(Moderator please note: no copyright notice appears with the original text nor is any associated with the mailing list mentioned.)
I received this from the Eristocracy mailing list, run by certified netguru Jon Callas.
Forwarded to him by one of his regular contributors whose name I recognized from
previous postings. Originally written by a close friend of that contributor (name
excised here to spare him the remotest possibility of getting any grief due to my
actions). All this by way of saying I'm pretty sure this isn't one of those mythical
constructs which are circulating so widely these days.
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age."
Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing
innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war,
we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard
some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in
my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are
not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity.
They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would
come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs
holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country
with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.
Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans
suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into
piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure?
Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the
Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the
means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get
some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have
wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike
against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making
common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear
and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops.
When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand.
What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout.
It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's
why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really
believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can
polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west
wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose,
that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
============================================================
[ edited by gaffan on Sep 15, 2001 02:04 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 02:10:14 AM new
Thank you for your view.
I find it interesting that basically the people in the towers died because they accepted the nominal leadership of the country where they live. They maybe did not agree with everything the US does but they went about their lives and did not at least rebel against their government.
Now the Afgans may have the same done. They may hate the Taliban and just want to go about their lives but they are possibly going to be bombed and killed not for supporting them but just for failing to remove them.
The danger was that the US does literally have the power with nuclear weapons to depopulate the country without ground troops because the population of the cities could be killed easily and the radiation would make the rural areas unihabitable for years. That could be doone within a few hours of the president making the decision to do so. Some of the targets would have to have new data generated to program the missles because they are not what they keep them aimed at - but that is not hard to do.
I do not think they will do that because they are asking for help from their allies - and they would never get a agreement to act so harshly.
I also think that anything short of that drastic an action will be a failure and just stir more trouble.
Perhaps in the future they will attack the US with biological or chemical weapons and that might be enough to make them take the gloves off..
posted on September 15, 2001 05:30:39 AM new
This is about the picture of Afganastan I have in my head. The only way to do what we need to do short of totaly destroying what's left of the country is to invade, and occupy the country. It needs to be policed.
Either we get down to the level of the people that did this, or we send in a very large number of ground troops. Either way the price is high, the question is will we turn into murderers ourselves to protect our selves, or are we willing to pay the price (in the lives of our ground forces) to do it the morally right way.
Almost all voiced sadness or outrage over the deaths of thousands of innocent people in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, and agreed that the guilty must be punished. But with the exception of Pakistan's minority of educated and Westernized elite, people here see bin Laden as a courageous figure who dares to challenge an arrogant, pro-Israeli superpower - and who is being scapegoated by a vengeful and anti-Muslim America.
Please read the whole article so the above quote can be put into proper context, of course.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[Edited to add: I just realized that the article I quoted above is actually talkkng about the reaction of Pakistani people, not Afghans. Sorry about that.]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 15, 2001 06:18 AM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 08:39:01 AM newThe conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.]
There already have been three wars between a united Muslim front and the west.
1948
1967
1973
The best the Moslems could do was the 1973 round, where they kept the war going for two weeks, and inflicted some loss upon their enemy before giving up.
There are indeed some horrible scenarios (for us) which are envisioned by Moslem extremists and which have some chance of being realized. Military victory or even a military standoff is not among them.
For what it's worth, the author of the original posted essay has some very valid points. Afghanistan is already in the stone age. The real problem exists far more in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.
To the extent that this author would like to compare the Taliban (and its Pakistani sponsors) and the Nazis, it seems fair to point out that ridding the world of Nazis involved tremendous collateral damage. Some of it is somewhat regretted, but in essence, what needed to be done to get the job done was done.
posted on September 15, 2001 09:11:56 AM new
One of the most horrible sights I saw during the Gulf war was dead children bombed in Bhagdad. But it was soothed by our lack of casualities.
One drowning person can not save another or all you end up with is two drowned people. A soldier in a combat zone is a drowning person, he/she must save themselves first to win the battle and can do little for the innocent until the battle is done.
We can not "police" a country that by and large doesn't want us there. Our service men and woman are not fodder for a "humane" policy to be walking targets in these regions. Which is exactly what they would be if sent in.
Afganistan is land,sea,and air space locked. Our troops would be isolated without clear land, air, and sealane connections. Landing ground troops could pose insurmountable challenges to our armed services that would cause unnecessary losses.
I hope everyone remembers that our service people are not faceless, non-human tools, that are to be wasted and killed for someones ill conceived notions of morality in prosecuting a war. They are our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, neighbors, and friends. Our service men and woman are just as dear and valuable as the people that died in the terrorist attacks.
posted on September 15, 2001 09:16:17 AM newIt's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first.
According to the news I watched this morning, the Pakistan military leaders have agreed to honor all the requirements on the list presented to them by the U.S.
While I hate to admit it, after really trying to digest all the information that I've read, I guess I agree with the views Reamond has shared. Can we as a nation do that? Will we? I don't know.
As far as Afganistan goes, my opinions there are pretty solid. They either help turn bin Laden and his followers over, or their country will pay the price. We can't continue to buy into the theory that 'we don't like them either, but we can't do anything about it'.
posted on September 15, 2001 09:30:28 AM new
Remeber that Pakistan is CURRENTLY a military dictatorship and has produced and exploded nuclear weapons. This dictatorship has so far cooperated. The Islamic population is quite different. The populace of Pakistan was celebrating our horrendous loss. bin Laden has tried to buy Plutonium, he may already have a bomb through Pakistan, but is unable to deliver it.
This could be a huge trap for a large military force. The terrorists could be in fact waiting for a large grouping of forces to drive a truck in with a nuclear weapon on board, or secreted in any number of ways - it wouldn't have to be too close if nuclear or bio.
Afganistan would be the perfect place for fundementalist Islam to hit us with a nuclear bomb. It is far enough away from their populations and nearly completely barren.
Who do we go after when a nuke or bio weapon is unleashed on our troops in Afganistan ?
It smells like a trap to me to send ground troops into the area.
posted on September 15, 2001 09:41:58 AM new
Pakistan has a huge interest in seeing the US and allies do not use any significant number of nuclear devices in Afganistan because they are down wind.
posted on September 15, 2001 09:48:07 AM new
In spite of the media hype, and bonehead's rallying psuedo-speeches, and even though it is the most unsettling event in our history this is NOT a war, it's an international crime. When there's a crime deal with the criminals.
posted on September 15, 2001 09:52:12 AM newWhen there's a crime deal with the criminals.
When the criminals are in government, and you go after them, that is war. No need to play word games. We fully intend to destroy the government of at least one country, exactly as we intended to destroy the Nazi government of Germany.
posted on September 15, 2001 10:18:51 AM new
Can someone explain to me why it wouldn't be better to use some kind of covert operations instead of massive strikes?
These are small, slippery groups, right? How could you ever hope to nail them with bombs?
posted on September 15, 2001 10:45:56 AM newThank god our governmemt is not being run by some of the posters here.
Yes Amy, you are SO RIGHT, otherwise, these terrorists would be coddled as "mis-understood people who are just fighting for their beleifs".
I was PROUD to serve my country during an armed conflict, were you?
If not, then you should get educated about such actions before you spew.
Some of us who have been there have SEEN that rules for such engagement DO NOT EXIST!
You think I WANT war? You think I WANT death? You think I WANT fallout?
If you do, then you don't know sh*t about me Amy, but you also do not know anything about our history, or about what the meaning of "Freedom" really means.
FREE to walk our streets without fear
FREE to go to work without fear
FREE to go to school without fear
FREE to go and do want you want WITHOUT FEAR
FREEDOM! Pure American FREEDOM!
It's a good thing that our fore fathers and ancestors didn't think like YOU...
posted on September 15, 2001 10:49:12 AM newCan someone explain to me why it wouldn't be better to use some kind of covert operations instead of massive strikes?
posted on September 15, 2001 11:01:13 AM new
toke: I will be glad to at least try...
The problem is on a much larger scale then just Osama Bin Laden.
We could find him, and kill him, yes, but that would only anger the masses of his network.
There are hundreds waiting to take his place, and each one is as wicked, vile, and evil as he is.
It's like taking the bully out of a school.
Next day, what do you have? a new bully.
We need to EXTERMINATE these cockroaches in one severe action to show those who might ever think again of doing such a thing, that we will NOT take it lying down. That we will strike back, and lash out with all that we have, and that we will stop at NOTHING to deter future similar actions.
We are at a crossroads here in our country, in that we must decide here and now if we want to live in fear, or in safety.
NO, I, nor anyone else wants to lose our military men and women in a bloodbath, but what choice do we have? We are AMERICA!
Do we step back, and say "ok, we will allow you the 93' bombing of the WTC, the Embassy bombings, the Cole bombing, and now the WTC 2001 attack, but you better not do it again." ?
Do we allow our economy, our civility, and our safety to be comprimised by a band of cowardous scumbags on a daily basis?
NO! and should the time come when our country asks for volunteers, you can bet your last dollar that I will gladly ONCE AGAIN put on the uniform of a Proud American soldier, and step into the world that so few of us Americans know.
I don't just speak, I beleive in what I say, and I back it up with actions.
posted on September 15, 2001 11:07:58 AM new
We've got them. Raring to go. But a quiet quick and and efficient mission wouldn't allow much for dumbya's bid for reelection or for the media to play.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they/we know EXACTLY where this guy is, where ALL of his encampments are, and who ALL of his players are. Mor than likely that he could be taken out within a few hours of a phone call, but they won't do that. Jerkoff is going to play this for every little bit he can get.
posted on September 15, 2001 11:11:40 AM new
You'd better get off the keyboard right now, pocono, and go down and enlist. If you don't you'll miss out.
posted on September 15, 2001 11:12:46 AM newPocono...
Thanks for answering. It's not that I'm especially squeamish...I just don't see how you can succeed that way. I want all of the terrorist groups exterminated, but if you do it that way, you'd just about have to blow up the entire world. They're everywhere. So why not root them out, group by group?
I want our country as secure as possible, not a momentarily satisfying revenge, you know?
posted on September 15, 2001 11:15:49 AM new
There are no easy answers. What passes for a "government" in Afganistan can't be allowed to continue.
Covert Actions? Of course. Nuff said about secret stuff.
Bombing? Any target that contains anything that gives these people the where-with-all to do this has to be destroyed.
But neither of these by it's self will do what really needs to be done. We learned (I hope) in Desert Storm (and much earlier for that matter) that the leaders will have themselves in bomb proof bunkers.
Make no mistake, we will lose some of our people doing what needs to be done. But I don't see another choice.
We can not "police" a country that by and large doesn't want us there.
Not without losing people, no. But that is EXACTLY what we did at the end of WWII, and now Germany and Japan are both friendly countries.
It is time to take the stand, and pay a price if necessary.
No doubt in my mind it will be a bigger price than most people think.
When the criminals are in government, and you go after them, that is war.
Exactly. This is WW III. We didn't start it, but like it or not, we are in it.
posted on September 15, 2001 11:20:56 AM new
krs...
My husband and I discussed this possible scenario, last night. I certainly hope it's not so.
I put absolutely nothing whatsoever past politicians, however. Remember the oft-repeated theory of FDR's pre-knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack...allowed to happen as the only way to get the American public to buy into our entry into WWII? Don't want that to be true, either.
