Mary wrote: > Kill our > people and we'll give you lots of aid. Huh?
We cannot forget that the aid (relative to Fred's plan and our food drops in Afghanistan) is not being given to the terrorists. In this particularly instance, it is being given to the Afghani people, the overwhelming majority of whom are not terrorists. Let's not forget that bin Laden is not even from Afghanistan! His father is Saudi and his mother is Syrian. I don't think there is even a piece of evidence to substantiate that even one of the 19 hijackers was from Afghanistan. As much as there may be more comfort in trying to draw a clearly divisible line in the sand, it just isn't that simple. The war on terrorism is one thing. The bombing of Afghanistan is just one part of it. Below is an excerpt from an article by Philip C. Wilcox, Jr. a retired Foreign Service Officer who served for three years as U.S. ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism. The article was published in the October 18th issue of the New York Review of Books. Bear in mind it was written on September 19th, so some of what he speaks of has happened already. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14636 "Armed force, however, while politically popular, is usually an ineffective and often counterproductive weapon against terror. Before acting, the US would be wise to construct a more sophisticated strategy. This should include strengthening traditional methods of counterterrorism, while reserving the use of force as a limited option. But a new national security strategy must also include a broader foreign policy that moves away from unilateralism and toward closer engagement with other governments, and that deals not just with the symptoms but with the roots of terrorism, broadly defined. "We should also search for ways to strengthen the common bonds between Western values and Islam to combat the notion of a "clash of civilizations" and to weaken the Islamist extremist fringe that hates the West and supports terrorist actions. Such new departures in US foreign policy would require devoting far greater resources to support a more engaged, cooperative, and influential American role abroad. Redefining national security and counterterrorism in this broader sense is the most promising way to fight the war against terrorism. " Striving for a "more engaged, cooperative and influential American role abroad" has influenced the decisions the President has made since 9/11. He has spoken in support of a Palestinian state. He went to China (not the least reason for which, I'll bet, is China's radical islamist population in its most oil rich Northern province). We've dropped sanctions against Pakistan. We are engaged in overthrowing a government despite the fact that the President ran on a platform of not being into nation building. (Imagine the headache he had the night he realized that our response would require just that. And the rhetoric in the media seems to now emphasize that our objective is moreso the overthrow of the Taliban than the capture of bin Laden. Secretary Rumsfeld has commented more than once on bin Laden's potential elusiveness, perhaps in an attempt to prepare the public for the fact that we may never catch him.) And certainly there were numerous unpublicized but necessary concessions which were made to get the world coalition formed and to hold it together. On top of it all, Ramadan begins November 17th. If we continue strikes during the Muslim holy month, we risk losing the support of Islamist nations like Indonesia and the global coalition could begin to come unglued. Without the coalition, there is no war. And these are only the things which have been publicized that I've read about. **And by the way, I'm not making a judgment about any of these things one way or the other. I've tried to state them as plainly as possible and to separate my opinion where necessary. I hope it reads that way.** There has been at least one call for someone here to propose an alternative to the bombing. Truly how can anyone on this list answer that in any manner but an ideological one? There's too much we don't know. (For instance, I keep wondering about the trials for the U.S.S. Cole and the African embassy bombings. Do we have evidence that implicates bin Laden in those attacks? If so, shouldn't that be sufficient to present for the Taliban to turn him over for an international criminal trial? Protection of intelligence sources has been given as the reason for not turning over evidence relative to 9/11, but has there been any comment on presenting evidence on Africa & the Cole? Is it possible that we are holding back because we've made a deal with one of the Taliban's enemies which requires us to support the overthrow?) The war on terrorism is justified in my book. But whether the battle of Afghanistan proves to be an efficacy step in the war can only be answered by the passing of time - as more things that are now hidden become revealed and outcomes both expected and unexpected are faced. Brenda n.p.: Mica Paris - "More Love" (Whatever happened to her anyway?)
