From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Let me begin with a question. Suppose, as now seems likely, it is
revealed
> that the bombers were supported and funded by the intelligence services
of
> a foreign state or states - most likely Iraq. That would mean that the
> _government_ of another country was an active participant in the murder
of
> 5000 American citizens. Is there anyone on the list who does _not_ think
> that that constitutes an Act of War against the United States?
Dan M.:
I think that the odds on it being an act of war are very high. However, I
think that an act of war cannot be carried out by simply a group of
terrorists, though. I think the actions of a nation are required for it to
really be a war.
Me again:
Yes, of course. I would further argue that any nation that _harbored_ the
people who did this would be placing itself in a state of war with the
United States. Finally, given the gravity of what has just happened and
the level of threat from terrorism that is now revealed, any nation that
harbors _other_ terrorists is at least risking the same status. I think
that the American government may be considering an almost civis Americanus
sum situation - where any government that helps those who kill American
citizens, or those of our allies, is setting itself up for retaliation on a
massive (as opposed to pinprick cruise missile) scale.
The Administration
> appears to be considering an intense bombing campaign designed to cripple
> the Afghan military and weaken the Taliban, combined with special
> operations missions meant to capture and/or destroy as much of Bin
Laden's
> organization as possible. I guess, although I have no information to
back
> this up, that this would be accompanied by massive aid to organizations
> fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The problem I have with this is that we may be setting up groups that are
going to be as bad as the present one. You can correct me, but didn't the
US have something to do with the original training of some of the folks in
Afghanistan now? That even some of the terrorists may have been trained
by
the US for the Afganistan-USSR war?
Me:
I think this is extremely unlikely. The Taliban were, by far, the most
radical faction in the Afghan Civil War. All of the other factions were
more moderate and more pro (or at least less anti-) Western. There is also
the further point that, to some extent, it doesn't really matter. If they
did this, then they _must_ be dealt with, and the issue of who replaces
them is a rather secondary concern.
> If it is revealed that Iraq sponsored the terrorist attacks, then we will
> probably turn our attention to the government of Saddam Hussein. In all
> likelihood that would take the form of an aerial attack upon all of the
> assets of the Iraqi government. In essence we would seek to destroy the
> Republican Guard, his weapons of mass destruction, and most of the
> infrastructure of the Iraqi government - buildings, armories, things like
> that. There do not yet, however, seem to be any concrete steps taken
> towards this set of actions. They are contingent, as it were, upon
> persuasive evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks.
>
Wouldn't we need to do more than this? Wouldn't we need to remove the
bgovernments?
Dan M.
Me:
Well, yes, but the question is, how? We certainly don't want to try and
conquer Afghanistan. That would be an exceptioanlly unpleasant endeavor.
Our military is a lot better than that of the Soviets - but we aren't going
to use nerve gas and torture the way they did either, so we certainly don't
want to chase tribesmen through those mountains. (On which note, a Green
Beret friend of mine just told me the story of how the Soviets once dealt
with terrorists who captured a couple of Soviet citizens. They identified
the terrorists, kidnapped their families, and sent _body parts_ back piece
by piece. Note the difference between us and them - it is impossible to
even imagine the American government doing something similar.) Although
the military situation is not so dire in Iraq, it wouldn't exactly be fun
either. So we'd have to think about how we want to do that. Nonetheless,
I have to agree with you, Dan, that in the end, we may have to do just
that, and just be willing to absorb the costs of reconstruct
ing Iraqi society, the way we did with Japan and Germany.
Gautam
