Hi Carl,
Re: From that I'll take it that you've given up that line of reasoning, and agree that the US can, in fact, win a war against mountain guerillas
We've plenty of wars we won for the likes of National City Bank (archaic) and United Fruit Co. down in Central America, so, I've no debate with you that it can be done. I'm more keen on what jjkirk has described as the theoretical General and the civilian overseers of military matters and am questioning the entire premise of "endless" war against guerillas starting in Afghanistan and ending up who know's where. My question is this will the average American citizen be happier, wealthier and more a comfortable in the future if we are constantly engaged in mountain guerilla warfare overseas and constant terrorist reprisals here at home. I know what the multinational corporations want, the want to operate with impunity, and don't really care about the "collateral damage" to postal clerks, firemen and other expedables. I know what the military wants, it wants to do its job. But I'm wondering if the American public is going to really be able to decipher what course of action could afford them the best future. All indications is that they won't be freely given the tools to make informed decisions. They will be regarded, as Alexander Hamilton did, as "the great beast". Something to be tolerated and no more by the elites.
So, Carl, I think we're comparing apples and oranges. I'm thinking grand strategy for the future of democracy and you're playing tactician, as if policy is already settled. I sincerely hope it is not.
Re: . I would assume that the Iranians may be willing to contribute occupation / rehabilitation troops, (after we're out of there).
Perhaps you've got an authoritative Iranian governmental source for this assumption? I've seen nothing to confirm or deny this. However, the plan is basically unworkable. The Shias of Persia and the Pashtun Sunnis are mortal enemies. There is no possibility of involving Iran in any occupation force that will have any stability whatsoever.
Re: The neighbors of Taliban's section of Afghanistan are Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan.
You really ought to add China, since they've got a dog in the fight with their Uigur minority, and relatively easy access via the Karakorum Pass.
Re: Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have long been supporting the Norther Alliance:
Well, DUH! The Northern Alliance are predominantly Tajiks and Uzbeks.
Re: The Northern Alliance is 20 years old and is hardly fragile. It got along without us for decades. But with overt support from the US and Russia, and most of the rest of the developed world, now you think it's fragile?
OK, you don't like fragile, how about friable or fluid? My point is that alliegences are very shaky, alliances are ephemeral and the warlord you trust one day may be your enemy's buddy the next. Isn't that why Haq was on the ground in Afghanistan, to turn his fellow tribesmen? And wasn't it noted the he had a lot of cash to buy loyalty among his clansmen? I sincerely doubt that we'll be able to cement a solid coalition on our side within Afghanistan with any ease, if at all.
Re: Read what a Pak (who still lives there) says about the situation:
Here's the latest post he's put up on SI, a timely one in light of the topic. While not Iqbal's words, it certainly isn't saying that Mussaraf has total control of his population. If, as has been declared by DoD, bombing will continue during Ramadan, we can expect these 1.2 million faithful to be quite upset and in a cohesive unit. Not a great prospect for the Pakistani police.
Message 16595221
Re: The fact is that you don't know what is going on in the circles of power in Moslem nations any better than I do. But the evidence suggests things aren't as bad as you suggest.
You are quite correct about how little inside information I have to work with. But how do you define bad? Saudi authorities refuse to agree to the financial war we've declared on al Qa'ida, they refuse to share much police/military intelligence, indications are that certain members of the royal family are still providing funding for al Qu'ida, the country refused to let us fly sorties out of airbases there and you say things are going swell for the coalition? Huh?
Re: You need to recognize that the "news" is about entertainment. It is not even intended to be an accurate description of the political conditions.
I'm not sure why you'd be accusing me of naivete in this regard. Nothing in my writing suggests that I don't understand that the mass media in our culture has as its prime customer the corporate advertiser, and serving the advertiser is the principal goal of the media. The audience is merely the commodity to be sold. Truth, balance, judgement and wisdom are all tossed out the window in a world where ratings matter more than anything.
Re: Total casualties should be acceptable.
I see it isn't your keister that's on the firing line.
Re: Our options are as follows:
(1) React the way we have.
(2) Accept things as they are. Increase security in US airports &c., but basically ignore ObL's requests.
(3) Submit to ObL's requests.
I'm sorry, but I believe you paint entirely too simple and stark a list of choices. If I was king, the answer would undoubtedly be a blend of all three. Bin Laden ought to be taken out. No question. We will need to rethink our security policies at home and I believe it is more reasonable for the U.S. to start to take much more serious steps to get off the teat of cheap Middle Eastern oil. As I've written upstream, once all the costs of the oil are considered, it isn't worth it today, and it certainly leaves us more vulnerable in the future as our imports of oil continue toward 90 or 95%. We need to begin to steer a different course than to continue as a nation to be the handmaiden of the major oil companies, no matter how compelling the seduction of erstwhile "cheap oil" happens to be. As a friend of mine succinctly summed up the events of 9/11, "it's a heck of a price to pay for cheap oil."
[[Aside: You continue to amaze me with the quality and intelligence of your posts. Thanks for all the efforts you've put into them. <smile> ]]
Best, Ray |
