Thursday, Sep. 20, 2001. Page 9
Bin Laden Best Left to Rot
|
For a week or so, the world media has been awash with stories about a possible invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. troops to punish or capture the millionaire Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden -- the alleged mastermind behind the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. At present, the U.S. military has the capacity to attack targets in Afghanistan with long-range cruise missiles and strategic bombers. Such attacks may kill some of bin Laden's associates and damage the military forces of the ruling Taliban, but would not do much to "win the war against terrorism" that U.S. President George W. Bush has promised. U.S. Army and Special Forces could possibly seek out alleged terrorists more effectively if they are allowed to comb Afghan cities and the countryside. Theoretically, the United States could land a force of paratroopers equipped mainly with light weapons in Afghanistan. But in the absence of air or supply bases in any of the countries neighboring landlocked Afghanistan, it would be impossible to provide constant air support, establish reliable supply lines, provide speedy evacuation of the wounded or a full evacuation if paratroopers are assaulted by a heavily armed enemy. Without such bases, sending a ground mission into Afghanistan would be suicidal, and neighboring states do not seem to be particularly forthcoming in providing real assistance. Iran's religious leaders have already announced that they are totally opposed to any military action by the United States against targets in Afghanistan. In Pakistan anti-American religious radicals have lots of supporters in the armed forces, the security services, within political parties and among the general public. No one could guarantee the safety of U.S. servicemen in Pakistan if attacks against the Taliban go ahead. In fact, U.S. servicemen may be in as much peril in Pakistan as on Afghan soil. Russia has troops and bases in Tajikistan on the Afghan border and has already been fighting a proxy war with the Taliban for years by supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. But Moscow and the states of Central Asia are afraid to challenge the Taliban openly, since this could provoke aggression. Last year, Russia's Defense Ministry alarmed the Kremlin with a report that the Taliban could march north, occupying large parts of Uzbekistan including the capital city Tashkent, and that the small Russian military contingent in Tajikistan would have no chance of stopping them. Fears have been expressed that the United States will launch a hit-and-run attack on Afghanistan and then leave Russia to fight a second bloody unwinnable war against Moslem extremists in addition to the one it is already fighting in Chechnya. In a peculiar twist of Cold War thinking Russian generals are, at the same time, afraid that the Americans would never withdraw and would flush the Russians out of Central Asia. The United States is in fact preparing for large-scale air and land operations, but the primary target is apparently not Kabul but Baghdad. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been U.S. enemy No. 1 for more than a decade. Iraq was the only nation in the world to officially endorse the terrorist attack on America but has not been singled out once since the terrorist attack, which is in fact an ominous sign. True military plans are never published in magazines before they are embarked upon. The United States has bases, forces, stockpiles of equipment and allies in place to hit Saddam as hard as is necessary to topple him. The Iraqi army has been defeated and humiliated many times in recent years. Iraqis are not Afghan tribesmen and will hardly fight invaders for decades in the hills. It is possible that Saddam's regime will implode after one good push. U.S. soldiers' lives may be lost, but today the American people are ready to pay the price, especially if it brings a swift, clear-cut victory. The toppling of Saddam would allow the immediate lifting of sanctions, redressing one of the main grievances that is fermenting anti-American Islamic terrorism: the suffering of ordinary Iraqis. After that, it would only require a NATO occupying force to impose a just peace on the Israelis and Palestinians, as was done before in Bosnia for example, and the roots of terrorism would really be weakened. Afghanistan is not the source of modern terrorism. It is better to confine the troublemakers there, rather than push them out into the high-tech world. In fact, condemning bin Laden to life in Afghanistan could indeed be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/09/20/009.html |
NSP Lista isprobava demokratiju u praksi
==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrBE8.bVKZIq Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
