, radios, and anti-aircraft missiles. Without vast infusions of Soviet materiel, the US would've promptly conquered North Vietnam. (Of course without the Soviet presence there would have been no need to.)

Even with support from the USSR, the US was winning the war at the time of withdrawal. The withdrawal occurred because of the stunning PR incompetence of the US government. They didn't understand the tremendous power of an extended publicity campaign. They could probably have gotten support for a proxy war against the USSR, but they were silent and all that the public saw was an endless parade of body bags, year after year after year. As there was no strong leadership, the American public grew tired and ended the campaign.

An even better example would be the people of Afghanistan, who ... even took on the Soviet Army and beat them back, albeit with a good bit of help from the USA. (Emphasis mine)

Yet another major campaign in the Cold War, again a proxy war in fairly worthless territory, territory that neither nation would have bothered with were it not for the other superpower. Again, the Soviets sent vast amounts of materiel into the theatre, and again the US-supported forces destroyed most of what they sent in. Unlike the Vietnam War, the Soviets also sent lots of soldiers into Afghanistan, which was a lethal US-funded meat grinder.

Something you have to understand about the Soviets was that their technology was not efficient. Compare to US factories, it was much more expensive for them to build a tank or fighter. The effectiveness and quality of Soviet war machines also tended to be rather low. The net result is that it cost the Soviets many more man-hours to field a credible military force. So when they sent in a tank that got promptly bombed by US-supported forces, they had to divert a lot more industrial capacity away from luxury goods, research and development, and so forth. At the same time, they spent far to much of the remaining industrial and R&D capacity trying to outdo the Strategic Defense Initiative. It's also worth pointing out the substantial diversion of Soviet R&D during the Vietnam Proxy War as they tried to compete with the US Apollo project.

Put all this together: previous costly war with no obvious victory and simultaneous loss at a technical competition, currently costly war with no obvious victory and heavy personnel losses and an even bigger unwinnable technological competition. It broke the will of the Soviet government and impoverished the people. The loss in Afghanistan was the straw that broke their back.

40,000 guerrillas in a war torn nation full of refugees are worse than millions of troops fighting with conventional styles of warfare.

Only with extensive support from a superpower, and that ain't gonna happen for Al Quaida or the Taliban. Especially since the US-aligned Special Operations groups will be using what are, frankly, guerrilla tactics. It's going to be guerrilla versus guerrilla, only the US guerrillas will have C-130s full of materiel arriving as needed, good air support, night-vision scopes, satellite reconnaissance, encrypted spread-spectrum radios, and so forth.

The US also has a major advantage: they are not trying to conquer and hold Afghanistan like the Soviets were. They are simply trying to kill and disrupt a certain few thousand people. Also, unlike Israel or Iran, the only US criterion for an Afghan govt is peacefulness, stability, and cooperation with US intelligence. They won't be trying to prop up a violent government to fight a proxy war against a major power (in fact, they'll be specifically avoiding such a govt).

Now what?

[Animats]

It looks like the plan is

• Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
• Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
• Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away)
• Declare victory.

Bin Laden may survive this. But that may not matter. Just getting the message across that allowing terrorists to attack the U.S. from your country means your government gets crushed may be enough to deter state-sponsored terrorism for a while.

Re:Now what?

[bwt]

* Suppress enemy air defenses (always step 1 of an air campaign)
* Destroy Taliban military forces near Kabul from the air (hard, they're dug in)
* Assist Northern Alliance to capture Kabul (they're stuck about 30km away)
* Declare victory.

Declare victory ?! You've got to be kidding.

I think from there it would go something like this from there:

• Capture and secure a military base outside of Kabul
• Use that base to launch close range reconaissance and special operations rapid strike capability throughout Afghanistan
• Systematically secure every enemy cave, bunker, training camp, meeting place etc...
• Eliminate all Taliban methods of mass-communication (radio, news, etc...) and begin massive Psy-Ops campaign
• Step up humanitarian relief campaign, encouraging refugees to move back into central Afghan territory
• Develop a robust Afghani human intelligence network to ID Taliban and Al Qaeda members
• Use seek and destroy Special Ops strikes against all Taliban leaders, centers of resistance, Al Qaueda strongholds, etc...
• Have the Afghani King return, and draft a Constitution based on a broad based democratic government
• Schedule elections and implement a "Marshall Plan for Afghanistan".

Bin Laden may get killed in one of the Special Ops raids or he might flee the country. In any event, he'll be the CEO of a much smaller operation at this point.

Even this is not the end, though. At this point, we'll turn to other terrorist groups and probably pick a fight with Iraq.

Re:It is time...

[Trekologer]

The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Oh, sure. That would work. (sarcasm off) The Taliban believe in the same extreme Islamic teachings that bin Laden uses to promote attacks against the United States. If tried by the Taliban, he would probablly be found not guilty. And he would still have refuge under the Taliban's regeime.

By the way, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 21 page report tying bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. Plus there are the attacks on the USS Cole and the American embasies in East Africa. The Taliban has said that they will declare a Jihad* against the West if attacked. That mean that they've declared a war on YOU. Do you still think we should sit back on our hands on hope this all "blows over"?

* Most followers of Islam believe that "Jihad" means a holy war against one's self to find truth of existance. Using "Jihad" to demand violence is cosidered by most to be a basterization of the religion.

Re:It is time...

[Jon Chatow]

Oh, for gods' sakes. This is exactly the kind of 'rhetoric' that attracts such hatred towards you Americans - you seem to have this unerring feeling that your position is absolutely correct.

[...]our government has looked for the most peaceful solution possible
Please excuse the language, but, put simply, 'bollocks'. The United States has looked for no solution whatsoe'er - demands on a non-negotiable billet do not come close to being an action of looking for a solution.

As a friend of mine put it, they call it 'collateral damage' because 'dead innocent civilians' doesn't have the same ring to it - and collateral damage is going to occur, to both sides, to a great extent, because the 'mission' is not clearly definied, but only a misguided and vague effort supported by dodgy morals and an apparent committment to aid which doesn't really fit with the action being taken. The monopoly of the state as the only body with legitimate use of violence, the boundaries of morals, and the state of global governance are what is at question here. Acts are only called 'terrorism', and not military action by a foreign power by the difference in the percieved legitimacy of their perpetrators - 'fighting terrorism' is about keeping states the sole executors of, well, physical power, to the extent of executions.

Personally, I find it very sad that a country full of such a great many people who could contribute so much to the world at large are generally not only conceited, arrogant and selfish, but somewhat stupid (by this I mean their actions as a mob, rather than individually, for at least most of them).

Blair's the man

[ColGraff]

I just have to say, I listen to Blair's speech a few minutes ago, and I douub the United States could have any better friend than Britain and Tony Blair himself. He was with us the day of the attack, he's been with us since, and he's with us now, and Britain's soldiers' lives are on the line along with ours.

I'm not normally a religous man, but I have to say: God bless the UK and Tony Blair.

Whose war?

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man

Re:Whose war?

[FFFish]

Perhaps what is most outrageous about the terrorist attack is that no one has claimed responsibility for it, and no one has tried to benefit by it.

It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it?

What the hell did they gain... except, perhaps, to start WWIII?

Re:Whose war?

[wass]

It's just bizarre. Why the heck do it, if you don't take claim of it? What the hell did they gain... except, perhaps, to start WWIII?

IMHO, I think this was done in a rallying call by OBL to build up support for an Arab-led war against American/European colonialism. I think that the primary perpetrators, however, didn't expect the solidarity that nearly all countries showed towards the US.

OBL and other terrorists probably thought the USA would strike back swiftly and deadly against Afghanistan and other Arabian suspected countries. Taliban and other radical fundamentalist Muslim groups could then unite, using recent US attacks as the rallying cry for a Jihad. However, instead of retaliating immediately, the USA slowly built up an anti-terror coalition, diplomatically and systematically. As the coalition included all of the Americas and Europe, slowly the Arab nations joined as well, possibly for fear of being seen to support such terror. I think OBL didn't see this global coalition coming by any reckoning, and is now shitting bricks. Taliban's actions seem to imply this, as they themselves are calling this a US-led war against Islam, which it clearly isn't, especially as the USA has the support of other several Islamic countries.

So, I think that OBL or others would have claimed it if there hadn't been such worldwide sympathy and support for America. I think if they admitted to it while nearly all countries were officially condemning the attacks as atrocities, the terrorist group(s) would lose most of the public support they had hoped to gain.

I might just be cheesy here, but is anyone else reminded of "The Grinch who Stole Christmas" regarding the 9/11 attacks? Whereas the Grinch, being an inherent prick, basically struck at the small mountainous town to cause strife and discord, by stealing their 'Christmas'. Yet, though their physical Christmas was gone, the townspeople still banded together and sang, because their inner spirit couldn't be stolen. So too did these terrorists try to destroy something in America, either our safety, our sense of security, or try to destroy our status amongst other nations. However, the solidarity Americans showed after the attacks was incredible. Every block I walk down, there are flags and patriotic banners. Not people just calling blindly for revenge (well, some are) but there's definitely a feeling of unity here that I haven't really felt before (I'm 26, maybe it was like this in WWII or similar). Okay, just my 2 cents.

Re:Whose war?

[warpeightbot]

...If I were suspicious of the American Government. But of course, I'm not. I fully support them. How could the US Government have anything but the best interests of the world at heart?

Allow me to draw an interesting parallel.

In 1937 the Navy held war games on Hawaii. The blue team was to defend Pearl Harbor; the red team was to go out to sea and attempt a carrier-borne attack. The red team struck by surprise early on a Sunday morning and totally devastated the blue defenses. Standing on a mountaintop overlooking the harbor were some American brass.... and the Japanese naval attache, a senior officer whose name with which I'm sure you're familiar. Isoroku Yamamoto was scribbling furiously on a notepad, taking down everything he saw.

We all know what happened some four years later... but the truly interesting part was what did not happen. American intel had gotten pretty good at figuring out what the Japanese were about (witness the devastation of the Japanese Navy at Midway six months later)... they knew something was coming. It's never made much mention of in the history books, but one has to wonder why all of the American carriers were out to sea on the morning of 7 December.

I think Roosevelt knew the Japanese were coming.

Fast forward sixty years. There were intel hints all over the place that Osama was planning something big. The Israelis told us as much. Just like Yamamoto, we taught Osama everything he knows.

I think Bush knew something was afoot.

But.....

In both instances America had grown complacent. Very few people wanted to help England defend herself against Hitler. Roosevelt was having major problems just giving the Brits some old, rusty, worn-out cruisers, much less any real war materiel. And heaven forfend we should send troops....

Likewise after Desert Storm (aka the Video Game War) Uncle Sam had grown fat, dumb, and happy. We figured we could open a can of whoop-ass on anybody, any time, and they couldn't touch us, because we were America, dammit, that stuff don't happen anymore. Besides, shouldn't we spend more money on old people and national parks? And all of a sudden, Bubba ain't president no more, we've got some buckaroo... and the economy's for shit and he's kinda stuck for what to do about these Arab hooligans his predecessors (on both sides of the aisle) helped create... the American people are more worried about Gary Condit than Osama bin Laden.

So the way I figure it, both Roosevelt and W. let it happen, knowing that getting our collective asses kicked was the only way rank and file Americans were going to wake up to the necessity of war. That once there were dead Americans on American soil by virtue of a sneak attack, there would be no trouble getting Congress (and the people) to back the necessary military moves to do what was... is... right, i.e. eliminate the dirty so-and-sos that are trying to impose their twisted way of life on the rest of the world.

It's a nasty way of doing business, but I'm not sure either gentleman... President.... had much of a choice. Even if there had been a public warning, it wouldn't have been taken seriously to the extent it needed to be... far better to allow a sneak attack, and get instant, wholehearted support for what must be done, than to take several years trying to coalition-build on a reluctant Congress and people and allow the jokers in question that much more time to get something truly devastating in place.

And I use the word "must" carefully. Had England fallen, all of Europe would now be speaking Russian. Not German, because no one beats Russia in a land war on her own turf (Napoleon), but Russian. And America would not now have Tony Blair to match strength for strength in the war on terror. Which brings us to the present. Since the (20/20 hindsight) premature end of Desert Storm, America has been soft on terror. It is now time to correct that mistake.

I do not accuse W. of orchestrating the attack. That's just plain evil, and I don't think anyone thinks W. is capable of that.... some would say he's not that smart; others, that he's a better man than that. Which is the truth is outside the scope of this comment. The fact remains that Osama, Saddam Hussein, and others like them needed to be dealt with..... and no amount of using the bully pulpit was going to convince Joe Average of that. Will George W. Bush, President of the United States, profit from the events of 11 September? Almost certainly. But so, in the long run, will the American people... and so will freedom. As the Ferengi say, war is good for business. And Jefferson noted that the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. That tree has been parched for sixty years now. (I mean no disrespect to those who have lived and died in America's service since then, but really, we have not had a shooting war for our freedom since then. Now we do.)

Six million innocent people died during the last war for freedom. The lateness of our involvement in that war was probably a factor. If six thousand lives is anywhere close to the extent of our losses in this war for freedom, I shall count us either extremely lucky.... or extremely smart.

--
"Still, if you will not fight for the right ... when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival."
-- (Sir) Winston Churchill

Re: America will never learn

[Panaflex]

If we could just go and arrest those responsible, then it would be done. However, people are protecting a man who is at the very least accessory to the murder of thousands of people. If bin Laden was innocent, why not make an international appeal? Trial in a country where the justice system is corrupt would be fraut with stupidity.

This IS different. There are goals. If you believe in freedom, you must accept justice.

Showing the Taliban the "evidence" could mean death for many who provide information to the USA. Some of these people are supporters of democracy, we don't know. Do you trust the Taliban to extridite bin Laden, at the risk of loosing all information sources and their lives?

Why don't you go over and arrest the man? Even if you did it for the money (Now at 30M USD) you could easily pay for the trip and equipment.

Critical thinking is in short supply.

Pan

Blaire's speech, stinger missiles and drugs

[pHaze]

Thought Blair's speech was excellent. Interesting that he mentioned that 90% of the UK's herion comes from Afghanistan. There's a theorey that when the cold war ended and the USA was buying back stinger missiles from the Mujahideen fighters for $200k a piece, they were inadvertently funding the world drug trade.

International coverage..

[T.Hobbes]

• Times of India
• South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
• Tehran Times opinion piece on the whole shebang Ha'aretz Daily (Isreal)
• Khaleej Times (Dubai, UAE)

  More to come..

Re:It is time...

[YU Nicks NE Way]

What do you mean? Do you mean that there's no evidence that bin Laden was implicated in the WTC terror attack, or that there is no evidence against bin Laden himself which should have been adequate to justify his being bound over for trial?

The first is irrelevant in this case, and I haven't spoken to it. Look back at what I said: that I didn't believe the Taliban would turn bin Laden over for any evidence. I deliberately confined the evidence I mentioned to previous requests for the extradition of bin Laden and his lieutenants, and all the evidence that I mentioned is in the public record. More than that, it's in a trial transcript, and it's been available for years.

The question of the presence or absence of evidence in the WTC attack is a red herring. Sheik Omar had more than adequate reason to extradite bin Laden without any reference to the WTC attack. He could and should have done that years ago. The fact that he and his cadre have refused to do that for years discredits their more recent charm offensive.

The Terrorists: a perspective

[D. J. Keenan]

The West is taking strong actions against mass terrorists. How well do we understand what we are about to do and what we have done in the past?

To begin with, it is arguably good that this happened. The West is wide open to suicidal terrorist attacks, and if there were ever such an attack with a nuclear bomb, things would be a lot worse. Many people have been warning about this for some time. Now at least some preventative measures will be taken, and the risks will be reduced. Nuclear bombs are actually trivial to make if you have weapons-grade uranium (still a large "if"); so the risk is significant. Bin Laden has been trying to arm himself with nukes for years.

If we want to understand what happened, we should ask what the terrorists' motivations were for attacking. The terrorists seem to hate America for its actions against Muslims in Palestine and Iraq (see below), and Islam teaches that Muslims should aid other Muslims. So, what have been America's actions?

The Palestinians have been brutalized by the Israelis. Consider that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that rarely had a people been in so obvious need of international protection--last November, after seeing children whose eyes had been blown out by Israeli bullets and watching 40000 Palestinians kept under curfew so that 235 Israelis could go about their business (in Hebron). The Palestinians have repeatedly asked for international observers, but always had this blocked by Israel and America. Palestinians have long been tortured in Israel (this is government- sanctioned). The recent UN report headed by American ex-senator Mitchell made various recommendations, which were entirely accepted by the Palestinian Authority and rejected by Israel. Basically all other independent reports conclude that the Palestinians are treated abominably, including severe economic deprivations. (This is not to say that Israel does not have valid security concerns or grievances against Palestinians.)

Israel can only act this way because of American support. Indeed, America supplies advanced arms, gives Israel's six million citizens billions each year, and is often virtually the sole supporter of Israel in UN discussions-- such as discussions about Israel's violations of UN resolutions. So America is an accomplice. Even the British Foreign Secretary has now acknowledged that "One of the factors which helps breed terrorism is the anger which many people in [the Middle East] feel at events over the years in Palestine."

Some people have claimed that Bill Clinton tried to achieve peace, and so America should not be held to blame. But Israel only exists because of American support. And America, under Clinton, did not use this power. Under Bush Sr., things were different: Bush Sr. threatened to withhold $10 billion in loans (strictly, loan guarantees), if Israel remained brutal. This worked, and led to a viable peace process. The process could have remained on track if America had forced Israel to keep it signed word.

In Iraq, American-dictated sanctions ban anything that could conceivably be used for the military. For example, pencils contain carbon and carbon is often used in nuclear reactors; so pencils were banned. The sanctions are horrid. The sanctions regime is always supervised by a non-American (for political/PR reasons), and the supervisors have always quit in disgust after about a year, which says a lot. Iraq's infrastructure and economy are being crushed, at enormous cost. For example, according to UN estimates, the sanctions have resulted in the death of half a million children under five. (None of his is to suggest that Saddam is undeserving of a very tight leash, nor that this could be applied without the people suffering significantly.)

What does bin Laden say? Even if he was not directly involved in the attacks (which seems unlikely), he is a leading member of the terrorist network; so his words very probably count for something. And in the past he seems to have spoken more or less honestly about his intentions. Moreover, his words have motivated those who carried out the attacks. In a 1999 interview, he said he wanted to instigate "... jihad against the Jews and the Americans" and, citing the sanctions against Iraq, he added, "Our enemy is the crusader alliance led by America, Britain, and Israel." And in 1998, he and four others signed the World Islamic Front Statement, which advocates killing Americans for three reasons: America's support of Israel, America's killing of over a million Iraqis (a figure consistent with UN estimates), and America's stationing its armed forces in the Arabian peninsula. Regarding the third reason, the complaint seems to be partly that America is using the peninsula as a base for aggression against Iraq--i.e. the second and third reasons are closely related--and partly that Muslims consider the peninsula holy and many do not want non-Muslims permanently residing there. (Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, and first became a terrorist mainly for the third reason. Later, he drew many followers, and the other reasons became prime.)

So, this is not an attack on democracy and freedom per se, as George Bush claims. Nor is it a culture-based "clash of civilizations", as some commentators have tried to claim (alluding to a 1993 essay by Samuel Huntington). Nor is it an attack based on spiteful envy of American wealth and military might, as some others have groundlessly assumed. This is an attack by Muslim fanatics on non-Muslims who have been brutalizing Muslims.

(Some people point out that Muslims sometimes also brutalize other Muslims. This is true: any group of people will have internal conflicts, sometimes very severe--as here--but still often pull together when attacked from outside. This is generally true of families, for example. It is also true of Americans--as this September has shown. It is something to be proud of.)

The terrorist attacks appear to have opened an enormous well-spring of Muslim anti-American feelings. Muslim demonstrations against America have been widely reported. The demonstrators, though, have generally said that they are against the terrorist attacks. But they, and a great many other Muslims, share the hatred felt by the terrorists, for the reasons given above.

Many Americans seem greatly confused by widespread Muslim hatred. To them, the claim that America desires to control the world is ludicrous. Especially since the end of the Cold War, America has tended to interfere in the affairs of other countries only under extreme circumstances. The Balkans is a good example--where Europe fretted fecklessly while tens of thousands were killed or raped. Almost all Americans simply want the world to develop in peace and prosperity--and, incredibly, they ask for nothing in return despite being the world's greatest guarantor of this. But, for many Muslims, it does not look that way. America helps a state with which it is friendly--Israel--and tries to squash a state that is very threatening and sinister--Iraq--and it ends up looking imperialistic.

Regarding the terrorists' motivations, it is interesting to compare the reports given by American and British mass media. Broadly, the American media has portrayed the terrorists as crazies who are against economic modernization and Western culture. Broadly, the British media tends to say that the terrorists are at least rational and that America partly inspired the hatred that they feel by its support of Israel. (Of course British media still strongly condemn the attacks and support the American people.)

Britain has not really supported America's actions in Israel/Palestine. In fact, the previous Foreign Secretary (Robin Cook) was fired in part because he was too blatant in his support for Palestinians. But Britain has--almost alone (to my knowledge)--both aided and supported America's actions against Iraq. The British media thus cites the main Muslim grievance in which Britain is blameless and largely ignores the other. The American media ignores both. Even considering some criticism is unacceptable, it seems.

The media made a lot of sacrifices when the terrorists struck. Hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising were lost as commercials were pulled from TV to make way for more news. And it was clear that many commentators very much had their hearts in their work. I still believe, however, that the media has done a disservice to people by failing to present the terrorists' true motivations--even if they disagreed with them.

The big question now is what can/will be done to make things safer. Despite all the hype, suicide bombers are rare. But, there are about a billion Muslims in the world; so even if only one in a 100000 becomes a bomber, that's 10000 overall. More people will now want to become bombers, though, for three reasons: the success of the attacks on America, the hero status often accorded suicide bombers (in Palestine as well), and the continuing despair that many Muslims feel about the plight of Palestinians and Iraqis.

One obvious way to increase Western safety is to inspire less hatred and give Muslims some hope for a better future. It was the crushing of hope by Israel that led to the recent spate of suicide bombers there. America is plainly well aware of this. Thus, although in the first week Israeli PM Sharon was stating that he still wanted to conquer the Palestinians, on September 18th he did an about-face--obviously under great American pressure. Real peace needs to be brought to Palestine. Arafat wants it, but with land; Sharon only wants victory, but might give in; and there are extremists in both Palestine and Israel who will try hard to derail peace. So lasting peace will hard to get, but maybe ... maybe. As for Iraq actions, this is under American control; so sanctions should ease rapidly ... maybe.

In addition to these diplomatic efforts, there is going to be a military effort. The one purely-American purely-military option that I've seen that might potentially do something is to nuke Afghanistan. This would be politically very difficult. It would also inspire so much hatred in the Muslim world that for each terrorist killed, several more would be spawned.

Some people have suggested heavy (non-nuclear) bombing of Afghanistan, to force the Taliban into expelling the terrorists. There are no substantial military or political targets, however, and the Afghan economy is now virtually nonexistent, thanks to international sanctions and an extended drought. The UN estimates that by November (after snow starts falling), over five million Afghans will be dependent on food aid--out of a population of 20 million. So if the objective is to crush Afghans economically, stopping food aid would do more than any bombs. In fact, this is now happening, as relief agencies flee the country out of fear of military action. Actual bombing seems pointless, then, except perhaps as PR. Will a famine (induced by bombing or threat thereof) compel the Taliban into expelling the terrorists? This is dubious: the Taliban apparently shelter the terrorists because of an Islamic custom--if someone seeks refuge in your tribe, you have to protect him, regardless of the cost (the Taliban actually have little interest in the world outside Afghanistan.) Inducing a famine is also risky: if a million die, it will fuel more Muslim hatred. Would it be moral? You decide.

Some commentators have suggested that a large-scale military operation against Afghanistan might trigger so much popular anger that it destabilises some other Muslim countries. I cannot comment on this, but it should be clear, in any case, that such operations will do vastly more harm than good. Most senior people in the American government now apparently agree.

There has been much discussion about sending special forces into Afghanistan (likely supported by small-scale bombing). This requires intelligence on where the terrorists are hiding. Indeed, by now many of the terrorists will be dispersed among the population: good intelligence from the ground is essential for successful special-forces action against them. America apparently does not have this intelligence itself. It might try to bludgeon the ruling Taliban into supplying such intelligence, but it is very unlikely that the Taliban could be relied upon to act in good faith, if they acted.

The Taliban, however, are very close with Pakistan (see below). So if America were to work with Pakistan for intelligence, it might get somewhere. The president of Pakistan has pledged full support, but this might mean little. The support has to come from the people on the ground, and there have been many demonstrations in Pakistan against helping America. I know of three reasons for these demonstrations. First, Pakistanis are Muslims (95%) and they blame America for what is happening to Muslims in Palestine and Iraq. Second, they don't like being bullied by Westerners generally. The third reason is more involved; briefly, it's as follows.

The current border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is actually just a line of control (the Durand line), from a treaty that expired about five years ago. It was never clear what was to happen when the treaty expired: likely Pashtoonistan--an area overlapping both Pakistan and Afghanistan--was to be made into a state. The Pashtoon people make up nearly half of all Afghans, and they control Afghanistan; so likely Pashtoonistan and Afghanistan would become one. The effect would thus be to have Pakistan cede territory to Afghanistan. (A rough analogy might be how Britain ceded Hong Kong to China after the expiration of a 100-year treaty/lease. The Durand treaty was drawn up in the 1890s, when Pakistan was still a part of India.)

Pakistanis, especially in the military, are very reluctant to cede a large part of their country to Afghanistan. That's why Pakistan created the Taliban. The Taliban were given both military and religious training in Pakistan. They also got lots of arms and money from Pakistan, which is why they were able to conquer (most of) Afghanistan. They were largely controlled by Pakistan, though. And under Pakistani control, they did not force the issue of Pashtoonistan. (Lately, Pakistani control has weakened.) Additionally, having some Afghan territory partially under its control gave Pakistan some extra security from the threat of neighbouring India.

America has addressed this by telling Pakistan that unless it helps, America might rid Pakistan of its nuclear installations and support India militarily: in effect, saying that Pakistan would be liable to lose a majority of its territory (to India) rather than a minority (to Afghanistan). The president of Pakistan has made a televised speech warning people "bad results could put in danger our territorial integrity." This should help to focus the minds of those in the military, especially since Pakistan has a military government. Yet, it has had little effect on the populace, who are more motivated by sympathy for fellow Muslims. Will the low-ranking Pakistani soldiers on the ground go along and will they get enough intelligence from Afghanistan with little help from the populace?

My guess is that Pakistan will pretend to go along, and perhaps even help find a way to get bin Laden--which is good for PR, but not for really eradicating the terrorist network. Maybe America will eventually help to formalize Pakistan's borders, which would facilitate greater Pakistani support. I have not, however, seen this discussed publicly.

There also seems to be a common view that the Taliban should be removed from government. Indeed, it would be very difficult to eradicate the terrorist network without doing this. One approach would be to strongly support the anti-Taliban forces that currently control under 10% of (northern) Afghanistan. (This support might include bombing, but only on a small scale.) Starved of external military support, the Taliban should crumble quickly. A complicating factor is that any large military campaign in the Afghan winter is very difficult, and winter arrives in about October. Most likely, though, all this will be unnecessary: the Taliban should fall on their own, now that they are no longer propped up by Pakistan. What is in any case important is to avoid making it seem that this is American imperialism, which would unite the populace and draw wide Muslim anger.

The military action, whatever form it takes, will make it difficult for the terrorists to train or actively maintain their network in Afghanistan. Capturing many terrorists, though, seems unrealistic. The threatened mass bombing has made this even more difficult, since many Afghans have fled population centres for safety: there seems no good way to find a terrorist, who looks and acts ordinary, in their midst. If the Taliban are removed from government, though, perhaps more Afghans would then supply intelligence.

There is also a lot of detective work underway. Within America, and some other countries, this seems to be on track for some success, for identifying terrorists and also for hindering their financing. There appear to be many suicidal Islamic terrorists in the network that attacked America, though. Estimates are rough, but there could be several hundred who have deeply infiltrated the West. As an example, one of the highjackers had spent several years in Germany getting a technical degree. The network has supposedly spread to roughly 40 countries, which will hinder tracing it. Also, there is no real command structure: there is only a network (like the Internet is a network) with some people more influential than others; so even if someone like bin Laden is caught, the network would hardly be eradicated (a bit like taking out a few major nodes of the Internet would do little). Tracing the network is thus going to take a long effort, but should succeed.

Diplomatic, military, and detective efforts could also be supplemented with religious efforts, though I have not seen this discussed much. Bin Laden has claimed that he is instigating a jihad. Jihads were fought many centuries ago, against the crusaders. The jihad concept was then largely forgotten. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the CIA looked for ways to help motivate the Afghans to fight (this was during the Cold War; so the CIA was arguably justified). One of they ways the CIA came up with was the revival of the long-abandoned notion of jihad. It worked (although the defining event in the Afghan-Soviet war was probably America's decision to supply the Afghans with shoulder-launched Stinger anti-aircraft missiles).

The Koran, though, teaches that a jihad should not harm women and children. And bin Laden himself said (in 1999) that "God ... has prohibited the killing of women and children unless the women are active fighters." Fighting the Soviet army fits with this. Crashing planes into the World Trade Center does not. Of course, religious fanatics can twist anything ("America is a democracy; so the people are directly responsible for what their government does; so the women killed in the World Trade Center were active fighters."-- maybe?). But I believe that it should be possible to use the Koran, and perhaps even Muslim clerics, to motivate Afghans against the terrorists.

What are the overall conclusions? In the short term, there is small, but real, risk of another terrorist assault, against America or perhaps Britain (or Israel). In the medium term, the terrorist network will be attacked and largely eradicated, and America's resolve will make all countries very hesitant about sponsoring other terrorist networks. Additionally, there will be widespread, permanent, increases in security measures and both domestic and international intelligence operations. Individual terrorist incidents, however, do not require a sophisticated network or large resources (remember Oklahoma City). It is not realistic to expect to be able to prevent them all. In the long term, then, we also need to lessen the causes of Muslim grievances, even if it means facing up to our past mistakes.

Douglas J. Keenan

Some sources:
The 1999 interview with Osama bin Laden-- http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/tra nscript_binladen1_990110.html
The 1998 World Islamic Front Statement-- http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatw a.htm
Some insights into Afghanistan-- http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/June/Afghan/in dex.html
The home page of the Palestinian Authority, with many more related links-- http://www.pna.gov.ps/
Links to insightful news stories on Afghanistan, Israel, Pakistan, etc.-- http://www.economist.com/countries/
A UNICEF news release on child mortality in Iraq-- http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm
A BBC report entitled "Explaining Arab Anger" [September 19th]-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east /newsid_1552000/1552900.stm

Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance

[mmontour]

9) Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

You set up a very artificial scenario. The military person is almost certainly much better at hand-to-hand combat than the student. Even if the student punches back, he probably won't be able to incapacitate the military person. So why would the student think that punching back would stop further attacks, rather than escalating the intensity of those further attacks???

The only reason that "punching back" stops the violence is that the attacker's only goal is to incite the student to punch back. With more likely attack goals (trying to get your lunch money, doesn't like the color of your skin, etc) punching back will only stop the violence if you are strong enough to significantly hurt your attacker.

A student who is being attacked and knows he is outclassed can try to punch back and hope for the best. Or he can give in to the attacker's demands. Or he can run away.

Or he can run away, then find a way to "hit back" at his attacker in a different manner than hand-to-hand combat. A student, tired of being bullied at school every day, might decide to bring in a handgun. A terrorist organization with no chance of defeating the US military might decide to attack soft civilian US targets.

Sometimes it is necessary to punch back. However if you are one of the "good guys" who goes around punching people in the face in order to make this point, don't be surprised when they eventually change the rules and "punch back" in a way that really hurts you!

Disclaimer: Don't support the terrorists or their actions; agree that they must be hunted down. Just don't think that Bush's "Good vs. Evil" attitude is doing anything to reduce the chance of future terrorism.

Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance

[LS]

Your analogy is one of the worst I have ever seen. There are more holes in it than I wish to address, but I will point out a few:

* A single person commiting an act of unprovoked violence is not comparable to a complex political situation that sometimes involves violence.

* The US is the puncher, not the receiver of the punch. Our cold war and oil interests cause us to meddle in the affairs of almost every country in the middle east. We aided Osama Bin Laden and put the Taliban into power. They used to be called "freedom fighters" in the past. Our sanctions in Iraq have caused the deaths of over 500,000 CHILDREN. We sponsored and trained terrorists in Nicaragua that resulted in over 30,000 civilian deaths. The list goes on. Now who is the aggressor here?

* A true pacifist is willing to die before hitting back. If someone thinks violence is evil, how can you combat evil with violence?

* And why would anyone take advice and learn lessons from an asshole who punches peaceful people in the face?

Turn your radio dial away from Rush Limbaugh and start finding out the true story, instead of knee-jerking off.

Re:It is time...

[mcelrath]

2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

The people I know that are members of the "anti-war movement" are not opposed to military force. They're opposed to bombing the shit out of innocent, hungry refugees in tents in the desert. Multimillion-dollar cruise missile vs. tents. Incredibly silly unless it's the right tent. They're also opposed to any kind of prolonged fight against guerillas. As Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan in the 80's have taught us, that is not a fight we can win. The Taliban and bin Laden must be displaced or destroyed. But the people of Afganistan are as much victims of their terror as we have been. They should be our allies in this, and any military action must be directed only at the Taliban and bin Laden, and must be accompanied by humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees in the area. Secondly, we must allow the people of Afghanistan to decide the future course of their own country. Funding one militant group against another and setting up puppet governments is what got us into this situation (we funded the Taliban against the russians in the 80's), and is in general why everyone in the middle east hates our meddling butts, and I don't blame them.

The United States and its allies should stop pretending to take sides in conflicts in the region and allow them to pursue their own course. Our continued support of Isreal has been and continues to be a major sticking point for the region. But helping the other side(s) is not the solution. It's none of our fucking business.

We must protect ourselves against terrorists. But NOT by manipulating and destroying the entire region of the world that hates us. If we're not extrememly careful in our actions, we will create far more enemies in the region than we have now.

We should take a hint from post-WWII actions with Germany and Japan, who are now two of our greatest allies and economic partners. We must commit resources to the region to ensure their economic future of the region.

--Bob

Re:It is time...

[megaduck]

I desperately want to agree with you. Really, I do. The United States has a long tradition of doing very nasty bloody things under the name of "patriotism" or "defending liberty" or what-have-you. Vietnam comes readily to mind. I really want to believe that this is one of those times when we should be casting about for an olive branch instead of a rifle, because peace is the best solution.

I really do want to agree with you, but I can't. This is one of those rare times when violence is our only option. We did not choose this conflict. We did not select whether or not to fight. Our attackers made no demands, and therefore we must assume that they wish only our destruction. You speak of our "demands on a non-negotiable billet". Our attackers did not even attempt a diplomatic solution to their grievance before slaughtering our civilians. Not only that, but they did not even give us terms by which they would stop attacks. We have been painted into a corner, and we lash out because it is our last option.

Really, what would you have us do? Doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attcks continue. Continued diplomacy seems fruitless, as the Bin Laden has made his stance quite clear: His version of Islam cannot co-exist with other cultures, or even less militant versions of Islam. More to the point, he will not be sated until we have been violently subdued. He has left us no room for negotiation, and so we must fight.

War is a nasty, brutal, ugly thing. I wish to my core that we could avoid it. However, this is not the "Imperialistic U.S." slaughtering civilians to protect our "national interests". This is self-defense in a fight that we did not start.

The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terrorism.

[Futurepower(tm)]

Please look beyond what you are being told. This is not an adult video game.

I'd like to express a minority view: If you have been reading the news since the Vietnam war, this present "war" was entirely predictable in 1980. The U.S. government began its involvement in Afghanistan 21 years ago. (See the ABC News timeline link in the article referenced below.)

The CIA brought Arabs to the U.S. and trained them in terrorist techniques. Here is a quote from an ABC News article:

"Abu Sayyaf ... train[ed] terrorists in the methods taught by the CIA ..."

For links to stories about this from MSNBC, ABC News, The Atlantic Monthly magazine, and other respected sources, see the article: What should be the Response to Violence?

Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?

It was entirely predictable that someone would try to bring the violence to the United States, given the violence the U.S. government has done for more than 30 years. The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time. To quote the biblical saying, "You reap what you sow."

If you really, really love the U.S. like I do, you will think carefully about the problems of the U.S. government.

Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable. There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money. The U.S. is the world's largest weapons manufacturer. The World Policy Institute, in a May 1995 article, "Weapons at War" said, "In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry." (The links for these statements are in the article referenced above.)

Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance

[ruin]

Looks like he forgot a step.

10) As campus security is escorting you away for assaulting someone, muse upon the differences between justice and retaliation.

Stratfor.com

[kruczkowski]

For anyone that wants better intel than cnn.com on what is going on, a site called stratfor.com exists. It's setup by x-military intel people who know this stuff, they have good info and a daily newsletter that is free and worth singing up for. They also provide their intel services to companys and media, but that cost a bit.

Some links

http://www.stratfor.com/home/sitreps.htm

http://www.stratfor.com/preview/specialproject.h tm

(And no I do not get a commotion for this ad)

Re:Doesnt look that big right now

[SubtleNuance]

Should the U.S. not retaliate or otherwise defend itself

NO, the US is attacking them. Someone committed a crime, not and act of war, and the US is responding by making war.

its always wrong.

perceive this as an attack on Islam

You do understand America has been backing the slaughter of Muslims in Isreal for 40 years. The Jewish feel for some reason that they deserve to displace Muslims because they are not Jewish. The Americans have been supporting religious-state politics all this time, they have been violating their own constitution by supporting Zionism - you are most certainly wrong when you say this is NOT an attack on Islam - it most certainly is.

America has backed anti-Muslim policies, politics and 'apartheid'(sp?)

America is not blameless.

Re:To Those Who Are Screaming For Vengeance

[Chris Y Taylor]

"Nope. But I do believe that they were driven by revenge. (as if it's not obvious!)"

Then you are an idiot. Or at least I'll grant that you are just politically naive. The attacks on 9-11 have nothing to do with revenge. They were not "crimes of passion." The terrorist leaders may toss around the word "revenge" in the propaganda they use to recruit throw-away agents, but the fact is that such terrorist acts are cooly calculated attempts at political manipulation.

To quote the DOD definition, terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to [cause] fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological... In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience."

The leaders of Al-Qaeda seek to establish a unified Islamic gov't over the entire Middle East. Is that evil? Well, they want a gov't where women are considered property, where the political leaders are also the religious leaders, where practicing a religion other than the "state religion" is punishable by death, and not incidentally where THEY are those revered religious/political dictators. I think that qualifies for evil in my book. Even if you don't believe in "good vs. evil" political simplifications, then surely it is an end result which almost all civilized people would not want to see occur.

So why would Al-Qaeda attack the World Trade Center if it really wants to take over Arabia? Because as long as the United States maintains a strong military presence in the region then any attempt to "unify the Muslim world" will almost certainly come to a swift failure. Al-Qaeda's first step is to drive the U.S. out of the region that they want to conquer and to sufficiently damage us that we would not have the resources to ever come back in. Al-Qaeda is manipulating the hatred and jealousy toward the United States among the many Muslims to further their own goals of political/military conquest. They murdered thousands of civilians in a surprise terrorist attack in an attempt to provoke the United States gov't into taking rash action that will further increase their political base (something Bush's advisors obviously foresaw, considering the huge emphasis that Bush and his administration are placing on winning the "hearts and minds" of the Afghans and other Muslim people) and also as the first step in convincing the public and the leadership of the United States that we must withdraw our forces from the Mid-East (like we withdrew from Lebanon and Somalia after terrorist related casualties in those areas) so that it will be ripe for their conquest. Sounds close enough to "evil" in my book.

As the song says "everybody wants to rule the world." Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri might actually be satisfied with just the Middle and Near East... maybe. I'm sure they don't see themselves as "evil." I'm sure they would tell you that they keep women uneducated and oppressed because that is their proper place in society... not because they hate them. I'm sure that they would explain that they execute people preaching other religions because they care about their citizen's souls and want to protect them from temptation. Then again, I'm sure that the Communists would have told you that they were doing what they did only because they cared so much for the Working Class. I'm sure that the National German Worker's Party officials would have explained that their actions were taken to bring back the pride and sense of self worth among the much maligned German people and to free them from the unfair terms of the Armistice Treaty forced on them by the evil French.

I will not try to argue that the United States is perfect. We have used ruthless means to achieve our ends. We have manipulated nations. We have supported oppressive leaders simply because they were the enemies of our enemies. It is a cruel world. International politics is a brutal jungle where the only rules are the ones that you can enforce. We have played by those "rules of the jungle" and perhaps in some ways we mirror the evil we try to fight. But aside from some (thankfully) rare acts by misguided leaders, our ends are generally good. If you can't agree with that, then I submit that they are at least better than the ends pursued by our enemies, whether those enemies are Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussien, or the Chicoms.

Some people are upset that the United States is never perfect. The choice is not "which side is perfect." The choice is "which future do you want to live in?" The future the United States is fighting for will not be a utopia... but it will be better than the alternative. It is time to choose sides. And don't forget the saying "The Perfect is the enemy of The Good." If you wait for a perfect society to support, then you will never find it. It is time to throw in on the side of "The Good." As long as you argue that the calculated conspiracy of an oppressive, tyrannical fanatic is morally equivalent to the calculated conspiracy of the powers of Western Civilization to promote global stability and the continued existence of liberal, capitalist, democratic society, then you are on the wrong side... and you are being just as manipulated by Al-Qaeda's propaganda as are the poor, ignorant youths who they recruit to be "throw away" agents.

P.S. All the people who feared a stupid, rash, and vengeful retaliation by the United States need only look at the huge effort being put into helping the Afghan people and building alliances with local, freedom-loving Afghanis to see how wrong those expectations were. I am very proud of Pres. Bush and his administration. www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/ret.bush.radio/ index.html (remove the space before "index")

Re:It is time...

[Chris Y Taylor]

"How can you say doing nothing will simply cost us more lives, as the terrorist attacks continue? Have they continued in the weeks to now? Everything happened on one day and nothing since."

In 1983 terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.

In 1993 one of Al-Qaeda's first acts was to ambush and kill American soldiers engaged in "nationbuilding" in Somalia. We pulled our forces out, and the attacks stopped... for a time.

If we pull troops out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan now, then the attacks will stop again... for a time.

We have taught these people that if they bloody our nose, then we will do what they want.

Why are we surprised that they attack us again?

If we keep giving them what they want every time the attack us then we teach the world that terrorism works. If we keep following that road, then evenutally it will mean the end of America as a free nation. At some point we have to stand up and say: "No" No matter how much they hurt us, we can't give them what they want. We have to hurt them worse. We have to show the world that attacking the United States is a VERY BAD IDEA. It will mean more attacks in the short term, but it is the only way to stop them in the long term.

Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris

[strider]

I think you use several very faulty lines of logic here and I will attempt to demonstrate them individually. I'd like to note that I think generally we would be on the same side regarding foreing policy, but I think in this instance I must firmly disagree.

First you imply that this is our fault, or deserved because of our funding of the Mujahadeen during the exuberant battle against the "evil empire" of the cold war. While I agree this was a mistake, let's not use that to claim that in any way justifies the current situation in that country. The Soviet Union invaded and we helped the rebels gain independence. This done we stopped helping them. They would have liked more money to set up a regime but we cared little after we won our battle. So we didn't help as much as we could/should have, is this reason to bomb us? NO. It does not follow that, since we declined to continue aiding the Mujahadeen as they set up a government we wronged them in such a way as to deserve 9/11. We helped create this monster yes, but isn't that all the more reason for us to step up to the plate and end it?

Next you have the bombing 1 nation every two years argument. Firstly few of these terrorist are victims of bombing. That aside, I wonder how many more peoploe would have died if we had not have dropped a bomb in the last 30 years? It sounds paradoxicall but unfortunately their are some seriously fucked up people in this world and sometimes you have to kill them. The US made mistakes, yes. But it made mistakes while generally *trying to do the right thing*. Explain to me how Somalia or Kosovo can be construed as the US profiteering from bombing? Come on. Perhaps our motives or our analysis haven't always been perfect, but they rarely have been purely economic profit. America had made mistakes like everyone else. You might want to research how much culpability Pakistan has in all this. Their crusade for Kashmire has caused them to fund some unsavory charecters. We all do stupid things. That does not mean the present situation is one of them or that America is evil.

Thirdly there is the profiteering from arm sales argument. This argument has been arround since after world war I where it gained popularity as an explanation for the horific wanton destruction from that war. Because a group stands to profit from a course of action does not mean that they are responsible for it. It is sometimes good grounds for suspicion but it nothing like positive evidence. I think your argument here is much stronger on issues like the missle defense system than on this. I really don't think Bush's main goal right now is "what do the defence contractors want me to do" regardless of how he may think on other occasions.

In the end I think this act is justified for one reason only; it may prevent future suffering. Terrorism like any other act of violence causes suffering. This action may create less suffering than it ends.

Re:The CIA taught Arabs the techniques of terroris

[Guppy06]

"Please look beyond what you are being told. This is not an adult video game."

... and yet you try so hard to make it cut-and-dry...

""Abu Sayyaf ... train[ed] terrorists in the methods taught by the CIA ...""

Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror.

On the other hand, what we have here is a lose network of terrorist organizations that do not rely on any one source of funds too heavily, have relatively obscure, religion-oriented goals, and tend not to immediately take credit. Instead, as we saw with the kamikaze attacks in New York and DC, it was more important for these people to do good by their God than to make a political statement.

In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1.

If you think the CIA would teach the Afghanis what they did to us last month, I ask you this: If Afghanis hijacked an Aeroflot jet and flew it into the Supreme Soviet, is there any doubt in your mind that they would have sent in the full brunt of the Red Army into Afghanistan (complete with their NBC weapons) instead of the trickle we saw?

"Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?"

Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?

When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs.

To quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers:

If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence.

If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.

"The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time."

That's an interesting figure you have there. I don't know where you got it (and I'm curious about it), but I have a feeling you've padded it with questionable sources. Sources like:

• A Palestinian throws rocks and Moletov cocktails at an Israeli soldier. The soldier feels threatened and shoots the Palestinian. The gun used was an M-16, so therefore the US killed the Palestinian.
• Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation

Sound familiar? It's a real shame that you're not the only one that believes that the US is the prime cause for all of these deaths.

As for the rest, those that were bombed were given ample warning and the chance to back down from doing what they shouldn't have been doing ("Lybia, stop trying to claim international waters as your own." "Cuba, stop trying to take over Grenada." "Iraq, don't invade/get out of Kuwait." "Serbia, stop butchering Muslims."). However, they made a decision to invite attacks by US forces instead. If anything, these should serve as examples that soetimes words are just not enough.

... and now you all but flat-out say "Boeing helped the hijackers."

"Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable."

... while getting executed for treason is not. Your name, your family, and your life aren't worth the billions you might make, especially when you're already rolling in it. You don't stay that rich for that long by taking risky chances like that.

On top of that, such companies also lose money on their consumer goods as the civillians who used to buy cars and planes and televisions and everything else say "Hey, there's a war going on. Maybe we should save our money..."

"There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money."

Do you have proof? Do you even have circumstantial evidence? Do you have anything more than some shady website run by a certifiable paranoid?

"In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."

Was the US actively involved in any of those 45 conflicts through shady dealings? Was the US actively involved in any of those conflicts period?

Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person.

It sounds to me that the US is the cause of all ill-will everywhere. If somebody wants to kill somebody else, it's probably because the CIA was beaming "hate waves" into them from a satellite in LEO...

You start your post stating that we all should "look beyond." But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis. Perhaps you should consider that before you lazily pick up that "The US is the source of all evil!" banner that somebody else made for you.

Re:It is time...

[paul7e]

Let me explain.

The Taliban have stated that he's a "guest" in their country. When one hosts a guest, one has a responsibility to not have their guests bother the neighbors with loud parties and such.

Or, say, when your guest happens to murder a few thousand civilians at the neighbors place, in a polite society one would ask him or her to depart.

They have not done so, so it appears that they have changed the relationship from "guest" to "protectee". As the terrorists have shown that violence is their preferred method of social interaction, the Taliban must realize that when the neighbors call the police to come in to try and get their "guest" to be more quiet, there might be some additional damage to their home.

It's unfortunate, but it happens.