-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4285490,00.html
}}}>Begin
A fog of uncertainty
Too many questions, not enough answers
Leader
Friday October 26, 2001
The Guardian
With increasingly contradictory signals coming from Washington and
London about the conduct and aims of the war in Afghanistan here are
a number of pressing questions:
Military action
� The primary objective (and justification) of military action is
said to be the capture of Osama bin Laden. Mr Bush has ordered the
CIA to kill him if it can. Mr Blair does not envisage putting him on
trial. Donald Rumsfeld now suggests he may never be found. After all
that has occurred, are the US and Britain any closer to catching Bin
Laden? Do they have any better an idea where he really is? And do
they really want to catch him? Is killing him the best way of
ensuring justice for the September 11 victims and of upholding
international law?
� If Bin Laden is the objective, why has military action so far focused on the
Taliban, whose overthrow is not a stated war aim? Despite their alliance with
al-Qaida, is it sensible to persist in widening the war into a p
ossibly unwinnable campaign of national conquest?
� It is not disputed that high-altitude bombing and missiles have caused many civilian
casualties. But it is not forgotten that precise and proportionate attacks were
promised. Three weeks into a supposedly "new kind of w
ar", is it still appropriate to be using such tactics?
� The MoD estimates that in Kosovo 60% of cluster bombs missed their target or
remained unaccounted for. The Red Cross has asked for them to be banned. Is their
present use justifiable?
� Why, when it is agreed that the war will ultimately be won on the ground and air
superiority has been attained, have special forces still not been deployed in any
effective numbers?
� What evidence is there that Bin Laden possesses either chemical or biological
weapons? Is Washington preparing to use suspicions linking him to anthrax outbreaks as
a pretext to attack Iraq? Does it intend to hit other
countries or groups? Would the British government support such action?
� Who is really calling the shots? Is it President Bush? Is it the Pentagon, or Dick
Cheney, operating from his "secure location? What influence does Mr Blair have on the
overall conduct of the war?
� Is it the intention to continue military offensives during Ramadan, which starts on
November 17? And what kind of military campaign is sustainable once winter sets in in
earnest?
� What has the bombing achieved so far?
� What are the military arguments against pausing the bombing while stepping up
humanitarian aid?
Diplomacy and aid
� Is it envisaged that any eventual diplomatic settlement would involve the Taliban?
Colin Powell and Robin Cook suggest it is. If such voices are ignored, will not
prolonged instability in Afghanistan and in Pakistan b
e the certain result?
� Plans are apparently afoot to place post-war Afghanistan into a sort of UN
receivership. Does the UN yet have a blueprint for how that is going to work? And
where are the volunteers for the mooted Islamic UN peacekeepin
g force?
� When it comes to a new government, Pakistan is backing the Pashtun "king" and
Taliban "moderates". Go-it-alone Pashtun and Hazara tribal warlords are backing
themselves. Russia backs the Northern Alliance, which backs "
president" Burhanuddin Rabbani. What formula do the US and Britain favour?
� Not nearly enough food is being trucked into Afghanistan ahead of the winter. How
can food deliveries be increased in the next four weeks? Given Pakistan's reluctance
to open its borders or agree to UN camps, how can th
e plight of those trying to flee the war be eased?
� What are the internal plans to distribute food within Afghanistan? Are the plans
compatible with a continued bombing campaign?
Clausewitz famously observed: "Three-quarters of the factors on which action is based
are wrapped in a fog of greater or less uncertainty." Nobody could be expected to
answer all these questions now. But the war in Afghan
istan and the broader "war on terrorism" are being fought in the name of democray,
which flourishes where there is popular consultation and consent. But consultation is
only worthwhile if it is candid, open-minded, and co
ntinuous. Consent is only legitimate if it is informed. Thus Mr Blair is right to warn
of the risk of British casualties, as he did yesterday, if he believes that to be a
likely result of his policy. But he is wrong if he
believes that by admitting this possibility, he is absolved from an ongoing
responsibility to explain why such sacrifices are necessary and why, in his view,
there is no alternative now or in the forseeable future.
As we have noted on more than one occasion since September 11, the
government is asking the British people to take an awful lot on
trust. Too much is hidden behind a cloak of operational security. Too
little of what is being decided is open to parliamentary scrutiny.
Not enough unspun information is shared with a media already
seriously hamstrung by the inaccessibility of most of Afghanistan.
The gap between what is certain public knowledge and what are merely
assertions and private assumptions made by the government and the
military is expanding by the day. This gulf, if it continues to
widen, will become too great to bridge. In short, it is becoming more
and more difficult for ordinary people to judge whether this conflict
is being waged wisely or well, or by the best available means. The
fuller the answers to these, and other questions, the better the
chances of retaining the necessary trust of the people.
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
