Which is better for the US, in the long-term: a prickly, independent democracy or a ruthless dictator who may stay bought? France or Iraq?
France isn't sponsoring terrorist attacks and its been a long time since it invaded any of its neighbors. I'm not sure that any of the Arab dictatorships are likely to become democracies (prickly or not) soon. If the government of Saudi Arabia falls it would be more likely to fall to a radical Islamic theocratic movement then a bunch of democrats.
Britain, of course, can launch military strikes and snatch squads on Irish territory right now. The terrorists are without doubt at war with the UK: hey, they call themselves an army, they kill our soldiers, they've bombed our government... what more do we need? We've got the men, the proof of aiding and harbouring terrorists and actively supporting their aims, and they're not strong enough to stop us.
If the IRA crashed a plane into Canary Wharf and the Irish government supported and sheltered the IRA before and after the attack and named an IRA leader to an inportant government post then I think British military oporations on Irish soil would be justified.
Ireland isn't harbouring the IRA in the same way that the Taliban is harbouring Al Qaida. Al Qaida and the Taliban are allies and their forces work together. The worst that could be said about Ireland and the IRA is that Ireland might not have done a good enough job in rooting out the terrorists. Also this attack was deadly on a scale that none of the IRA attacks have ever been. The attack killed more British citizens then any previous terror attack. It probably killed more people then all of the IRA terrorist attacks combined.
Get the UN go-ahead: if the Taleban aren't extreme and isolated enough, then no one ever will be.
We probably could get the UN go ahead, but maybe not a "blank check" and I don't think we want to annouce to the world exactly what we are going to do before we do it.
Unilateral action (OK, with some UK help and maybe token assistance from elsewhere in NATO) sets exactly the wrong imprimatur for others.
Unilateral action is entirely justified. Al Qaida attacked the US. The Taliban not only fails to try to control Al Qaida or prevent them from using their territory, but actually supports and protects Al Qaida and allies itself with Al Qaida. Ofcourse on a practical level it is good to try and get support from other countries but there is nothing wrong (either in the sense of morally wrong or of violating international conventions or treaties) with the US responding without a UN Imprimatur.
Tim |
