|
|||||||||
Posted October 20, 2001
Objective and Diverse
While I am a supporter of our current "War on Terrorism" and the military actions that it entails, I find your website and commentary to be objective and diverse. As much as I rely on CNN and FOX News for coverage, I don't go through one day without visiting your website to discover the latest news from around the world.
Unlike the majority of protesters I observe in my city (San Francisco), you actually give "Peaceniks" a good name!
Quagmire
I thought that Chris Deliso's column ... [of October 17], "The Afghan Quagmire Beckons," contained some very well-stated arguments, which I'm nonetheless forced to disagree with. His central premise seems to be that the mess in Afghanistan will sort itself out without us doing a thing. First of all, that's a very theoretical notion, one which I'm not sure will satisfy the very legitimate desire for justice on the part of us Americans saddened and angered by the murder of 5000 of our countrymen. Secondly, as theoretical notions go, it's not a very sound one, seeing as how Afghanistan is one of the few places on earth that the U.S. has pretty much stayed out of for the last five years (with the exception of a couple of cruise missiles Clinton lamely threw at them in '98), and during that time the Taliban were progressively consolidating their power over the place, and nobody was talking about a "loya jirga" or any other such high minded ideas.
Much as His Royal Highness Zahir Shah may not like to admit it, the only thing – the only thing – that provided an opening for his much-vaunted council idea was the threat of American action against the Taliban's stranglehold on Afghan society. Helping their enemies right now, while the iron is hot, is of vital importance if our objective is to make them pay for their crimes against us.
I share Mr. Deliso's caution about blindly signing on to the enemies of our enemies. But we don't have to pretend that we like the Northern Alliance, we don't have make them out to be "freedom fighters" or any of that nonsense; hell, we probably don't even necessarily have to deal with the entire kit and caboodle, since as the term "alliance" implies, it seems to consist of several factions, some of which may be considerably more respectable than others. Rather than pursue this idiotic game of trying to split off "moderate" elements of the Taliban (maybe we can find "moderate" elements of the Mafia while we're at it), we'd be far wiser to put our efforts towards finding an ally in the north that we can actually work with, and then get to work on driving the Taliban six feet into the ground once and for all.
Christopher Deliso replies:
Many thanks for your insightful criticisms, which seem to have predicted some ways I'd been planning to expand on in future articles. I apologize if I have failed to be clear. Since I feel a bit misunderstood, however, I would like to address your criticisms.
You claim my "central premise" to be that "...the mess in Afghanistan will sort itself out without us doing a thing." Not so. What I mean is that, among the many diplomatic, military and other options we have, Neanderthal-style, spur-of-the-moment alliances may come to be regretted – like as is so often the case when you take someone to bed while severely intoxicated.
The point is, we are paying these diplomats the big bucks to work subtly and carefully – not to clank around like Frankensteins. Is it asking too much of our appointed leaders to think about the long-term effects of their new friendships? After all, what's left to show, for Russia and the US alike, of all those Afghan alliances of the past 20 years? Yep – terrorism, and more terrorism.
What you take to be my "premise" is dismissed as "a very theoretical notion... which I'm not sure will satisfy the very legitimate desire for justice" of the American people. Further, you maintain, it's not even a "good" theoretical notion, because "Afghanistan is one of the few places on earth the US has pretty much stayed out of during the past five years."
That my (real) position is not theoretical has been discussed; as for the "desire for justice" and your latter assertion, these are a bit more murky. I don't think that killing innocent Afghanis in highly-conspicuous bombing raids – which become a PR feast for bin Laden-esque fanatics – is the way to go. I have been speaking with a lot of Afghan-Americans lately, and they have two main points: one, the US should have helped in a positive way after the Soviets left, instead of just up and leaving; and two, that the Afghanis themselves are really not at fault – the Taliban is a Pakistani institution, the cash is foreign, the weapons are foreign, the bulk of the fighters are foreign. Why should the Afghanis suffer doubly for the evils of a regime which was already killing 200-300 civilians a day, even before September 11th?
Near the end of my article, I left open the question of what kind of intervention the US should attempt. I purposefully left it open. All I said was the old style, enemy of your enemy approach, will not cut it. Stay tuned – in a few days I will present the case for how to intervene – positively.
Moral Distinction
The antiwar movement is not so big that we can afford to insult each other.
How
can a reasonable person make any
distinction, as Raimondo attempts
to do, between the civilians murdered
by the US government all over the
world for the last fifty years,
and the WTC victims?
The ugly truth is that there is
no moral distinction between Bin
Laden's methods and the methods
employed by murderous US rulers.
Speaking the truth is not being
"anti-American"; it's
an act of patriotism apparently
far beyond anything Raimondo could
ever comprehend.
Oh, and lastly, giving in to Bin
Laden's demands, i.e., ending our
unconditional support of Israeli
brutality, stopping the slaughter
of Iraqi children, and no longer
propping up corrupt, oppressive,
Arab governments is the right
thing to do.
Another Point of View
I'd like to congratulate you for your website, which I've been checking for the last few days, it's getting very difficult to get news about what's going on in the USA from another point of view.
I am sending you ... an article about Blair's speech, ... which you might find interesting for your site. The title is "Society's freedoms may be curtailed".
To Kill Lawfully
I am from Hong Kong. I am unhappy about, and unwilling to see, any kind of war in the world. Human beings have invented enough crazy weapons to terminate the existence of the human race already. Do we need to fight against each other? – people to people; race to race; country to country and – the most unbelievable point – ... religion to religion, too?
I don't believe in any religion (because people use them to fight with each other) but I do believe in all religions (that they are to guide us in a good direction). ...I disagree with people killing each other – no matter in what way. War is one of the most terrible ways because it allows people to kill lawfully, in a way.
The Drug Trade = Terrorism Argument
I foresee that the drug trade = terrorism argument will be used to justify deeper US military and covert intelligence involvement in South East Asia and South America.
The American people have been grudging, at best, in their support of Plan Colombia / The Andean Initiative. If the government can persuade the public that the ELN, FARC and the rightist paramilitaries are "terrorists," the resistance to join that fight will minimize. I don't think that it's mere coincidence that George Will, with his connections to the Bush administration, drew the parallels he did between our fighting the Medellin drug cartel in the 1980's with our campaign against Mr. bin Laden now (in his Newsweek piece from last week).
~ Lloyd G.