>Yoshie, this seems to be the point:
>
>"The U.S. government will commit more ground troops and bring more
>aid, advice, & air support with them. Why should leftists like you
>argue for what they are going to do in any case?"
>
>Will it?
You can count on it.
>I thought the most it was considering was a few cammando raids,
>dropped and picked up as an arm of the air war.
>
>The US seems to want to fight a proxy war just so it can avoid the
>real problems (by air or via the Northern Alliance).
Commandoes, air strikes, Afghan & other proxies, etc. will also continue to be used, as U.S. ground troops have & will continue to be deployed. The U.S. government, unlike the "pro-ground-war" leftists, doesn't see its choice as "either air or ground," as if it could only use either bombers & fighters or infantrymen on the ground.
>I will use just a couple of illustrations: First Iraq. Regardless of
>the fact that Kuwait really is the bottom bit of Iraq, regardless of
>the fact that the invasion was taken on behest of a mass murderer,
>and because the US overwhelmed the garrison and routed the army, at
>that point, when the Iraq had been all but defeated, it was a crime
>not to take Baghdad and topple the regime. At that point the US
>suddenly became peaceful and the cameras were turned off and people
>really began their suffering (at the hands of Sadaam and the
>sanctions).
>
>It is at that point we should have said - finalise the war. Now I am
>under no illusions if the US had done this the replacement regime
>would not be one we would like, but it would be a much better
>situation for the people of Iraq and the West would be faced with
>the necessity to take some responsibility for what it had done and
>this would be important also. Instead the left kept on about peace
>regardless of the circumstances, a cover for the actual plans to
>punish the people of Iraq.
>
>Second East Timor. We prattled on here in Australia about
>independence, about the oppression of the East Timorese people and
>then a vote is organized, organisied in such a way as to further
>terrorize the people and end up abducting a large section of the
>population still held as hostages in Indonesia, we were frankly
>taken by surprise. We did not know that at the time, but when
>Australia sent a handful of policemen who were promptly withdrawn
>when things got nasty, at that point we should have made good our
>responsiblity, instead the government dithered with a purpose (long
>enough for the Indonesian military to do its dirty work), and
>arrived only to tidy up some of the mess left behind (by the way all
>for the sake of oil as well).
>
>When the violence started at the time of the vote the left should
>have been vocal of immediate military intervention, but we were not.
>It was clear then the duplicity of our government, it was absolutely
>clear that the violence (which had been warned about time and time
>again) was expected and part of the plan - but the Australian left
>would not, could not suggest anything as impure as military
>protection being sent, far better that thousands of East Timorese
>die and tens of thousands be made virtual prisoners in Indonesia
>than we sully ourselves saying what needed to be done.
First you & your political party (whatever it is) have to take _political power_, lawfully or unlawfully; then you can actually determine _how_ the armed forces of your nation will be deployed. An advocate of realism like yourself should be able to understand that. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Anti-War Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Anti-War Organizing in Columbus Covered by the Media: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/media.html>