Sorry, it got long. Mostly just ranting.
Peter A. wrote:
> What should we do if we don't respond
I think it's an illusion to think that a miltary attack on Afghanistan, the
overthrowing/destruction of the Talibans and the possible killing of Bin Laden (he
would most likely not let himself be caught alive) would to any significant degree
reduce the risk for future terrorist actions. They are everywhere and they have funds.
(Getting rid of the Talibans would of course in itself be an act of blessing.)
They may be fanatics, but they aren't stupid. In fact, getting the US out on military
attacks along the lines that the majority of Americans now cries for, is probably
exactly what the terrorists wanted to accomplish with their attacks on WTC, not the
killings themselves. The TWC victims are probably regarded only as "collateral damage"
or "casualties of war", as far as they are concerned.
If the US want to send a symbolic message by a military attack, if it doesn't look
pretty it may very well, as far as future terrorists go, be counter productive and
create more candidates for new suicidal attacks, very soon, or maybe in ten years when
those twelve year old withesses have become men.
Whatever the plans are and whatever we'll see develop, it is also worth remembering
that the US really can't do just as they please, for many reasons. There have been too
many less sucessful American military actions in the recent past that no one, (not the
world, not the people at home) will want to see repeated.
The US had to, and has got the support of their NATO allies and the people of these
countries, and they will have to go by at least some sort of book, even if the
WTC-attack may call for revisions of international law. (Already by existing law any
country has of course as an act of selfdefence the right to attack targets in other
states if needed.)
However, they will during operations that may stretch out in time maintain that
support, and that's a key issue.
> Terrorists need safe havens. If no country is willing to
> harbor them they will have no where to train, rest,
> plan, and re-equip.
It's worth remembering that two countries that actually for years have "harbored"
them, provided education and training for them, giving them opportunity to rest, plan,
drink and mingle, and without any problem board aeroplanes are Germany and the USA.
And these countries were not willing to harbor them...
This is of course a great embarressment to US intelligence, why I guess that some
people now are happy with the fact that the media's and the people's attention is
steered towards war and retaliation instead.
What seems the most interesting to me, is the the umprecendented global unity for the
aim to fight terrorism and the global support for actions against terrorism. It's the
most important prerequisite for fighting terrorism in the future. But by a wrong
military move by the US in this heated times this might soon disappear.
How strange it may sound to many Americans, the most clever thing that the US can do
right now is to make better friends with the Muslim world. Most muslims are peaceful.
(One great misconception is that the reasons for the terrorist attacks are primarily
religious (In case of the Bin Laden organisation and his declared Holy War on American
it is definitely based on a thorough religious dogma). But the nurturing ground for
their existence are political. And when Bush, and many others talk about fighting the
"evil", it's not only just mirroring the rethorics of the fanatic terrorists, it also
obscures any true understanding of the reasons behind the terrorist attacks.) The
Muslim's support for fighting the fanatics is absolutely essential. And I have never
seen any better conditions for this than right now, unless the US let them go down the
drain.
Also, never has there been such a chance for Russia and the US to get closer, in many
respects. This card must not be lost.
The US depends on the rest of the world, and if they are smart, they use this to their
advantage if fighting or eliminating terrorism is their goal. They can't afford
getting a change of opinion, or only weak support in the cause of whatever actions
they will take. In the worst scenario the results could be really depressing.
(And as far as civilian casualties go, there seems to be much lesser acceptance for
this in Europe and of course in the Muslim world, than in the US.)
The last thing anyone wants (apart from the Americans and maybe Saddam's Iraq) is a
war that drags out with no clear and supported goal.
How the attack and the military operations will effect world (or US) economy is also
not clear. Maybe we will see some indication tomorrow when the stock market opens.
So, the great ironic problem for the US and Nato now, is that they got the moral
support of the people (not to say cries for attacks), they got the greatest and most
well equipped army ready to strike - but no real enemy country to strike against...
(Bin Ladens role and actual part in the WTC attack hasn't so far fully been clarified,
and we don't even know if he, the prime suspect actually is in Afghanistan at all...)
In other words, this is no Gulf war.
It's difficult to say exactly what kind of plans are being laid out behind the
curtains. There may be speculations on a development not yet openly discussed, attacks
on targets in other countries yet not named and whatever changes may come out of that.
(Personally I can't help but wonder if there are any possible secondary aims like
causing a situation that might lead to a break up of Saddams regime in Iraq. Many are
concerned about his possible possession of nuclear capacity.)
Whatever it is, the situation is (unfortunately) not as simple as many people overseas
seem to believe or hope. Let's just hope that heads of those in charge will be kept a
lot cooler than during this past week.
Lasse
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
