Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (1349)	9/25/2001 7:42:02 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

these are warriors, not worriers I have no objection to having warriors do the fighting; I'm not sure I want them making policy. They are inclined to place a priority on military solutions, and I am not convinced that this will be the most effective road to take. ...the Taliban have to become much smaller, fast, if there's any truth to the reports of troops running to the NA. Their support rests solely on their appearance of winning. Even worrisome international cells rely upon confidence and logistical support from the leadership. All that would be left would be random brainwashed for-hire thugs, not a pleasant prospect, but better than an organized jihad. This, I think, is taking wishful thinking to a dangerously naive level. Organized terrorism existed well before the Taleban took over Afghanistan, and it is likely to exist long after the Taleban fall. As I said before, it is almost certain that key Bin Laden assets, including people capable of taking over from Bin Laden, left Afghanistan before the Sept. 11 attacks and are quite prepared to conduct operations from other bases. Afghanistan has no further value as a refuge; its key value to the Taleban is as a source for visible martyrs and a place to bog down the US military. I am not convinced that the death of Bin Laden and/or the fall of Afghanistan would significantly degrade the capability of the terrorist organization. Given the recently released estimates of the cost of the Sept. 11 operation, it is clear that there did not have to be any state sponsor at all: the terrorists could have funded the entire thing from their own sources. the Muslim allies then "take positions that render them more vulnerable to subversion". How long do you think they will lie down and accept that? Aren't they being held hostage? They may not have a choice. The Shah of Iran didn't, when his fundamentalists rebelled. Yes, they are being held hostage to some degree, just as every ruler is held hostage by public opinion. The US has to be keenly aware of the limits that public opinion places on its allies in the region, and not force them to take public stands that could cause more problems than they solve. If I had to choose between leaving Afghanistan under the Taleban and having Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fall to fundamentalists, I'd take the former any day.