I see that Inigo Thomas, in "Slate", is thinking along precisely the lines I have ever since the Attack: http://slate.msn.com/idea/01-09-25/idea.asp http://slate.msn.com/idea/01-09-26/idea.asp ...namely, that bin Laden -- not being a complete idiot -- foresaw that the US will obliterate his training camps in Afghanistan apart in response to the attack. Therefore, he doesn't think he needs them anymore. So what the hell was he after with this very carefully planned attack -- for which, Bush confirmed today, the agents were planted in the US 2 years ago?
The answer, we both think, is obvious: he hopes that the US attack in Afghanistan will stimulate an Islamic revolt in Pakistan that will allow him a chance to get his hands on some of that country's nuclear arsenal -- either with the open assistance of a new fundamentalist Islamic Pakistani regime, or through a raid by his several thousand very well-trained troops on Pakistan's nuclear facilities during the chaos of a civil war. (It may not be chance that his plan apparently went into motion shortly after the public revelation that Pakistan has the Bomb.) If so, what the hell do we do? Thomas presents his ideas tomorrow, but I really don't think we have any choice: (1) Assuming we haven't done so already, we issue private warnings right now -- both the Pakistani government and to the opposition Islamic fundamentalist parties -- that if any Western city undergoes a nuclear attack, the entire nation of Pakistan will disappear from the map. (2) And if that fails and bin Laden does get hold of some nukes, we issue a public warning to the world that from now on, if any non-Moslem city undergoes a nuclear attack, 5 to 10 cities in Moslem countries -- perhaps picked out at random -- will be vaporized, and to hell with the number of innocent casualties. In short, we may soon find ourselves being forced to apply the philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction to the Moslem world the way we formerly applied it to the Soviet Union. If anyone out there has any alternative suggestions in such a situation, I will be geuninely interested in hearing them. Justice doesn't enter into this; from the first news of the Attack, my goal -- and, I think, the goal of most Americans, judging from the polls -- has been to deter future attacks. Thus my repeated emphasis on warning anti-American Moslem governments that there will be military retaliation against them if -- and only if -- they deliberately cooperate with any terrorist group that carries out any further attacks on the West. To quote William Saletan in "Slate": "We can dictate what happens to people who attack us. Suicidal terrorists may be impervious to this logic, but their commanders and sponsors aren't. Launder money for a man who destroys the World Trade Center, and your assets will be confiscated. Shelter an organization that crashes a plane into the Pentagon, and your government buildings will be leveled. Expel terrorists from your country, freeze their bank accounts, and you'll be liberated from sanctions and debt." Of course, if provoking an all-out world war between Islam and the West is ban Laden's ultimate goal -- and, my God, he's repeated that publicly several times -- then this is also a good argument for the US going slowly and cautiously at first, rather than throwing him into that Briar Patch. There's another good "Slate" piece on that by Robert Wright today: http://slate.msn.com/Earthling/01-09-26/Earthling.asp == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
