Thomas L. Knapp wrote: TK) even as an anarchist, I would have been able to endorse a proper course of military action in Afghanistan, and in fact gave the rough outline of such an endorsable course (TK
I thought you "oppose increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose". Expanding the allegedly theft-financed budget of the Pentagon to go fight in a nation 12 time zones away seems like an increase in the size and scope of the federal government. If you can advocate new spending for a new kind of military action in a new venue (while reducing the overall amount of military spending and kinds of military action and places where it acts), then why can't I advocate school vouchers (while reducing the overall amount of education spending and kinds of education spending and eliminating all government schools)? LP) On Sunday, October 7, the United States launched military action against Osama bin Laden, the terrorist believed to be responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. military also struck military bases controlled by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which has sheltered and reportedly assisted bin Laden. (LP I didn't see you cite any evidence showing that this was an inaccurate statement on Oct 14. Are you saying that OBL has to be in a gun sight for the first sentence to be true? Are you saying that no Taliban military bases came under attack from Oct 7 to Oct 14? TK) The US is in its sixth year of occupation of Afghanistan, and the grand total of its achievements is that it can claim to control of a few military bases and, on behalf of the new regime it installed, a few city blocks in downtown Kabul. (TK It's absurd to suggest that al Qaeda's ability to use Afghanistan as a base for global terrorism training and logistics hasn't been substantially impaired by U.S. action in Afghanistan.
