I just saw that President Bush, Congress and the Pentagon pledged a sustained military campaign against terroist, beginning with Bin Laden. I hope we can just roll in there and kick some ass, but I'm afraid this isn't going to be the case. I believe the American people have this misconception that we will just bomb the enemy countries to submission. Ground troops will have to be used and if the war drags on I believe that the American people will want to pull out of the middle east. The new generation isn't used to wars. Will we have the strength to stay in the middle east, if we sustain high casualities? If we are to destroy terrorist camps, we will have to go into the heart of these countries. Afghanstan, Iraq, Iran, etc... Will our army be spread out to thin? Will the American poll (war) fall if we see pictures of our GI's in body bags? And what about China? They are awfully close to some of these countries that we may attack. And what about the draft? If the war last for more than a year, will todays youth's go to the middle east willingly if the draft is reenacted? What about our allies? Will they support our efforts or are we going in alone. If they support us with ground troops then maybe it will not be to bad. I know that it needs to be done, but I just hope that it doesn't become another Vietnam.

I really doubt tracking down and killing terrorists in the middle east would ever get as messy as Vietnam was. We aren't talking about dense jungle warfare against an enemy with the support of the people AND two communist powers. I'm not real worried about China, they aren't buddy-buddy with radical fundementalist islamic factions.

And I think it's unlikeley that we'll being putting lots of troops on the ground. I would expect most attacks on terrorist camps, etc, to be special ops affairs. Terrorists aren't about occupying land and strategic positions, and we won't have to be either. And I would expect our actions against host nations, should it come to hostilities, will be limited to air strikes on military installations.

Don't worry about the draft either. This isn't an army we're talking about going after. This is a network of secretive terrorist cells. There's a reason counter-terrorist actions look more like police actions then military actions (actions, actions, just a couple more to round out that sentance). Terroists aren't going to fight on a battlefield with artillery support and tracked vehicles. But we might find them holed up in a building making bombs or planning attacks and send a Seal team in after them.

Will our allies back us up with troops? You bet. At the veruy least the Nato ones. Terroism is their problem too, it's in everyone's best interest to help the US.

A new Vietnam? I really don't think that'll be the case.

Brad Grenz
Back in business.

The USSR made a huge mistake in Afganistan, in that they tried to treat it like they would Hungary or Czechoslovakia or another modern state. They rolled in, took out the leadership, and expected to have a nice satrap setup. What they didn't bargain on was a bunch of Islamic banditos who took umbrage at infidels cutting in their action and who, frankly, found fighting preferrable to sheepherding. The result was frustration and confusion in Moscow, which in turn translated into brutality and atrocity on the ground, which in turn sparked atrocities in kind. During the years of mutual butchery, the goals of the original invasion got lost in the shuffle, and became irrelevant.

If the US takes actions against the Taliban, we'll have much simpler goals. We don't really give a rats ass who runs that shithole of a country. All we care about is 1) getting terrorist leaders like bin Laden into coffins or courtrooms, take your pick, and 2) getting rid of fanatics like the Taliban who turn wherever they are into fertile grounds for anti-American terrorism. Those goals are feasible. Not easy, but feasible.

Add to that the near certainty that any US action would be much more sane and dare I say humane than what the USSR did, and add to that in turn the opposition to the Taliban that exists in Afganistan and the region, and there is actually a glimmer of hope there. The biggest hurdles are logistic.

Good synopsis Robert, as I understand it.

Add to the USSR's problems there the fact that these fundamentalist Afghan guerillas were armed, at the time, with American weaponry and training.

That isn't the case today. I don't care how many exiled filthy rich sheiks you've got in a row... we can outspend and outman them. Add to this the fact that Russia is committed to help us now with military force if necessary.

I suppose that in itself most dramatically shows how the world has changed.

If our goals were to defeat Islam or an ideology, or take over the country, then I'd agree we'd be in for major problems. But who is backing Afghanistan? Right now... nobody. This war will be brutally surgical I think (hope).

-Andrew

How do you find the terrorists when you don't know their names or what they look like? How do you know which of the two sheepherders is the terrorist and which is the sheepherder?

Sure, if they want to stay armed and fight us, we'll not have too many problems. I expect them to hide their weapons and go back to their villages, however. How do you find them then?

Mark, that's not how things work in Afghanistan, as I understand it. Could be wrong, of course; I make no claims to infallibility. But from what I can glean, we're not talking about a whole nation of part-time terrorists who herd sheep by day and blow up buildings by night. Most Afghanis have nothing to do with bin Laden and his thugs (though they are probably rather busy with other vendettas and feuds, as is their wont). The terrorist camps are pretty distinct places, and from what I understand the terrorist cadres don't disperse into the local population, but rather keep together.

One reason is that many of them aren't Afghanis. Afghanistan is home base because of location, a friendly government, and a general xenophobia that makes it suitable. Many if not most of the actual terrorist, though, are Saudi, Egyptian, or other nationalities. They hardly blend in in the Northwest Frontier.

Again, no one is talking about sweeping Afghanistan like it was the Central Highlands or something. You have the Taliban leadership, which is a small and readily identifiable group. You have bin Laden and his lieutenants, ditto. You have facilities and supplies, ditto. Getting to them and finding some of the people in hiding is tough, but nothing like searching a village in the Mekong Delta for an elusive VC. Different war, different time, different place.

Just because it's going to be difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try. No one said that having global responsability would be easy or cheap, and now we gotta pay up. All I know is that we're going to have to do our best and try, because to let this go without anyone kind of punishment would be even worse. We're in the age old struggle between civilization and barbarity. What kind of world do we want? One where we let laws rules us, or one where we let murderers dictate what we can and can't do?

That said, I understand this is a different kind of war. We aren't going to put an army in the field (unless we do find out a state was involved. I don't know about you, but I'm hearing Iraq being whsipered in the background. Saddam is an old supporter of Bin Ladden, and he bears no love toward us. Israeli intelligence is pointing that direction, and the former CIA director just happened to mention last night that if Iraq was behind this, we should annihilate every one of Saddam's sources of power, the Republican Guard, his weapons facilities, all of it.)

And that said, Afghanistan is tricky, but we can deal with them. The Taliban doesn't have total control of the country, about 5-percent is controlled by coalition of much-more moderate factions. Also, the Taliban came to power because it was able to get a majority of factions behind it by promising to end the bloodshed of the brutal civil war. A lot of those commanders who threw their support behind the Taliban now aren't too happy of the Taliban's policies. But it's like the bolsheviks in Russia. The number of communists in Russia at the time of the revolution was surprisingly small, but once they got into power, they were entrenched and they were able to build their power base.

Now, the immediate wrong thing to do would be to invade Afghanistan, because they would unite toe fight the foreign foe, but there are ways we can support the more moderate factions and weaken the Taliban without doing that.

"The terrorist camps are pretty distinct places, and from what I understand the terrorist cadres don't disperse into the local population, but rather keep together."

Yeah, but my point is that the terrorists will fade into the populace rather than fight, if not in Afghanistan than back into their native countries. I can see that we'll destroy the camps -- word is they're already mostly deserted in Afghanistan already -- and get the leaders, but how will that stamp out terrorism? It will momentarily deter it, but it's just a short-term solution.

What's our long-term solution? I'm not saying we shouldn't take military action, but I'm just questioning how effective it will be.

There seem to be tens of millions of Arabs who despise Israel and anyone who supports Israel. How do you defuse them? How do you keep them from becoming terrorists when they realize they can't win a conventional war?

Frankly, speaking as someone who admits that my knowledge is limited purely to what I can read (where's Raphael when we need him? ;)) I wonder if the best way to fight this type of terrorism might be a terror type operation carried out by our special forces. You locate bin Ladin, swoop in quickly, he and his lieutenants dissapear. When the other terrorists try to find bin Ladin and company, they're just gone. They go down to his last camp, and it's empty. They go back to their own camp, and the guards and everyone else is gone. Soon the pockets of terrorists are finding that their leaders are just dissapearing - communications and organization break down. Someone steps up to fill in the gap, he finds the group he wants to give orders to have dissappeared. Etc. etc. Instead of facing a large, powerful and identifiable enemy against whom they can organize and fight (or hide,) instill the fear and uncertainty and paranoia of never knowing what's happening, when it will happen, just your organization is dissapearing.

Just wild hair thoughts...

They seem to be a step ahead of you. They've already abandoned their camps in Afghanistan and Bin Laden sleeps in a new spot every night. I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden leaves the country, if for nothing else other than to allow the Taliban to claim that they have expelled him, etc.

Point, Mark. You can't whip these guys by simply killing all of them. But you don't have to. Erradicate the Taliban, and Afghanistan is no longer a sanctuary. Scare the shit out of Pakistan, and no more help to fundamentalist militias. Pressure every government conceivably helping the terrorists and eventually they will go away or die.

In 1970, King Hussein got fed up with the PLO and booted them out; they ended up in Syria and Lebanon. In 1982 the Israelis booted the PLO out of Lebanon, and it pretty much ceased to be; even the Syrians didn't want 'em. That was partial, not terribly effective, and took a long time, but the theory is sound. As soon as these people become a burden to their hosts, they lose their bases of operation.

It's up to us to make them become a burden. It doesn't have to involve violence, even, though in some cases it will.

Mark,

Don't underestimate US intelligence operations (when they get adequate funding and thier hands untied), and the ruthless efficency to which they can be carried out. To speculate on something with very the little information that you and I have is just mudding the waters for the sake of being a devil's advocate.

There are a million "What ifs?" you can come up with to doubt any action the US takes and if people were to listen to them you would freeze them with indecision and eventual inaction. And that, my friend, is exactly what the terrorist want.

Let the Government do it's job and afterwards you can critize it all you want.

Jeff

Yeah, I assume Bin Laden is in Iraq or Iran right now, along with his leaders. That's why this will take patience and persistence and constancy of purpose.

There's no doubt that this will not be easy. And I'll be willing to bet that we'll screw up at least once or twice. I hope that our intelligence folks and military folks are up to the task. I hope they surprise me in the same way that they suprised me with Desert Storm - I, like everyone else and particularly the media "experts", fully expected that to be a prolonged and bloody conflict, with many thousands of Allies killed.

The only thing of which I am certain in my heart and mind in this case (and I have many things where my heart and mind conflict) is that we must commit to do everything we can to combat these folks.

"There seem to be tens of millions of Arabs who despise Israel and anyone who supports Israel. How do you defuse them? How do you keep them from becoming terrorists when they realize they can't win a conventional war? "

Take away their support. An army lives on it's stomach. A terrorist lives on his wallet. Without money or support, they can't move or act efficiently. If they have to live with the same support as regular arabs, even a plane ticket to the states would be a major feat. Track down their support, and hold those governments accountable. Directly accountable. If they've made the decision to support terrorists, then they are in bed with those terrorists. The Afghanis may be suffering. But their leaders are the ones who let this happen. The Syrians and Iranians who have been pouring our oil money into bin Laden's coffers are to blame. Not their people. Not the poor refugees in camps. They may hate us, but they aren't hurting us, so far as I can tell.
Is it just me, or did it seem odd to anyone else that of those celebrating Palestinians all had the same small flag that they were waving? Like maybe they had just been issued?
I'm not a total doofus (sorry for stealing your tag, Jeff). I know that lots of people hate us for different reasons. Lots of sections of the world do not put the premium on human life that we do. But I also know that a small percentage of them actually have the means and the will to do anything about it. I'd like to see those sections get the teeth of what happens.

Riddle me this, Batman: when have we EVER been successful in replacing a government we don't like? Can anyone name a single solitary time this has worked? Every time I can think of, it hasn't worked. Not only has it not worked, it has backfired and bitten us on the ass big time.

There is NO historical precedent for "removal of a government we don't like". It's foolish.

There's only so much pressure we can bring to bear on the Arab states, short of going in with our military. They have the oil, remember? They can denounce terrorists if pressured and the camps can disappear, but will the terrorists? They'll just go underground. By day they'll hold jobs and go about their business. By night they'll meet in mosques, individual homes, etc. Being a terrorist doesn't have to be a full-time job.

We could go in and replace the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, I don't doubt, but we'd see oil prices skyrocket during the military conflict and we'd engender 100 times the hate from the Moslem population after we conquered these countries. We'd probably destabalize the moderate Arab states too. We'd probably end up being an occupying force in the Middle East for a long time.

How are you going to stop someone from driving a car loaded with explosives into a crowd? How much training and money do you need for that?

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't send our military over there and kick some ass. I think we need to. I just hope we have some plan beyond trying to root out terrorist organizations.

'There is NO historical precedent for "removal of a government we don't like". It's foolish.'

Weren't we more-or-less responsible for the overthrow of Allende in the 1970s, in addition to miscellanous central-american actions? To boot, depending on how you look at it, we certainly replaced the governments of Japan and Germany with ones we liked.

"To boot, depending on how you look at it, we certainly replaced the governments of Japan and Germany with ones we liked."

Fact: Gen. McArthur wrote the constitution for the reformed Japanese government during the American occupation after WWII.

So, yeah, it has been successful. Real hard, but successful.

Jeff

Jeff Atwood wrote: "There is NO historical precedent for "removal of a government we don't like"."

Umm, yeah, okay. For starters, you might want to look up these little thing called World Wars I and II. When you're done with that one, I'm sure we can give you more material.

-Tom

"For starters, you might want to look up these little thing called World Wars I and II."

For starters, you might want to tell me when we declared war on anyone, because I missed that on the Yahoo news page.

I don't consider old-style "official" war relevant to this discussion. We aren't at war in the traditional sense, and I doubt we ever will be in our lifetimes. I'm talking about modern military engagements-- Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, etc etc. Christ, Tom. You played Balance of Power. You should know better.

Second, even if we do declare war on.. well, somebody.. it didn't seem to work in Iraq. the Gulf War was all well and good, but is Saddam Hussein still in power? Yep. And I think we "won" that one, too.

Any Desert Storm veterans here? I seem to remember a documentary stating our troops were ordered to hold back when the Iraqi rebels were winning against Saddam's troops. They were subsequently slaughtered when Saddam's troops regrouped with reinforcements.

I don't think that'll be a problem in Afghanistan; I'm willing to bet we'll go all the way in this one.

Geez -- how do you think we would go about replacing the Taliban in Afghanistan? Send them to Disneyworld and then lock the gates to the palace while they're gone so they can't get back in? We'd use our military to remove them, just like we did in WW1 and WW2.

Sometimes it's worked and sometimes it hasn't.

"I don't consider old-style "official" war relevant to this discussion."

Neither did Milosevic or Noriega. As Mark said, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

It's silly to say there's no historical precedent for replacing a gov't we don't like. We'll just chalk that one up with micropayments.

-Tom

"It's silly to say there's no historical precedent for replacing a gov't we don't like"

Oh, there's plenty of historical precedent for us trying. There's just not plenty of historical precedent for it ACTUALLY WORKING. And worse, this process has a nasty tendency to backfire. We trained Osama Bin Laden, remember?

Look. Far be it from me to get in the way of the all-important punishment. I love placing blame. It's one of my favorite activities. All I'm saying is, let's consider history before repeating the mistakes we've frequently made.

So, let's see: Governments the US is directly responsible for the downfall of:

Noreiga, military action.
Haiti, threatened military action.
Chile, revolutionary support (to my understanding).
Afghanistan (!), revolutionary support against the Soviet government.
Germany, twice.
Japan.
The Phillipines, possibly twice.
Iran.
Malyasia, possibly; I'm fuzzy about this one.
A zillion African states that I can't remember off the top of my head.

Failures:
Somalia.
Iran.
Iraq, but debatable, as it's not too obvious whether we wanted Hussein out.
A zillion African states that I can't remember off the top of my head.

'There's just not plenty of historical precedent for it ACTUALLY WORKING.'

Sure.

Speaking of Vietnam/Afghansistan parallels:

Anyone remember that RAMBO sequel, where Rambo has fun playing goatskin polo with a group of funloving Afghani rebels? They were the good guys back then, underdog heroes for us Commie-hating Americans.

Bin Laden is an Afghani war hero -- he kicked Soviet ass with funding from the good ol' USA. Think of an analagous figure: Ollie North. North, a Vietnam war vet, broke the law by lying to congress, selling arms to Iran, and funnelling drugs and guns back and forth to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua. If the World Court told us we had to surrender North to the Nicaraguans for trial, the popular and political response here in the States would probably be pretty similar to the Afghani response to the idea of surrendering Bin Laden. We know North is scum, but he's our scum. We wouldn't give him up just 'cause some foreign assholes with cruise missiles told us to, I'd betcha. Because he's a "war hero," a veteran, and in Afghanistan, just like the USA, nothing stirs up the irrational nationalism in people like jingoism-spouting veterans.

You think Chile is an example of US intervention "working?" Yeah, nothing works like assassinating a peaceful, democratically elected president, replacing him with a fascist dictator who was only able to stay in power by torturing and murdering thousands.

Henry Kissinger was taken to court this week (just before the WTC holocaust) for his role in our Chilean atrocities:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7048-2001Sep10.html

"Henry Kissinger was taken to court this week (just before the WTC holocaust) for his role in our Chilean atrocities:"

And it's just this kind of act that makes me worry about the order rescinding the ban on assassinations. Chile wasn't a threat just like the Sandinistas weren't a threat. We had no right to interfere in their affairs.

I didn't say it was a good *idea* that we overthrew the democratic government of Chile, just that it was a successful overthrow. I haven't done a lot of research in to it, but if it's true it's definitely the slimiest thing the US did in the Cold War in the name of anti-communism.

That's a great parallel with North, though obviously the magnitude is different.

As for the Chile-CIA intervention, I think the large amount of CIA changes and reforms put through in the 1970s were in reaction to this. The CIA was starting to kill people without authorization, if I remember correctly.

Remember what Lyndon Johnson said about Kennedy? "He was running a goddamn Murder Inc. down there."

I'm really glad we don't spend so much time these days fighting the spread of Communism. That stuff was always so messy. So many times the CIA would end up supporting people who were indeed anti-communist, rather they were facists at the other end of the spectrum.

I think it's funny the way people talk about politics in terms of left to right. In my mind the political spectrum can be more acurately described as a circle, the extremes of each side literally meeting on the far side.

Brad Grenz

The Afganies are never gonna give up Bin Laden. As far as they are concerned he wouldn't get a fair trial and I would have to agree givin the current emotional situation in the US. Herding cats would be easier than finding 12 unbiased jurors.

Here is an interesting point... Most of the ordinance we drop in Afghanistan will most likely cost more than what it blows up. Not that there is really a lot left to blow up.

Jeff

I like what Bush told a group of Senators: "we're not going to fire a $10 million dollar cruise missile at an empty $10 tent."

You've got to figure that most of what is done militarily will be accomplished with special ops teams.

I heard Sen. John McCain talking about a Marshall Plan style of rebuilding the nations we're forced to take apart rooting out terrorists. Expensive as hell, yes, but as he puts it 'without an economic base and a democratic government we'll just be leaving the same swamp that's breeding these terrorists'.

If we gotta go in that's definitely gotta be a big carrot to offer opposition leaders who might be sympathetic to us. Anybody remember the movie "The Mouse That Roared?"