Posted on 11/13/2001 10:35:42 AM PST by Pokey78
So, victory at last to the US and Britain in their putative "war on terrorism". The Taliban have been well and truly routed, with areas formerly under their corrupt control now having fallen to the West's friends, the equally corrupt Northern Alliance.
With victory now in the bag, omnipotent America can finally look forward to a return to life as normal after successfully dispensing its brand of instant justice. The ugly enemy of terrorism has been vanquished and a giant blow has been struck for international freedom. All that now remains is for that terrorism mastermind, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leadership to be captured "dead or alive" and put on display, first in Kabul and then in Washington DC.
Well, before self-praise and gloating get completely out of hand, it is necessary to inject a bit of reality into the debate. I would hate to be a killjoy, but even with bin Laden and Mullah Omar captured/assassinated, the West's victory might still prove to be pyrrhic.
From the very beginning of "Operation Enduring Freedom" it was always a cinch that an Allied victory was assured. After all, the Taliban's aged military equipment with the scarce resources of one of the world's poorest countries was never going to be a match for the fearsome might of the world's only remaining superpower and its wealthy allies, with their sophisticated cluster bombs. So one-sided was this war that it was very much like an elephant stamping on an ant.
Far from ending terrorism, "Operation Enduring Freedom" might well spawn more terrorism against the US. By launching a military campaign against Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, instead of taking the judicial route, the US and Britain may well have created more dangerous enemies. The campaign of the past few weeks, which saw hi-tech American bombs falling on people's homes, schools, hospitals and even a Red Cross facility, have gone a long way to further hardening attitudes to the US.
Of course, the terrorist acts of 11 September in New York and Washington were unspeakably barbaric and shamed us all because they showed the depths to which human beings are capable of sinking. They are still so hauntingly vivid in our minds that we did not need to be reminded of them by Tony Blair in his efforts to justify the West's own terrorism.
However, truly civilised people do not respond to barbarity with barbarity of their own. Instead, they reveal, by their choice of action, that they are better human beings and that they will not allow their enemies to push them to stoop to such depraved levels.
Those responsible for the cowardly 11 September attacks should have been systematically tracked down and prosecuted, preferably in a neutral country, however long that would have taken. If the US and Britain had conclusive evidence of bin Laden's guilt or culpability, they should have made that evidence available to the Taliban and the United Nations, and insisted on his extradition. That way punitive action would have been very clearly targeted, instead of the generalised, instant punishment meted out in Afghanistan.
Instead of acting like cowboys, the US and its allies would have shown themselves to be believers in true justice, and therefore better than the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
Now America will never again know the kind of safety to which it was accustomed. Through its actions in the past five weeks it has created even more Muslim enemies for itself, some of whom might feel strongly enough to want to try something foolish. The situation is not helped by the continuing US partisanship in the Middle East conflict, with President George Bush's refusal to meet Yasser Arafat in New York at the weekend again indicating his failure to fully appreciate the cause of some of the hatred felt for America.
I think Bush has their number better than this guy--I'm sure many of the Afghans are saying "Good riddance!" as they pull out their TV sets and listen to music again....
-penny
As much as I disagree with what he says, I'd fight for his right to say it. As long as I have the right to do my best to get him fired from his newspaper for saying it.
No, you wouldn't. You live for it. It's your reason for being.
With victory now in the bag, omnipotent America can finally look forward to a return to life as normal after successfully dispensing its brand of instant justice.
He don't know us vewwy well, do he?
Far from ending terrorism, "Operation Enduring Freedom" might well spawn more terrorism against the US. By launching a military campaign against Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, instead of taking the judicial route, the US and Britain may well have created more dangerous enemies. The campaign of the past few weeks, which saw hi-tech American bombs falling on people's homes, schools, hospitals and even a Red Cross facility, have gone a long way to further hardening attitudes to the US.
Oh, if we took the 'judicial' route, there would be no opportunities for things like, hmmmmmmm, maybe hostage taking? "Free bin Laden or we'll kill these schoolchildren on this bus!" But, then again, you've thought these things through. In fact, you're the only one who's thought any of this through, while only the Bush administration never, ever, looks before it leaps. Where would we be without your sage advice? As far as civilian deaths and the bombing of the Red Cross warehouse, are you implying that those events are likely to put otherwise peaceloving people over the top of madness and make terrorists out of non-terrorists? Who's being naive here? People who want to kill us don't need an excuse like that to want to kill us.
regards
It would be nice if one example of this had EVER worked in human history. Life just doesn't work that way. I agree that these people didn't need an excuse to hate and attack us.
I WANT THEM TO FEAR US. I WANT NO COUNTRY TO FEEL SAFE IF THEY HARBOUR THEM.
That will result in the domestic security that our government owes us all under its constitutional charter.
Excellent post. But watch out: The America-can-do-no-wrong warmongers who inhabit this forum rarely allow reason to interfere with their "patriotic" harangues. (I'm still trying to figure out how they equate patriotism with the bombardment of innocent civilians.)
The author of this article is correct: Our bombs have merely exascerbated anti-American hatred in the Muslim world. Bombs blowing up things (including innocent families) may satisfy our collective lust for revenge, but they do little to address the root causes of terrorism.
If the United States government is truly interested in fighting terrorism, it needs to start with a candid reappraisal of its own foreign policy.
- Un-PC
Typical. Our current generation of European and American journalists have all failed us. They spend more time pushing their own failed ideologies than they do researching and reporting facts. Since when did Talibandits fleeing Kabul cause more terrorists to want to cross the Pakistani border to join up with them to make a larger force against us?
In fact, the freaks aren't even managing feeble pro-Taliban demonstrations in Pakistan anymore. Gosh, I guess punching the bully really does shut him up, whereas Euro-style appeasement (ala Chamberlain) doesn't quite have such an enviable track record of success...
Nonsense. Our bombs have caused Muslims to celebrate and rejoice that the yoke of the Taliban has been lifted from them all across Northern Afghanistan. Islamic nations are now demanding to be included in the winning coalition, with Indonesia, Turkey, and Jordan all volunteering their soldiers for new anti-Taliban peacekeeping in Afghanistan.
Has hatred against America increased since our bombing started? Not in Islamic Pakistan. Demonstations against America have decreased in both size and temperment.
You aren't "un-pc", either. Your long-since debunked versions of moral relatism and pacifism combine to epitomize the tired old politically correct views of lazy, cowardly liberals throughout college campuses around the world.
Grow up. Act like an adult. Terrorists must be killed, not coddled with feel-good liberalism. Collateral civilian casualties are regrettable, but certainly shouldn't frighten us away from dispensing justice upon those who choose to attack us.
Well, you can depend on the America-haters for one thing - from now on anything that goes wrong anywhere in Afghanistan will be blamed on the U.S. - if we'd just left those wonderful, devout Taliban lads alone, why the whole place would be the land of milk and honey. Etc, etc, etc...it never changes.
1. Taliban soldiers and leaders aren't "innocent civilians".
2. The U.S. is not intentionally killing civilians, in fact, we're going out of our way NOT to do so. If the Muslim world can't see and understand that, then that's their problem.
"If the United States government is truly interested in fighting terrorism, it needs to start with a candid reappraisal of its own foreign policy."
Hey, you wouldn't by any chance be that Saudi prince that offered Giuliani $10 million, along with a suggestion that the U.S. re-evaluate its foreign policy", would you?
For two months I've heard those of the liberal persuasion talk about "re-appraising our foreign policy" yet I've heard not a single suggestion as to what exactly is wrong with our foreign policy. Which parts of our foreign policy would you like to see changed? Please be specific. Also, do you think it's in our best interests to make blanket changes to our foreign (or domestic, for that matter) policies when foreign or domestic entities mass murder our fellow citizens? In other words, if I don't get the potholes fixed in front of my house, should I shoot my neighbor and claim, "This never would have happened if the city had a reasonable street repair policy"?
Bugger Off!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.