Why Kerry doesn't deserve your vote

[KarenAM]

The trouble is, Sher, that on 9-11 al-Qaeda did have a country: Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was connected to the family of Mullah Omar by marriage, and it was clear in the aftermath of 9-11 that the Taliban had no intention of turning him or anyone else over to justice. The Taliban were and are like Hitler; no one has ever negotiated with them successfully. It's also true that the total neglect of Afghanistan by the outside world had allowed the total chaos following the Soviet withdrawl to create a complete nightmare state, and such states almost always eventually export their nightmare. Indeed, the Iranians were so offended by the Taliban's interpretation of Islam that they nearly invaded Afghanistan themselves, several years before 9-11.

So while I agree wholeheartedly that the invasion and subsequent failed occupation of Iraq has done nothing but embolden and assist al-Qaeda, I do believe that the destruction of the Taliban was necissary, and that a war was the only way to do it as quickly as it needed to be done. This said, I am worried sick at how Afghanistan has been neglected in the current obsession with Iraq. The Taliban are making a comeback there, and you can bet that where the stench of the Taliban exists, the shit of al-Qaeda is sure to be close by.

 

[KenJames]

The trouble is, Sher, that on 9-11 al-Qaeda did have a country: Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was connected to the family of Mullah Omar by marriage, and it was clear in the aftermath of 9-11 that the Taliban had no intention of turning him or anyone else over to justice. The Taliban were and are like Hitler; no one has ever negotiated with them successfully. It's also true that the total neglect of Afghanistan by the outside world had allowed the total chaos following the Soviet withdrawl to create a complete nightmare state, and such states almost always eventually export their nightmare. Indeed, the Iranians were so offended by the Taliban's interpretation of Islam that they nearly invaded Afghanistan themselves, several years before 9-11.

So while I agree wholeheartedly that the invasion and subsequent failed occupation of Iraq has done nothing but embolden and assist al-Qaeda, I do believe that the destruction of the Taliban was necissary, and that a war was the only way to do it as quickly as it needed to be done. This said, I am worried sick at how Afghanistan has been neglected in the current obsession with Iraq. The Taliban are making a comeback there, and you can bet that where the stench of the Taliban exists, the shit of al-Qaeda is sure to be close by.

I find it difficult to completely agree with any of the posts on this thread (including my own - I know how much I oversimplify and omit), but you've nailed it perfectly with this post. I wish I could have said it as well as you have.

Sher makes good points, too. We'd have been much better off if we'd done almost everything she suggests, but sometimes military action is necessary. Afghanistan was one of those times.

 

[Pure]

Wildcard said,

Once WW2 was over, both countries [Germany and Japan] were in shambles. Instead of pulling all of our troops home, we stayed in each country to rebuild the shambles in to a democratic society. It took about 10 years for each of the two to become a fully functional country again. During that time we did the things necessary to rebuild infrastructure, set up schools, hospitals, rebuild what was destroyed. We gave the people a purpose, we slowly got them into the mindset of being a free people. We protected them from their enemies.

The analogy breaks down in several ways, principally having to do with the industrial advancement of the country, national unity, systems of national laws, and so on. Iraq has yet to have a century of freedom from other's armies, nor has it defined its own borders

But in looking into the Japan analogy, I found two things. The US contingent that continued was fairly small, on the order of 150,000. Second, there were hoards (more than soldiers) of US civilians helping restore the country. Because it was safe.

Mac Arthur lived among Japanese, not in a fortress.

Indeed one stat really struck me, as exemplifying why Japan post WWII is different: In the ten years of US occupation, number of US soldiers killed by Japanese: 0.

 

[shereads]

The trouble is, Sher, that on 9-11 al-Qaeda did have a country: Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was connected to the family of Mullah Omar by marriage, and it was clear in the aftermath of 9-11 that the Taliban had no intention of turning him or anyone else over to justice. The Taliban were and are like Hitler; no one has ever negotiated with them successfully. It's also true that the total neglect of Afghanistan by the outside world had allowed the total chaos following the Soviet withdrawl to create a complete nightmare state, and such states almost always eventually export their nightmare. Indeed, the Iranians were so offended by the Taliban's interpretation of Islam that they nearly invaded Afghanistan themselves, several years before 9-11.

So while I agree wholeheartedly that the invasion and subsequent failed occupation of Iraq has done nothing but embolden and assist al-Qaeda, I do believe that the destruction of the Taliban was necissary, and that a war was the only way to do it as quickly as it needed to be done. This said, I am worried sick at how Afghanistan has been neglected in the current obsession with Iraq. The Taliban are making a comeback there, and you can bet that where the stench of the Taliban exists, the shit of al-Qaeda is sure to be close by.

If an invasion of Afghanistan was the way to destroy Al Queda, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There wouldn't be an Al Queda.

I agree that the Taliban were and are evil. But we haven't solved that problem; we've just scattered it around. And I agree with Dr. Mabeuse that there was no vast organization identifiable as Al Queda; there are plenty of freelance terrorists and fringe groups willing to take the name now that we've made it famous.

We wouldn't have done them that favor or helped in their now global recruiting effort if, instead of bombings and occupations of countries, we had put our focus and resources behind a full-scale invasion of Osama Bin Laden.

That, along with a come-to-Jesus meeting with anyone in the Saudi government who may have helped finance the plot or had knowledge of it, would have solved the crimes of the Cole attack and 9/ll, without the scattershot of fatal side effects that have been spawned by our testosterone-poisoned cowboy response.

If it wasn't possible to get bin Laden and his two or three closest associates without invading Afghanistan, we should have done what was necessary to find them instead of congratulating ourselves for almost solving the Taliban problem and turning our backs.

 

[Pure]

Karen said, seconded by Ken,

I do believe that the destruction of the Taliban was necessary, and that a war was the only way to do it as quickly as it needed to be done. This said, I am worried sick at how Afghanistan has been neglected in the current obsession with Iraq. The Taliban are making a comeback there,

This was in disagreement with sher's advice to hunt the al Qaeda as criminals, without military intervention.

I think Sher is closer to the mark. Karen, your analysis makes the US out to be the "Saint" (remember the old show) or the Lone Ranger.

There are any number of 'bad' governments, as bad as the Taliban. There is also a history of taking down some of them. Mostly it's not had good results, long run, be it Allende or Lumumba. You have to have 1) continuing presence, and 2) willingness to invest lots of manpower and money. [3) and clean hands and pure heart help also.] Colin Powell put it right: You can seize Iraq, but then you've got the whole complicated mess in your hands for a LONG time.

Your second statement indeed gives away the game. Surprise Afghanistan is 'neglected.' Well, their welfare was never a top priority, simply the neutralization of its government.

While I like the idea of small scale units and efforts, I don't think sher is correct that this is a band of criminals; they are like a military unit, indeed a guerrilla unit, that, as mao said, is like the fish to the water (the people).

Sher said,
It would have been a frustrating couple of years, but you have to know that with the cooperation of all the countries who offered their sympathy after 9/ll, including Jodan and Egypt and Pakistan and Turkey, and with some quiet, behind-the-scenes pressure applied to Syria and others, we'd have one day been able to achieve the only meaningful victory: announcing that the organizers of Al Queda were in U.S. custody; or offering proof of their deaths.

This is reminiscent of Wildkard's view. In my image, that we can hunt down the mice in the cheese shop. In fact, the US has a devil of a choice: Strengthen military gov's like Algeria (and other authoritarian ones) or help the Islamists topple the corrupt govs, and follow, somwhat the path of Iran.

Sher's approach appears similar to the first: Agree with these govs that there are 'criminals' (insurgents) to hunt down. Say, "You help us hunt our 'criminals' and we'll help you with yours, or at least shut up about what you're doing." (Bush is doing this with China, btw.) Aside from the moral issue, can it succeed????

She seeming ignores, in this posting, that the countries like Saudi Arabia and several others in the ME are going to be breeding grounds for 'fundamentalists', in view of the terrible conditions, and corruption of government.

Only if there were good gov, and satisfied people with basic necessities, could Sher's 'hunt the criminals' work. For an example, it might well work in France, but that area of 'working' won't solve the problem.

Indeed, there's an argument the opposite of Sher's: Given the corrupt govs in the ME, help the insurgents ("criminals"); make friends with the Islamists, who are bound to score some successes. Supporting secular dictators (e.g., the Shah) is probably doomed. There are, I believe, signs that Iran will 'come around', perhaps because it's not villainized of late.

In short, there is a possibility, absent US intervention against them, that a portion of radical Islam --esp. in power-- might not be actively hostile to US and its interests.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Comparing the postwar conditions in Germany and Japan with that of Iraq’s current condition, ignores how their wars were concluded

Both Germany and Japan were counties that had formally surrendered. Their occupations and reconstructions were reinforced from the top down, in hierarchically-structured societies.

Iraq had “Mission Accomplished” declared by their opponent, and to date, its occupation and reconstruction is being enforced, mainly, from the top down, within a fragmented society, held together for over a generation, through the repression of a detested despot.

 

[shereads]

She seeming ignores, in this posting, that the countries like Saudi Arabia and several others in the ME are going to be breeding grounds for 'fundamentalists', in view of the terrible conditions, and corruption of government.

I'm not suggesting that we should or could stop the spread of fundamentalism. Our support of corrupt governments could become unnecessary if we developed alternative energy sources, but that's another story.

I'm saying we should have put the power of the United States into an undercover effort, with or without the cooperation of unfriendly governments, to locate 3 ot 4 men: Osama bin Laden and his closest associates. The brains behind the dead guys who hijacked those planes.

We should have been able to conceive of an intelligent way to bring 3 or 4 men to justice, without taking actions and making speeches that gave terrorism credibility.

If we couldn't find 3 or 4 men, and improve airport security, and do a better job of tracking expired visas in the U.S., with all the brainpower that exists - or had better - in Washington and with the $290 billion we spent last year in Iraq, then what hope do we have of stopping ALL terrorism as the president implies that we will?

It's like a line from the cartoon "Get Your War On," when by our 8th week in Afghanistan we had failed to produce any sign of Bin Laden & Assoc.: "The entire military might of the United States can't locate a one-eyed Muslim cleric and a cave-dwelling maniac. It's like Rambo versus The Hobbit."

 

[Pure]

you're thinking interpol, sher. read your mao and giap, and think, 'fish in the ocean.'

finding 3 or 4 men is, conceptually, not unlike the old CIA plot to send Castro a poisoned cigar. or the recent killing of the blind paraplegic cleric, by Israel.

if you want a real life example, the Mossad works somewhat the way you suggest. how well is that going, as far as increased Israeli security?

 

[Dragonmuncher]

Thought this was relevant...

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/


*Goes back to lurking*

 

[shereads]

Heehee. I posted that link here once before. I couldn't get it to work, though. I hope yours gets some traffic.

He is, and I am.

 

[shereads]

The Flap About Flip-Flops

The linked above, JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway, is dedicated to two purposes: acknowledging that there have been recorded instances of what the site author calls 'douchebagness' (riding motorcycle onto stage of Jay Leno show); and debunking some of the popular mythology. Since, face it, most people have substantially more of Bush version's of Kerry than they have of Kerry's version of Kerry or Bush, thanks to GWB's having spent a significant chunk of his $60 million on TV commercials. Here, for your consideration, is the section that I found most enlightening. You will have to go to the site itself to access the links that document instances of Falsified Flipflops cobbled together by the Bush camp to cement the idea that Kerry can't make up his mind, or constantly changes it in response to polls:

One of the most persistent arguments against Kerry from the Bush camp is his “flip-flop” attitude regarding every issue known to man. Indeed, for a person to change his stance on important issues in order to win an election would make him a verifiable, grade-A douchebag. The website linked to above {see site for link} contains a very long and detailed list, no doubt the hard work of two dozen political science undergrads looking to justify their existence. I read perhaps the first two thirds and skimmed the rest, because, as you're sure to notice, patterns begin forming very quickly. Some of the deception attempts are clever, even downright sneaky. Others are less well disguised. Let's take a look at a few of the ploys used by this page:

Observe the liberal usage of paraphrasing. In bending words to fit situations, the “...” is mans best friend. Perhaps it's that... excluding... certain pieces... [makes] excerpts more... convincing. Granted, it could be the case that these are earnest summaries of what was said, but it seems that many times the ellipsis is heading off in a different direction (Affirmative Action, Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn, Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees, Federal Health Benefits, Burma Sanctions, 1991 Iraq War Coalition). [color=dark red]Also, there are abundant examples of paraphrasing not involving our three-dotted friend that are clearly quotes taken far out of context, or that have a misleading title that does not at all match the quote listed below (Iraq War, Gay Marriage Amendment, Attacking President During Time of War, Death Penalty for Terrorists, Cuba Sanctions, Health Coverage, Ballistic Missile Defense).

__ Additionally, there are a number of “flip-flops” that do not appear to be “flip-flops” at all. At best, they are minor shifts in opinion, and some of them are not even shifts, but two different opinions about two separate issues[/color] (Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve, War on Terror, Military Experience as Credential For Public Office, Medical Marijuana, Cuba Sanctions, Gay Marriage Amendment, Both Sides on the First Gulf War).

_[color=dark red]Of all these accusations, there are a few I would hope that John Kerry and any sensible person would “flip-flop” over, given events that have transpired since the original quote and the more recent one. [/color]For starters, I am happy that Kerry and many others are actively trying to do away with the Patriot Act, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously. Shortly following 9/11, the general sentiment around America was a desire to hunt down terrorists at all costs, even at the expense of a violation of personal privacy. Times have changed between then and now, and while the Patriot Act may have served its purpose in fighting terrorism, it's now being abused for non-terrorism causes, and that needs to stop.

[color=dark red]Also among notable “I would'da changed my mind too” scenarios:

Death Penalty for Terrorists (One quote was taken before 9/11, the other was taken after)

No Child Left Behind (Kerry voted for this act, and now thanks to gross mishandling by the Bush administration, it is largely a failure... even Republicans disapprove of how Bush has handled No Child Left Behind)

NAFTA (Originally voting for this in 1993, after witnessing its less-than-stellar outcome, Kerry has expressed regret ten years later)

Leaving Abortion Up to the States (Originally for this approach in 1972, Kerry changed his stance in 1985. I think 13 years is a fair time to re-evaluate one’s position.)

Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees (With the original quote from 1986, I think it’s fair to slightly change one’s position over the course of almost two decades.)

This is not even to mention the numerous “flip-flops” that show Kerry supporting or not supporting something based on how he voted on a particular resolution. I have not the time nor the energy to look up and read through years-old legislation to find the true purpose of each resolution, but we can just assume that the Bush website has properly paraphrased these for us, right? [/color]

There's more. The name of the site is easy to remember.

Thanks, Dragonmuncher.

 

[Pure]

Nice link, dragon.

 

[shereads]

None of them has presumably spent $290 billion in one year to enhance their security. We've spent it on the Iraq war and have not been given a clue what it will cost in the future, since it doesn't figure in to GWB's budget projections.

I maintain that we could go to the moon and we could have found Bin Laden...There's no doubt been a continuing effort to do so, but you can hardly say that it's been the focus of this administration. They don't even mention him anymore.

If Rambo had done nothing more than post a $290 billion dollar reward for the Hobbit, we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now and there would be 700 more of us.

you're thinking interpol, sher. read your mao and giap, and think, 'fish in the ocean.'

finding 3 or 4 men is, conceptually, not unlike the old CIA plot to send Castro a poisoned cigar. or the recent killing of the blind paraplegic cleric, by Israel.

if you want a real life example, the Mossad works somewhat the way you suggest. how well is that going, as far as increased Israeli security?

 

[shereads]

Whether or not the $290 million and an effort with as much enthusiasm behind it in Washington could have brought about the arrest of Bin Laden, we'll never know.

The question I have is, what should have been our goal after 9/ll? Of course one of them needed to be strenghtening security at our ports and our borders. We learned that we couldn't afford the luxury of fast check-in at the airport. And that we might have to take our shoes off. It's not pretty, but it doesn't threaten our way of life. But beyond protecting ourselves in the obvious ways - which hasn't been done yet, if you look at the number of people able to get onto the tarmac at Miami International Airport with phony ID badges - what else should we have done?

>> Strike back at the Arab world? Afghanistan? Beyond Afganistan?

>> Wage war on all "rogue nations" that are suspected of ties to terrorism?

>> Bring the perpetrators to justice?

>> Change the political landscape of the Middle East?

And which of those was more likely to have a successful outcome? By successful, I'm suggesting that it should have been a well defined goal with a reasonable chance of success, and that it should have been a just solution.

Justice may not be an easy thing to agree on, but I think we'd know we were doing the right thing if it didn't split the country down the middle and inspire fear and loathing among people who were America's friends a couple of years ago.

So what do you all think we would have done - assuming no prior agenda to invade Iraq, no Ahmad Chalabi, and therefore no credible/"proven" link between Iraq and Bin Laden's group? Had there been a clear-headed, unemotional way to create a post-9/ll strategy, what might have been a realistic strategic response?

I'm not trying to be provocative here, just to see what your ideas are.

 

[Somme]

Whether or not the $290 million and an effort with as much enthusiasm behind it in Washington could have brought about the arrest of Bin Laden, we'll never know.

The question I have is, what should have been our goal after 9/ll? Of course one of them needed to be strenghtening security at our ports and our borders. We learned that we couldn't afford the luxury of fast check-in at the airport. And that we might have to take our shoes off. It's not pretty, but it doesn't threaten our way of life. But beyond protecting ourselves in the obvious ways - which hasn't been done yet, if you look at the number of people able to get onto the tarmac at Miami International Airport with phony ID badges - what else should we have done?

>> Strike back at the Arab world? Afghanistan? Beyond Afganistan?

>> Wage war on all "rogue nations" that are suspected of ties to terrorism?

>> Bring the perpetrators to justice?

>> Change the political landscape of the Middle East?

And which of those was more likely to have a successful outcome? By successful, I'm suggesting that it should have been a well defined goal with a reasonable chance of success, and that it should have been a just solution.

Justice may not be an easy thing to agree on, but I think we'd know we were doing the right thing if it didn't split the country down the middle and inspire fear and loathing among people who were America's friends a couple of years ago.

So what do you all think we would have done - assuming no prior agenda to invade Iraq, no Ahmad Chalabi, and therefore no credible/"proven" link between Iraq and Bin Laden's group? Had there been a clear-headed, unemotional way to create a post-9/ll strategy, what might have been a realistic[i/] strategic response?

I'm not trying to be provocative here, just to see what your ideas are.

Isn't this all procribed by our collective ignorance of what exactly happened? It has been reported that the Taliban refused the pipeline in, I think, August of 2001 - what happened roughly a month later may or may not have been as a result of their refusal.

As to waging war on 'rogue nations' suspected of having ties with 'terrorists', would this then, be a perfect case of 'Ororbouros', or Washington devouring itself?............

.......and the 'perpetrators'.....hmmmm........, again, troubles here because I'm buggered if I can really see the wood for the trees. Lashing out in righteous anger? Tearing hair, beating breasts and wailing into the wilderness that 'someone' has done this to us? But who was it really? What were (and are) the connections?

 

[KarenAM]

If an invasion of Afghanistan was the way to destroy Al Queda, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There wouldn't be an Al Queda.

I agree that the Taliban were and are evil. But we haven't solved that problem; we've just scattered it around. And I agree with Dr. Mabeuse that there was no vast organization identifiable as Al Queda; there are plenty of freelance terrorists and fringe groups willing to take the name now that we've made it famous.

We wouldn't have done them that favor or helped in their now global recruiting effort if, instead of bombings and occupations of countries, we had put our focus and resources behind a full-scale invasion of Osama Bin Laden.

That, along with a come-to-Jesus meeting with anyone in the Saudi government who may have helped finance the plot or had knowledge of it, would have solved the crimes of the Cole attack and 9/ll, without the scattershot of fatal side effects that have been spawned by our testosterone-poisoned cowboy response.

If it wasn't possible to get bin Laden and his two or three closest associates without invading Afghanistan, we should have done what was necessary to find them instead of congratulating ourselves for almost solving the Taliban problem and turning our backs.

I think the nature of al-Qaeda is such that no matter what we did or do, they will scatter and need to be hunted down. This was not my argument.

What I said was that in the case of the Taliban, you had a branch of al-Qaeda that was identified with a national state, and which needed to be dealt with quickly. I in no way meant that to destroy the Taliban meant you had destroyed al-Qaeda.

And I think it bears repeating that our actions against al-Qaeda, or for that matter the Taliban, did not create them, for all the current mess is helping them now. Rather, they were created by a large number of factors which include ill-concieved Western intervention in societies which we don't understand, a feeling of political hopelessness, a feeling among some Muslims that their way of life is threatened, and the painful impact of technological modernity on traditional ways of life.

Again: the Taliban were (and are) a part of al-Qaeda. In 2001 they declared open war on the civilized world. The civilized world responded as it needed to to prevent the Taliban branch of al-Qaeda from attacking it again. In addition to the war, it is clearly vital for us to rebuild Afghanistan to prevent a Taliban resurgence there (something that because of Iraq we have not been doing, sadly). But it should be obvious that the Taliban were only part of al-Qaeda, and that to deal with other parts of this organization, tactics other than open warfare are needed, including well coordinated international police work and an honest effort by the West to not only tolerate but to support and appreciate Islam as a religion and way of life that believes passionately in peace and the basic dignity of human beings.

Expelling the Taliban and rebuilding Afghanistan is a part of this process. Occupying Iraq is not.

 

[Pure]

Heck, Karen, if you're into making the world a better place by military intervention, why not go in, topple that north korean guy and rebuild his country?

Can you site some historical examples --tending toward success--of this go-in, topple, and rebuild strategy? Philippines?

 

[Somme]

Heck, Karen, if you're into making the world a better place by military intervention, why not go in, topple that north korean guy and rebuild his country?

Can you site some historical examples --tending toward success--of this go-in, topple, and rebuild strategy? Philippines?

Washington?

 

[KarenAM]

Heck, Karen, if you're into making the world a better place by military intervention, why not go in, topple that north korean guy and rebuild his country?

Can you site some historical examples --tending toward success--of this go-in, topple, and rebuild strategy? Philippines?

Well, to cite an oft-overused one: Germany between 1918 and 1960.

Here's the problem with your statement, Pure, as I see it: You are taking the view that I approach every political situation with the same, pat answer, as some people do, and you are attempting the old trick of defining what I believe instead of letting me do it, so you can paint me as you wish to further your own argument, whatever that may be.

My argument was not that the world would be made a better place by military intervention and attempts at rebuilding in every circumstance (Iraq today is pretty clear evidence that this can be problematic), but that the use of military force against the Taliban in the circumstances of 2001 was the best way to deal with that particular situation at that particular time, provided it was followed up by an effort to do what we should have done when the Soviets left and rebuild the country. This is because the kind of malignancy represented by al-Qaeda and its Taliban branch does not arise in a vacuum, and we know what the causes of such malignancy usually are: they are no different than the social circumstances that gave rise to Hitler and the Nazis. I also stated clearly that other parts of al-Qaeda could not be dealt with in this way (preferring Sher's methods over the Bush administration's scatterbomb approach), and I nowhere said that every problem we have with rotten dictators could be dealt with that way, as you seem to want to believe I said.

Had the international community taken steps to rebuild Afghanistan when the Soviets left, I think there's a good change that we could have avoided 9-11. Such, of course, is speculation. I don't like war and never have (regarding it as the route to take only when the sane routes have failed), but in this case my assessment is that it had to be done. It's tragic that Bush and his administration were happy to do the war part but care so little about the rebuilding.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

you're thinking interpol, sher. read your mao and giap, and think, 'fish in the ocean.'

And how do you catch the 20 or 100 fish you want that are swimming in an ocean of other fish?

Bush seems to think that dynamite fishing is the way to go.

I like Sher's idea of smart fishermen with good bait who know what they're doing.

Or else just hire some sharks.

---dr.M.

P.S. Something I meant to add regarding Afghanistan. When we went in there we were essentially stepping into a civil war. The Taliban were in control, but there were still fighting the Northern Alliance and a few other folks. It was a house divided.

 

[Pure]

Hi Karen,

Thanks for your thoughful reply. You make a compassionate case, well.

Ok, you don't give the US carte blanche to intervene to correct evil.

Somehow, though, this license applies to the Taliban.

You refer--quite dubiously--to the Taliban as a branch of al queda.

Since al queda took out the WTC (and would like to do more, similar things), somehow, taking down the 'Taliban branch,' so called, is the appropriate thing to do.

Your core justificatory arguments, however, don't stress the quid pro quo, but appeal to nation building, which never has happened. (Take out the Taliban to rid a nation of dictators, and rebuild an nation.)

So you see why I implied you gave broader licence; many nations might be momentarily improved by removing their dictators. So there's confusion as to your justification; retaliation vs an enemy; or nation building after ridding it of evil.

There is also a core confusion as to your objective: 1) weaken al qaeda and capture some of its leaders; 2) topple the Taliban, and rebuild Afghanistan. In fact neither seems about to happen.

As to your argument: For a start, the Taliban is not a branch of al Qaeda.

Here are two reasonably neutral descriptions, from the 'net, the first from the BBC. In reading them, esp. the second, which is more recent, the distinction is quite clear. The Taliban are Afghans; Pashtuns. Al qaeda is an umbrella global Islamist organization involved in attacking enemies in several countries.

You don't get a license to topple the Taliban, because they provided sanctuary for al Qaeda. If there were some close connection so that by striking one, you hurt the other, it should be obvious by now. You, as it were, imply that Al Qaeda is an octopus, and we've at least cut off one of its arms, the Taliban. Such is not the case.

Most observers agree the al queda is not weakened, merely dispersed. No 'arm' (branch) was removed. More appositely, in an image, you took down the hotel they were staying in, conveniently concentrated. And sent them to roam the seven continents.

Further, there's some evidence that, absent the US, the Taliban might well re-take Afghanistan.

I defy anyone to read the two descriptions below, and conclude the Taliban is a branch of al Qaeda.

While I admire your compassion for the Afghans, and your willingness to make great efforts to rebuild their nation, I see no evidence that that's a US priority. Perhaps it's because the US neocons *thought*, like you, that al quaeda had been dealt a body blow *simply by toppling the Taliban.* (An odd coincidence of neocon and liberal perspective.)



J.

PS. The likening of Afghanistan to Germany, while imaginative, is hardly credible. Further--aside from gross dissimilarities-- it ignores that the US had reason to rebuild Germany, esp. after WWII; and has no comparable reason to so in Afghanistan. And this view is quite evidently that of the US gov, in view of the 'back burner'-ing of Afghanistan.

-----

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm

Wednesday, 20 December, 2000, 19:03 GMT

Analysis: Who are the Taleban?


The world first became aware of the Taleban in 1994 when they were appointed by Islamabad to protect a convoy trying to open up a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia.

The group - comprised of Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan along with former Islamic fighters or mujahedin - proved effective bodyguards, driving off other mujahedin groups who attacked and looted the convoy. They went on to take the nearby city of Kandahar, beginning a remarkable advance which led to their capture of the capital, Kabul, in September 1996.

Anti-corruption The Taleban's popularity with many Afghans initially surprised the country's warring mujahedin factions.

As ethnic Pashtuns, a large part of their support came from Afghanistan's Pashtun community, disillusioned with existing ethnic Tajik and Uzbek leaders. But it was not purely a question of ethnicity. Ordinary Afghans, weary of the prevailing lawlessness in many parts of the country, were often delighted by Taleban successes in stamping out corruption, restoring peace and allowing commerce to flourish again. Their refusal to deal with the existing warlords whose rivalries had caused so much killing and destruction also earned them respect.

Islamic state The Taleban said their aim was to set up the world's most pure Islamic state, banning frivolities like television, music and cinema.

Their attempts to eradicate crime have been reinforced by the introduction of Islamic law including public executions and amputations. A flurry of regulations forbidding girls from going to school and women from working quickly brought them into conflict with the international community. Such issues, along with restrictions on women's access to health care, have also caused some resentment among ordinary Afghans.

Extending control The Taleban now control all but the far north of the country, which is the last stronghold of the ethnic Tajik commander Ahmed Shah Masood. With 90% of the country under their control, the Taleban have continued to press claims for international recognition. But the Afghan seat at the United Nations continues to be held by former President Burhanuddin Rabbani.

====
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qa‘idat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network


Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.

Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea. Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

Description Established by Usama Bin Ladin in the late 1980s to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries–particularly Saudi Arabia.

Issued statement under banner of “the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders” in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. Merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001.

Activities In 2002, carried out bombing on 28 November of hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killing 15 and injuring 40. Probably supported a nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, on 12 October that killed about 180. Responsible for an attack on US military personnel in Kuwait, on 8 October, that killed one US soldier and injured another. Directed a suicide attack on the MV Limburg off the coast of Yemen, on 6 October that killed one and injured four. Carried out a firebombing of a synagogue in Tunisia on 11 April that killed 19 and injured 22.

On 11 September 2001, 19 al-Qaida suicide attackers hijacked and crashed four US commercial jets, two into the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon near Washington, DC, and a fourth into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leaving about 3,000 individuals dead or missing. Directed the 12 October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39. Conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others.

Claims to have shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993 and to have conducted three bombings that targeted US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992.Al-Qaida is linked to the following plans that were disrupted or not carried out: to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila in late 1994, to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995, to bomb in midair a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995, and to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999.

Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999. (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.) In December 2001, suspected al-Qaida associate Richard Colvin Reid attempted to ignite a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight from Paris to Miami. Attempted to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane with a surface-to-air missile as it departed the Mombasa airport in November 2002.

Strength Al-Qaida probably has several thousand members and associates. The arrests of senior- level al-Qaida operatives have interrupted some terrorist plots. Also serves as a focal point or umbrella organization for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, some members of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.

Location/Area of Operation Al-Qaida has cells worldwide and is reinforced by its ties to Sunni extremist networks. Was based in Afghanistan until Coalition forces removed the Taliban from power in late 2001. Al-Qaida has dispersed in small groups across South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East and probably will attempt to carry out future attacks against US interests.

External Aid Al-Qaida maintains moneymaking front businesses, solicits donations from like-minded supporters, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations. US efforts to block al-Qaida funding has hampered the group’s ability to obtain money.

 

[shereads]

Well, to cite an oft-overused one: Germany between 1918 and 1960.

Here's the problem with your statement, Pure, as I see it: You are taking the view that I approach every political situation with the same, pat answer, as some people do, and you are attempting the old trick of defining what I believe instead of letting me do it, so you can paint me as you wish to further your own argument, whatever that may be.

My argument was not that the world would be made a better place by military intervention and attempts at rebuilding in every circumstance (Iraq today is pretty clear evidence that this can be problematic), but that the use of military force against the Taliban in the circumstances of 2001 was the best way to deal with that particular situation at that particular time, provided it was followed up by an effort to do what we should have done when the Soviets left and rebuild the country. This is because the kind of malignancy represented by al-Qaeda and its Taliban branch does not arise in a vacuum, and we know what the causes of such malignancy usually are: they are no different than the social circumstances that gave rise to Hitler and the Nazis. I also stated clearly that other parts of al-Qaeda could not be dealt with in this way (preferring Sher's methods over the Bush administration's scatterbomb approach), and I nowhere said that every problem we have with rotten dictators could be dealt with that way, as you seem to want to believe I said.

Had the international community taken steps to rebuild Afghanistan when the Soviets left, I think there's a good change that we could have avoided 9-11. Such, of course, is speculation. I don't like war and never have (regarding it as the route to take only when the sane routes have failed), but in this case my assessment is that it had to be done. It's tragic that Bush and his administration were happy to do the war part but care so little about the rebuilding.

I don't disagree. I was trying to envision a way that we could have diminished Al Queda's power and brought some sort of closure to 9/ll without killing civilians. If in your view that wasn't possible, and you may be right, then we certainly should have concentrated on finishing the job in Afghanistan before we turned our attention to the country where, as Rummy pointed out, the "good targets' were to be found.

 

[shereads]

Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.

And Canada! Don't forget Canada.

 

[KarenAM]

I agree, Sher. The loss of life everywhere in the past 15 years has sickened me beyond words. We needed to finish in Afghanistan. If we were going to get rid of Saddam, we needed to start building up internal popular resistance to his regime and let the Iraqis deal with him. God, that would have been bloody and awful, but it would have been better than continuing the sanctions.

Perhaps an analogy will help, Pure.

I regard al-Qaeda as rather like a family. The international terrorists are siblings with the Taliban in terms of ideology, which can be largely traced to the Saudi funded madrassas in the wild regions of Pakistan. Those who were Pashtun and who took control of most of Afghanistan were the Taliban. Having gotten their state, they proceeded to try and remake it according to their mad vision; bin Laden and his ilk are still trying to get their state, but they made it clear that once they do, they want it to be just like Taliban Afghanistan (no wonder so many Muslims are scared ofthese guys, eh?).

When the bin Laden branch of this movement declared war on the West, and later committed an act of war against the West, they did so while living in the Taliban's house, so to speak (the leaders of the two groups having even consolidated a political marriage to cement their ties). When the police showed up at the door and demanded that the criminals who were accused of masterminding the attacks of 9-11 be turned over, the Taliban refused to turn them over or even detain them within their own house.

Your posts prove that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have differences in their origins. I could as easily argue that Alabama and Alaska have different origins. They aren't exactly the same thing, but they are both parts of the USA.

Taking down the Taliban branch was necissary because the Taliban branch was protecting its kinfolk, the bin Laden branch, which made for a clear and present danger to the West.

My objective is not confused at all; to make Afghanistan functional enough to resist the social decay that led to the Taliban. The fact that it is not happening does not mean it is not neccissary. The fact that al-Qaeda is stronger now is not necissarily related to the removal of the Taliban (there is that little disaster known as the Iraq War that may play a part, yes?). One mafia brother may be in jail, but others still active.

And in fact you do get license to topple the Taliban if they are harboring al-Qaeda, much as you can go to jail for protecting your brother, should he go and shoot up a schoolyard and you then threaten to kill any policeman who comes to arrest him.

Perhaps it's because the US neocons *thought*, like you, that al quaeda had been dealt a body blow *simply by toppling the Taliban.* (An odd coincidence of neocon and liberal perspective.)

"Like you"? Once again, you are trying to define me instead of letting me do it. I nowhere argued that al-Qaeda had been dealt a "body blow" with the removal of the Taliban. I argued that both are parts of the same whole, even if they are not identical in origin (which I'll happily concede), and that the Taliban, by refusing to arrest and turn over their al-Qaeda kinfolk when these were implicated in an act of war, made it neccissary in that situation for a multinational military force to destroy them.

I argued further that in order to prevent the Taliban and al-Qaeda from regaining Afghanistan, we (the international community) need to rebuild the country. I did not argue that any of this was working, and pointing out its failures to me is not telling me anything I don't already know.

P.S.-- my mention of Germany was only in answer to your question of whether the removal of a dictator and the rebuilding of a country has ever worked. I do not hold it to be a valid parallel to the current situation.

P.P.S.-- God, what an awful world this is sometimes. I feel dirty and very, very sad.

 

[Pure]

Karen,
In the June Atlantic, is an organizational diagram of Al Qaeda, showing its casualities. It's divided into several geographica areas, e.g, south east asia, middle east, europe. There is, or was a central unit linked with the others. The comment says it more resembles a spiderweb than a hierarchical organizational chart.

The article notes a number of killed and captured, particularly of the central unit.

But it argues that the smaller units have become more autonomous, carrying things out themselves, without direction of the central unit.

It raises the question whether at this point, getting Osama and some other central figures would have much impact on events.

There is a graph of al qaeda event for the last several years showing general intensification after 9-11.

----
Oh, and I repeat my question: has there been an example of removal of a gov by US agents, followed by successful rebuilding.

Perhaps we can agree that Bush's Japan and Germany parallels are no good.

-----
You said,
And in fact you do get license to topple the Taliban if they are harboring al-Qaeda, much as you can go to jail for protecting your brother, should he go and shoot up a schoolyard and you then threaten to kill any policeman who comes to arrest him.

Somehow I keep getting the impression that you want the US as world policeman.

Again you seemingly propose something rather open ended, since several countries have apparently harbored terrorists, and it's unclear why you don't go after them.

My proposal would be much simpler. If you want al qaeda, and theyre hiding in Afghanistan, you send in teams to kill (or grab) them, and anyone getting in the way. you destroy their camps. then you leave.

Besides having no moral right to topple a government with likely majority support, an attempt to do so just won't work.

Other means of pressure and the passage of time must be used, just as in Iran.

Because there is no 'takeover' or full scale invasion, under this plan, there are fewer Americans around to hate. (Almost none after a few mos.) A prudent, perhaps chastened Taliban would perhaps think twice about future harboring.