I am not a warmonger. I hate war. I did not support the Viet Nam War, nor the Iraq War. I wish diplomacy would work and I think it can in some instances and should be tried whenever and wherever possible. But on the issue of sending troops to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda NATO is simply and completely wrong. 5000 more “troops” just ain’t going to cut it. That’s not support, no matter how Obama spins it.
Terrorism as practiced by the Taliban and Al Qaeda is not an American problem. The United States is not and never will be the sole target. The Taliban and Al Qaeda wish to eradicate the West and Western Civilization and that includes Europe and many many other countries around the world. There have been bombings traced to Al Qaeda in Spain, England, France, Italy and India, Bali, and Indonesia, to name a few. There will be more.
We made the huge mistake of supporting the Taliban against the Russians in the 1980s, just as we made the mistake of supporting Saddam Hussein for years. We have made many mistakes like that. We went into Afghanistan right after September 11 and then made the further mistake of dropping the ball and turning our attention to Iraq. We knew that then and we know that now. Had we asked for assistance in 2001 in wiping out Al Qaeda things might be very different. But we did not and now we are paying the price. We have lost our credibility. For that we can thank the past administration.
And Europe and NATO are “punishing” us by refusing to come to our aid. Rather than seeing it is their own best interest to join with us to eradicate the power of Al Qaeda--a gang of terrorists whose sole purpose is to strap bombs to themselves and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent people—they are going to sit back and let us police the world once again.
The war on terror will not be won by sending in hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into rocky, mountainous, unfamiliar terrain that the Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers know like the backs of their hands. It will not be won by forcing our young men and women to give up their lives for a cause than cannot be won by conventional means. This is not a conventional battle; it is not a war like any we have ever seen. We are not doing this to “save” the Afghani people so that they can pass laws we do not approve of or live a lifestyle that makes us cringe. We are fighting terrorism pure and simple. We are dismantling the Taliban and Al Qaeda, amoral power systems with no regard for human life; that see nothing wrong with strapping bombs onto the bodies of young men and young women and sending them into crowded places, buses, airplanes, and detonating them for the glory of their G-d, who, is not a G-d that would ever ask such a horrific thing.
We must have a concerted effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda by all parties concerned, by specialist troops from all NATO countries who realize that as long as terrorists are allowed to run rampant bombs will go off unexpectedly in countries all around the globe and people will be killed for the glory of an Allah who does not want that glory.
The Americans, the French, and the British have some of the best trained secret forces in the world. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no rules of engagement, so why should we? Thus this war must be fought completely differently from the way it is now.
Forget about the way we fought the Viet Nam war. That didn’t work then and it won’t work now. Think about this instead: Hundred of small groups of warriors living like the Taliban in the mountains, while large numbers of trained SEAL teams are stationed elsewhere. Each group has its different orders: the SEALs take out Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders, the mountain warrior divisions take out the soldiers. My husband, a SEAL- trained Special Forces soldier during Viet Nam has outlined this particular plan to me and convinced me that it is the only one that would work. I am sure he would be happy to give the Pentagon the dirty details.
If this sounds ruthless, remember our enemy and his ruthlessness.
The second part of the equation is to show our strength against others who might wish to become “involved,” in this war on terror: countries like Pakistan or Iran. By amassing hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers along those countries’ borders—as a show of solidarity and strength. Once we have broken the back of the terrorists, perhaps then some real diplomacy can begin. And perhaps we can really work with Pakistan and India and Iran and even Iraq and Afghanistan in truly constructive ways.
This is not to say that there will never be terrorism. There will always be people willing to kill themselves and others for a cause: be it their particular god or their particular cause or their particular country. But if the world shows a an equal willingness to band together against evil before it gets to the point it did in World War II then maybe we will actually be able to stop something before it gets so out of hand that millions, hundreds of millions, are dead and dying. Too many people sat on their hands while Hitler rolled through Europe. America finally came to the rescue. We were late, too, but we did come through.
NATO is very very foolish not to see that their best interests lie in coming on board now; it’s already late for them, but not too late. Our strategy needs to change and somehow we need to convince them to join us in destroying the power base of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda before things get even uglier. Who knows what the terrorists are planning even at this moment? Or where?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth A.
Writer to the Stars
Douglas Moran
Sparking
Susan Mihalic
Steve Klingaman
Salon.com
Comments
But your right too in saying that the USA has lost it's credibility. It has, and no one wants to be associated with us right now. Who can blame them?
Wish I knew what to do about the situation. I would agree that SOMETHING has got to give.
I am against war and always have been, but you might be right about having Special Ops deal with the clusters of terrorists. I'm not sure that a traditional military effort would work in this case. Meanwhile, I think we need to do something to help the children over there and to improve our image with them or we're going to have many, many more terrorists to worry about for years to come.
I hope that what the Bush administration is remembered for---above all its other blunders---is walking away from Afghanistan---a war not only that we needed to fight, but that we had a right to fight, maybe even an obligation to fight.
If another attack comes to American soil--or to an American embassy or ship at sea---the Obama administration will have hell to pay---but , in truth, the blame belongs to the Bush administration.
We should have emerged from 9/11 as an angry giant--- poked awake, very angry, and very powerful---and we should have pursued Al Qaeda, using any and everything in our arsenal, with such single-minded relentlessness.
Instead, Frat Boy and Darth went into Iraq. Personally, I'd like to see Darth be struck by a massive, fatal heart attack the next time he dares to even think the words "Obama is making us less safe." And, I hope its caught on camera,
I don't have an answer. I'm not sure I agree with you, because I hate these bloody wars so much. On the other hand, I think the overtures we have been making toward the Taliban, to suddenly have them become our buddies, and allow them to go back into control of the Afghan government--to return to the days of women being treated worse than slaves--is intolerable to me.
I don't have an easy answer to this. I've been stewing about it for days, and I wish I could say one way or the other whether I agree with you. I'm not used to sitting on the fence. But I hear your anger, which I share. I'm just not sure what the answer is, and I'm willing to listen to those who might have answers that could work. Thanks for taking on this topic.
There are several ways to fight the terrorists. One is the way that the President is moving in now: sending in troops on the ground and some trainers with the idea of building up an already corrupt central government's army and security forces.
One is the way you outline which could be equally effective or better because it does not work on the assumption that a show of force on the ground solves everything.
I prefer your suggested way over the current way because history is very much against us, if we would ever bother to look at it rather than repeating the same mistakes others made.
Personally, I want us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Maybe sooner. I know that we made a mess there but staying in large numbers does not necessarily support the idea that we can fix the mess.
I am wholly convinced that we cannot really fix it. I really hate to say that but given the economic dependence on the poppy trade and the fact that there is a name "Afghanistan" but there really isn't a country. Rather there are a series on fiefdoms controlled by what amount to War Lords. If we insist that we will create a viable country and that is what we will call "victory" then Afghanistan will become Obama's War.
Finally, we still have to deal with the fact that as much of our problem is in Pakistan as in Afghanistan. And how we deal with a sovereign nuclear nation and still keep our military strategies viable is a lot harder issue than we think. We tend to believe the Bush rhetoric that we can, at will, go anywhere to attack the terrorists. Obama has said essentially the same thing. Sounds good but the long term repercussions can be enormous.
I would much prefer that we get our military out and fight this thing through covert operations and targeted air strikes. That isn't going to happen, which is why I think that as a military option, yours sound better than what we are doing.
Excellent post.
Monte
Intelligence is the only way to beat that group and cutting off their funding. Not the Bush way, but through hard and diligent work.
Rated
But most of all I am sick sick sick of the way NATO hides behind the idea that we are supposed to be fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda alone. And no, as much as I hate to say it, we can't just leave.
The CIA had people in place and a bead on Bin Laden and just need the go ahead.
James Bamford does a great job of laying this all out in his book "Pretext for War".
Now we're left with this quagmire on our hands. I do think we need to finish the job but it's a dirty shame that it's come to this.
I hope Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld burn in hell.
Now if you could get this info into the hands of the powers that be.
Unfortunately the context for this war has been established by the U.S.S.R.'s folly and George W. Bush "I wanna be Nero" crapping all over himself expedition. The possibility exists that it can be prosecuted differently with an achievable goal. While it appears that way, I will continue to support it. Everything I have seen of this President so far indicates to me that he does have a purpose and a plan.
"In a guerilla war, if you have a choice between an air strike and artillery, use artillery. If you have a choice between artillery and a mortar, use a mortar, if you have a choice between a mortar and a rifle, use a rifle, if you have a choice between a rifle and a knife, use a knife." This, in the end, is a knife fight.
Thanks: the link is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/why-nato-is-dead-wrong_b_183147.html
if america got out of the habit of retail and wholesale slaughter in distant lands, the danger would likely fall below that of lightning strike.
Terrorism happened in Europe all through the 80s and 90s but most Americans paid no attention to it until it happened to us, and all of a sudden we wanted a War on Terror.
But terrorism attacks have increased since we started that War on Terror. The world is clearly less safe, even according to those "Patterns of Global Terrorism" reports during the Bush administration. And those are the documented and documentable events. What about the whole populations of citizens who now view the US as enemy? I don't see Europe's disdain of our response to terrorism as irrational at all. They were right, frankly, and we were wrong. We've made it so much worse. I think their instincts now, rather than amounting to something punitive, are simply consistent with that same view they had in 2001: There is no military solution to this problem.
If you want a controversial solution, here's one: The answer is integration of global economic markets--more fondly known as Globalization. Look for a minute at the recent news that a Taliban group publicly flogged a 17-year-old girl for refusing to marry the man of her family's choosing. It's a horrific scene and the reason I (and the media) know about it is that someone videotaped it on a cell phone. That's a rarity in the narrow circles of the Taliban, but the more common it becomes, the less likely these authoritarian regimes can get away with their tyrannical and murderous tactics. This is why Iran is not the same threat to us: although their leadership is immature and power mad and dangerous insofar as those at the very top may pursue WMD, their people are so very with us and love their Western technology.
For those who said that diplomacy never works, I suggest that depends on how you define diplomacy. The integration of economies leads to cultural and technological integration, and while many of us sit here and bemoan the Starbucks that appeared in China's Forbidden City or the McDonalds that inevitably shows up in some developing country, I think we should understand that some of what's good about the Western World gets "traded" as well: progressive ideas about women and education, transformative art, and the technology to alleviate some of the more burdensome or traumatic events of daily life.
All of which is to say that the long-term stability of countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan seem related to the people who live there rather than the powerful few. I don't disagree that the military plays a critical role in security, but I agree with libertarius who suggests that we can defend against these terror attacks as easily as invade. It's the nuclear weapons that are more worrisome, in my view, and Pakistan has several at this point. I agree with whomever said Pakistan is the most dangerous place on the planet at this point.
Sorry if that all seemed scattered and unfocused. That's kind of how I view this situation, one I readily admit I know too little about.
Political Science
by Randy Newman
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
for those who don't know a joke from their own elbow....this is an elbow!
:-)
ss fair
Logistics aside, we are talking about two completely different mentalities, of which one is fueled by power and determination to democratize the world (which benefits the war machine of greed) and the other is motivated by religious beliefs that are for many, the only hard currency they own. They have nothing else left to lose.
It's kind of like pitting a paraplegic, trust fund, sharp shooter with notions of turning a wasteland into a mega mall and resort while converting all who will "benefit" from this to capitalism, against an agile swimmer that trains in muddy waters and raw sewage with rocks tied to his body who believes that reaching the finish line will guarantee him 40 virgins if he gets rid of all those that defy his beliefs or try to get in his way.
And then throwing them both into a big sea of blood that's thousands of miles long and wide and telling them to have a race.
Off to Huff post! Good on you.
And Lorraine, I agree, we increased terrorism with our invasion of Iraq. We did, quite simply. Had we stayed in Afghanistan, I don't think that would have happened. Your comments are cogent.
Patricia.... agreed in many ways. I have no desire to change Afghanistan or make them live like us. None at all. I wish to leave them be, as I think I said. But that will never happen as long as the Taliban and Al Qaeda run rampant. Afghanistan, and even Pakistan, who I agree (Lorraine IS the most dangerous country in the world right now) will never be allowed their head as long as the terrorists infiltrate every aspect.
That is why a concerted effort to root them out by all affected countries is needed. And that is why Europe, pacisifist or not, must join us. I don't know why they don't see this. Pakistan will continue to be a huge problem for all the world unless the Taliban and Al Qaeda are eliminated from power.
The only thing is, Lisa, and I'm not informed enough to actually disagree with you but rather to throw up objections, who will replace these authoritarian regimes? This is the problem we encountered with Iraq--just going in and rooting out the current power without any long-term plan for their replacement. Do you honestly think we are prepared to stay with it in Afghanistan/Pakistan at this point? I'm not sure the last 8 years will cover us in terms of depth of expertise about those cultures and languages and power structures. One thing I know, and it's so ironic, is that when we went into Afghanistan in 2001, everybody kept saying,"We're not going to make the same mistake we made last time, which is to abandon the place. We're going to root out the Taliban and then stay there for the long haul, making sure they get a stable government going." What a cosmic joke. We did just the opposite in rushing all that manpower over to Iraq.
So if we do this thing you suggest, then at least we have to actually have a plan for the aftermath. Yes, a familiar spot to be in.
And I guess my point is that Afghanistan hasn't had real stability for awhile. Unfortuntunately its government is terribly corrupt. I hope, for their sake, they can rectify that. It's a mess. It is.
One of my reservations is that "the Taliban" doesn't exist in the way that, say, the underground railway existed. Taliban members are loosely connected rather than consistently organized, and terrorist acts seem to be planned and executed by people who cooperate for one particular action. I'm dubious about the ability of military tr0ops to effectively combat loosely connected people who hate Western non Muslims enough to die murdering us through the kinds of terrorist actions we've seen.
Another major problem is that every country that has fought in Afghanistan has failed to meet its goals. I see no reason to think US and European troops can succeed, since the challenges are much the same as in the past, if not greater. We are not going to bring anything positive, even if we try on our own terms, to the area, and I doubt we'll effectively eliminate threats to us.
Much more helpful, perhaps, is good intelligence and a government organized effectively to act on it. Our govt. was informed that 9/11 would happen but the news never made it to anyone in a position to stop it.
Then the Bush administration put us in much greater danger than we were in on 9/11 by eliciting hatred and desires for revenge among people who now have terrorist sympathies and goals.
I hope that all the nations where terrorists want to kill will cooperate in collecting, sharing, and acting on first-rate intelligence operations. I doubt military action is appropriate in this situation.
Therefore, when in a state of confusion, I usually default into the most stable constants that I think "I know." For example, I know we should not, as a nation, torture prisoners (or anyone). Once I establish that, then it's easy to say "NO" when confronted by the confusing scenarios supporters throw out (and defend my postion). Afterall, this country has very little history--and what we do have is riddled--naturally, all that's left are ideas. I am of the camp that believes this to be our single most strength. That is why I so ferociously hated Bush/Cheney et al and everything they did (i.e. Patriot Act)--it was national sabotage; they should be jailed.
So, generally speaking, where do I stand on war? Killing?
I need to read up more, I'm afraid. On the one hand, I know I could kill. I'm a vegetarian; I don't even like killing bugs. However, under the right circumstances...? The circumstances need to be quite profound. Say, a clear choice between me and them (or she and them, he and them, they and them...). I don't know if Afganistan is currently at that level. Certainly, an element of it is.
Is there a way to "kill" without actually murdering? You know, the kind of stuff we see all the time in our world--most people kill every day (not literally but in the metaphorical sense--I hear that the Hebrews had about 100 different ways to say "kill" which makes translation of "thou shall not kill" so special!). I'm inclined to believe that the U.S. still has the wiles to pull it off.
Does the US yet merit that support? Will not the NATO nations have to contend with powerful anti-American sentiments that have festered for decades? Is it not even arrogant in some ways, given what this country has done to spawn a world wide economic collapse to come asking for them to spend more of their rapidly depleting treasuries--not to mention lives?
The call to fight "terror, terror, terror," does not fall on European ears the way it does American. They see us as a foolish and easily led people. Unfortunatley, we still have not signaled we are going to do anything broader about the underlying problem in the Middle East, and if you really want to address a taboo subject you should take a shot at this one Lisa.
What has happened there recently is totally unconscionably, and it looks like they aren't done inciting the Muslim world yet. This is simply being realistic. It is time for a change.
I made the attempt on my blog and was called every name in the books. The fact that we finally have a President who is a least not a crook and a cowboy is a step in the right direction, but I still think it's premature to ask a skeptical world to march with "us."
There has to be a lot more done to prove to the world this country has gotten the message.
The problem is that Netanyaho has been re-elected, and Israel is now where the US was in '04. That's the most optimistic interpretation.
It is a travesty that those outside the box need to take a stand on. He's going to hit the circuit soon and it's gonna be the same old crap with the same listeners unless more liberals don't step up to the plate.
I don't see it here Lisa and I am disappointed. It is not possibile to separate the problem in the Middle East from the problem of terrorism in general. Skirting and denying the issue is not productive.
People of conscience, Jews and non-Jews, need to take a stand and take a stand now. Everything else is flak and I personally refuse any longer to be diverted. There is no other issue on this planet more significant at the present time.
There are times when the rules have to be thrown out the window. Pakistan is a huge problem. Most of Al Queda is in the lawless region where the Pakistan officials won't even go. I like the fact that we send in drones to do the fighting. No Americans die that way and it sends a powerful message that you can die without the opportunity to do any harm to our troops.
It is my understanding that this form of attack has them fighting amongst themselves. I very good thing indeed, but Pakistan is still a nuclear threat so things are very complicated. We can't afford to stay and we can't afford to leave. It's really fucked up.
NATO needs to get on board, but I doubt that will happen. Europeans go protest crazy when any of their governments go against the will of the people. (something we could learn from)
"The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no rules of engagement, so why should we? Thus this war must be fought completely differently from the way it is now."
what suggests we'll remember rules of engagement after this war? i don't even know what you're describing here, but i think the rule of law is important. i opposed bush administration policies because they were counter to that idea: they wanted to make up the rules as they went along. i would trust NO ARMY with that level of freedom: it doesn't matter who we're using it against and it doesn't matter who we think we can trust at the helm.
this war is NOTHING like what we faced in ww2. the very comparison is offensive to me, especially when joined with the idea that we should have no rules of engagement. does that mean, no geneva conventions? does that mean torturing captives? does that mean exterminating cities?
be careful what you wish for. the europeans have a good memory for a time when the nazis and the allies did exactly that. there's a reason those rules are in place. you might want to consider that, when you encourage us to think of this war like ww2.
if you think using covert ops to change the course of wars (or governments) is easy, why not look at argentina? why not see exactly how much terror and horror we caused doing exactly that? what are the consequences of trusting our government to save us at any cost?
i'm not sure i have an answer, but i will not cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war just because i'm tired of hearing about diplomacy. we are at war with afghanistan because a few thousand people died here. how many more have we sacrificed to get those we believe are responsible? this war has ceased making sense to me. i will not keep remembering a reason for vengeance without bringing up that very real exchange of lives.
I can't speak for other NATO countries, but Canadians currently make up half of the troops in Afghanistan. While the U.S. was off fighting a war in Iraq guess where we were, Afghanistan. Our troops are depleted, we're tired. We are committed to pulling out two years from now.
But I suspect the same thing will happen that happened in Bosnia. We kept peacekeepers there for years, asking for the support from the U.S. And the U.S. did what it usually does, it came in at the last minute and then whined about how the other countries aren't helping.
This is just the beginning of the cycle we've become used to.
So, although you might not feel like you have anything to learn from other countries, I'm going to tell you anyways what Canadians have learned from our time in Afghanistan.
They don't need special ops. They need resources and need training, so that they can police their own country. Otherwise the whole situation is going to revert once your special ops leave. Because those mountain will always be there long after you're gone.
Sadly the U.S. isn't in a position right now to contribute financially to the development needs of Afghanistan. So you're going to send in your army, and you're going to fail and then you're going to maintain the illusion that nobody in the rest of the world was willing to help.
Sorry I sound so pissed. I'm not angry at you specifically. I'm angry and the self-absorbed media that doesn't adequately inform you.
Ben's in NY, Lorraine's in the Finger Lakes, Lisa's in PA, Juliet's in Canada (not too far from the Great Lakes, I hope), Monte and Bill are right here in Ohio, and I want to say you're in Chicago, aren't you Lisa? Cleveland is central and where we'll meet--my place--and we can solve this little nut and let Obama know what we come up with, shall we?
(I know MAH's in CA and Saturn's in Kansas and I don't know where the rest of you are from, but if it's that far, we can set ourselves up with some kind of live camera thingy!)
As for the good idea of some of us getting together to solve the world's problems.... I live in small town Virginia (not Chicago). Other than that, if you can make it work....:)
Would that we could. I do think that oft times "ordinary" citizens seem to do better at creative thinking than all the guys up in D.C. Something about our being outside the loop, dontcha think?