What exactly is an appropriate response?

[Griff]

Someone, who I normally respect, told me in all seriousness yesterday that we should go nuclear on Afghanistan. I'd say the war hysteria has been whipped up high enough, maybe its time for some clear thinking. As someone who sees the WTC disaster as a natural outgrowth of our interventionist foreign policy, ongoing Iraqi bombing, and weapons sales to unpopular regimes, I don't think a use of overwhelming force resulting in more civilian casualties is the direction we want to go. So what would be an appropriate response to the terrorism?

A wise man once said, "War is the health of the state." As we can see, since Commie Tommy is off to Washington to be our new Terror Czar, this one is no different. g

[elSicomoro]

You know, the way the question was worded made me think that tw wrote it.

This IS a good question though. Like the Taliban, I want PROOF that Osama is most likely behind this. And I'm hearing a lot of different things, but I have yet to see any clear cut evidence that implicates him. The case is indeed building up, but it seems to be a lot of indirect links here and there. I'm not un-American, but I do believe in innocence until proven guilty. If the US has clear-cut evidence, then he should be brought to the Hague for trial.

(Yep, I said the Hague. I can't honestly see Osama bin Laden getting a fair trial in the United States.)

How do we get him out? Afghanistan is like Iraq with mountains. The US would be wise to learn from the folly of the Soviets. Smart bombs and missile attacks on bin Laden's bases seem like a strong first bet. To lob bombs all over Kabul a la Baghdad would be senseless. As far as from there, our safest bet would be to secure the borders, then surround him.

(Please take into effect that I am a war weenie and that I have no extensive knowledge as to planning a military strike.)

And Griff, I wouldn't necessarily be shocked by your friend's response...unless you've had a debate royale over it and the person is still ignorant of the facts.

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
How do we get him out? Afghanistan is like Iraq with mountains. The US would be wise to learn from the folly of the Soviets. Smart bombs and missile attacks on bin Laden's bases seem like a strong first bet. To lob bombs all over Kabul a la Baghdad would be senseless. As far as from there, our safest bet would be to secure the borders, then surround him.

The friend's response would only create instability as previously defined. Instability would only drive moderates into the camps of extremists. Those prinicipals, unfortunately not stated by public officials, should be fundamental to how all American view this "war". Sen Warner, R-VA, in the tradition of moderates, was so quietly and carefully lecturing his fellow Senators in those concepts.

I thought I quite clearly described how we get the suspect. Even in Iraq, the US top brass feared to use the 'sneakies'. It was only when the British demanded that their SAS be given a chance at Iraqi Scud launcher did those launchers disappear or fear to be used. The sneakies - not airpower - are the only way to get mobile Scud missile launchers - or even something more difficult as bin Laden. Finally the US military will learn how to use sneakies - something totally new to top brass who may make some serious micro-management mistakes.

'Sneakies' and light military is how one operates in Afghanistan. We are not trying to take the country. Therefore we do not operate a Viet Nam type military that tries to hold land or to create maximum body counts. Our strategic objectives are quite specific and clear - bin Laden and Assoicates, Unincorporated. Furthermore, losses are acceptable - as they were in 1990 Persian Gulf.

Shocking is how many don't have a clue - thinking only with their testosterone rather than using logic. It is why Bush's statement scares much of the international world - although they knew Bush's statement was coming. If I remember the quote, "Either you are with us or your are against us". This even shocked some European governments because they fear America is dominated by the "Let's nuke 'em" extremists. Only American extremists would advocate such dangerous actions. Moderate instead have more intelligence.

Furthermore if you think the whole world sees the American viewpoint, then you better take a look at Greece - a Nato ally.

Are we going to war against bin Laden or Saddam Hussien? Troop movements will be telling, which is why this administration does not want any Cellar dweller - or anyone else for that matter - to know which units have been mobilized.

Did the Taliban get the message? This time they let bin Laden go too far and must understand that a line has been crossed. Maybe they understood this. But the local power is among clerics who have no appreciation of what is beyond their nose and their myopic interpretation of the Koran. Despite their myopia, the Taliban are concerned enough to seek alternative solutions - such as inviting bin Laden to leave when he is ready.

Bush is threading a needle between keeping an international coalition in line and trying to get that message across, bluntly, to the Taliban. This time, Bush's speech demonstrated leadership (finally). He threaded that needle quite well - especially by not committing us to too much. Now, he will have to backup those words by actions. A great leader would never be so ignorant (extremist) as to advocate nuclear weapons or invade Afghanistan as the Soviets did. I would have thought all this was obvious to everyone. But then again, I also forget how so many Americans learn - where so many Americans get their news.

The neat thing about responsible news sources - it convert extremists into moderates - people who can see many perspectives - people who can therefore be tolerant - people who would never let their emotions advocate use of nuclear weapons or "bomb them into the stone age".

[Griff]

Well Syc, I think I'll take that as a compliment. I often like tw's questions but his answers... sometimes not so much... This time we are of one mind though, our response has to be properly directed at the guilty party so as not to push more followers into the arms of the extremists, anything more and I'm joining the candle light vigil crowd. I fear Bush may want to finish off Saddam using the cover this disaster supplies and as much as I would like the stalemate there to end, I'm not sure this is the way. g

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
I thought I quite clearly described how we get the suspect. Even in Iraq, the US top brass feared to use the 'sneakies'. It was only when the British demanded that their SAS be given a chance at Iraqi Scud launcher did those launchers disappear or fear to be used. The sneakies - not airpower - are the only way to get mobile Scud missile launchers - or even something more difficult as bin Laden. Finally the US military will learn how to use sneakies - something totally new to top brass who may make some serious micro-management mistakes.

I don't think I understood it when you mentioned it the first time, but now I do. And it does sound logical. (As I stressed, I do not know strategic planning...so don't ever ask me to invade a country.)

Shocking is how many don't have a clue - thinking only with their testosterone rather than using logic. It is why Bush's statement scares much of the international world - although they knew Bush's statement was coming. If I remember the quote, "Either you are with us or your are against us". This even shocked some European governments because they fear America is dominated by the "Let's nuke 'em" extremists. Only American extremists would advocate such dangerous actions. Moderate instead have more intelligence.

But let's look at this from another logical perspective. We have not seen the use of such weapons in 56 years. Truth be told, the United States would be one step short of insanity to use nuclear weapons. I don't remember what they called it during the Cold War, but with several countries having nuclear capabilities, no country wants to really use them.

Furthermore if you think the whole world sees the American viewpoint, then you better take a look at Greece - a Nato ally.

From what I've read in the Greek press, they seem to be of the "We'll hold our end up if we need to, but we're really not big on the fighting" viewpoint...similar to Norway.

NATO, the EU, and the rest of the world can be most helpful to the US in one way--objectivity. Bush gave a good speech last night, and the US seems to be regaining some of its objective perspective. But realistically, after the US has been trying to keep the world in check for so long (good and bad), it's time to give back.

Did the Taliban get the message?

They're between a rock and a hard place. Certainly, they do not want to be bombed to smithereens; however, to give up bin Laden would be the evil America winning again.

The neat thing about responsible news sources - it convert extremists into moderates - people who can see many perspectives - people who can therefore be tolerant - people who would never let their emotions advocate use of nuclear weapons or "bomb them into the stone age".

What is a "responsible" news source, in your opinion tw? I'm not asking this to be sarcastic, but am curious of your answer.

[jaguar]

They're between a rock and a hard place. Certainly, they do not want to be bombed to smithereens; however, to give up bin Laden would be the evil America winning again.

There is more to it than that - the taliban need his troops and training - i makes up the majority of their army. Afterall the Taliban aren't so much the goverment as the largest warlords at the moment so they cannot afford to lose most of their army.

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
There is more to it than that - the taliban need his troops and training - [it] makes up the majority of their army. Afterall the Taliban aren't so much the goverment as the largest warlords at the moment so they cannot afford to lose most of their army.

bin Laden, et al are not a major part of the Taliban Army although I cannot say how much they account for training the Afghan army. But bin Laden assistance, both in ability and money are greatly appreciated. That appreciation may be moreso if bin Laden's people did successfully assasinate Masoud of the Northern Alliance. That suicide bomb may have started the beginning of the end for Afghanistan's civil war. If true and if bin Laden associates were responsible, then the Taliban would be greatly in his debt.

I cannot say enough about PBS Frontline's documentary on bin Laden. It puts the man and his organization in perspective.

[jaguar]

Yea your right tw, my bad, its more training and experience than sheer number, i think around 1000 were his though. A trial in the hague? The US hates the hague, they don't control it.

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
But let's look at this from another logical perspective. We have not seen the use of such weapons in 56 years.

It is not so much use of nukes as much as European fear we will start a bombing campaign or a gun-ho invasion of Afghanistan which will draw them all into it.

Interesting is that the European public has more support for a US position than some of their governments. The same was a problem after a German nighclub bombing by Libyan agents. The US was not permitted to fly over France or Spain to attack Kadaffi. However if an American was in France during that week (as two separate parties detailed), the French people suddenly all spoke English and could not be nicer to Americans. Again, goverments feared the American response but the people loved it.

But realistically, after the US has been trying to keep the world in check for so long (good and bad), it's time to give back.

The has been made painfully obvious so many times. The French could not even send one armored battalion to the Persian Gulf war. Only the British could provide military equipment comparible to America's response. In Bosnia, most of the advanced electronics and even air rescue abilities had to be American. The Europeans have long acknowledged their inferiority, have discussed addressing such problems extensively, and have acomplished almost nothing. They are still depended on Americans even for their own nation's defense. But they still are not apologetic.

The Europeans are even angry at their inability to effect a Middle East peace without American involvement. It is frustrating to them to see a situation deteriorate, not be able to do anything, and watch the Americans become disconnected from any peace process. Yes they understand their impotence, keep talking of solutions, but never quite action on those solutions.


As for the Afghans, they are not worried about being blown to smithereens. Have you seen their capital city? It is still blown to smithereens. Afghanistan is worried about losing access to military weapons, supplies necessary to make those weapons possbile, NGO aid that provided their armies with food and medicine, and money to complete the package. They really are not worried about American bombers bombing rubble just as N Viet Nam had nothing to worry about (as clearly known and delineated in the Pentagon Papers). For moderates in Afghanistan, it is loss of aid from ie. Pakistan that worries them - although they will not admit it.

What is a "responsible" news source, in your opinion tw?

Irresponsible by categories. Worst are the local TV news reports which ranks up there with Robertson's 700 Club, the National Inquirer, Insight Magazine (if I remember the name of that propaganda sheet), and many of the local daily newspapers that feature, to excess, the latest auto crash on their front page.

A slightly more responsible but still suspect news service include the Daily News (Philly and NYC), NBCs network news such as Dateline and ABC's Barbara Walters interviews which are (both)more interested in how 'You' feel rather than facts technical , many issues of Time Magazine, and Louis Rukiser of Wall Street Week.

Responsible news sources include CBS News (usually, even though their credibility has been weakened by and since when 60 Minutes reports on the cigarette industry were quashed), ABC network news (so many Junior ABC news reporters have gone to other networks to become Senior News bureau managers or star reporters - ie Jeff Greenfield and Fox's Washington bureau chief (name forgotten) because ABC is so chock full of superior talent such as the quirky and always interesting Robert Kurlwich and the legendary Ted Koppel), the BBC, Radio Netherlands, PBS's Nightly Business Report (especially the ethical Paul Kangas), the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and, of course, The Economist magazine.

[Griff]

Jacob Hornburgers got me to leaning toward no military response.

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0901f.asp

[elSicomoro]

I don't particularly agree with what he thinks the US should do, but he does make some valid points, and the piece is well-written.

[Griff]

Dr. Ron Paul (R-Tx) makes some good points as well.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...1/cr092501.htm

[Nothing But Net]

You have to look at how the Taliban came into power in the first place.

After seeing 60 Minutes II tonight, I'm even more pissed at those assholes.

Except for Iran, and maybe Pakistan, most of the Islamic world is now against them. They are running scared, and they know it! Now is the time to present the final ultimatum: turn over bin-Laden, and for that matter all terrorists you are known to be harboring, within 72 hours, or face the wrath of the world. Even Saudi Arabia (who bin-Laden is a native of!) has turned against him. That should make them realize the futility of their cause. Why not? The Taliban don't have any compunctions about the death penalty, as I have seen.

Then if our demands are not met, we go in full force, align with the Rebels (who I would now call Freedom Fighters), and lay waste to the land, but attempting killing as few innocents as possible.



Nevertheless, I would trade 1000 Afghani deaths for one more American!

I predict the Taliban would not be in power for one week longer after we made these demands!

[Griff]

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
You have to look at how the Taliban came into power in the first place.

They had CIA support, more fruit of American interventionism.

After seeing 60 Minutes II tonight, I'm even more pissed at those assholes.

Which assholes? The CIA? the Taliban? the Russians? Mike Wallace?

Except for Iran, and maybe Pakistan, most of the Islamic world is now against them.

I don't think we should confuse government positions for the actual feelings of the people of the Middle East. Bin Laden apparently wants to unite the Islamic people against the west. That would probably mean toppling a bunch of authoritarian states with western ties. With a few poorly placed bombs, we could easily unite people behind this or some other nut.

Even Saudi Arabia (who bin-Laden is a native of!) has turned against him.

Hardly suprising since one of his goals is the overthrow of that regime.

Nevertheless, I would trade 1000 Afghani deaths for one more American!

I'm sure the State appreciates your contempt for human life. Seriously though, it is in our best interest to understand why such hate exists for the US. The Taliban are hideous and should be overthrown by the people of Afghanistan, hell the Afghan people should hate us for helping put those maniacs in power. Our support for the Taliban when the Russians were there may be a legitamite cause for intervention but I'm thinking that we've meddled enough.

I predict the Taliban would not be in power for one week longer after we made these demands!

I cannot make any predictions because the law of unintended consequences is at work here.

[Griff]

hmmm.. I don't like the tone of my post there too much.

Anyway... we seem to be moving the focus from the difficult to hit mobile target of international terrorism to the immobile target the Taliban.