On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
> Hey I'm being outflanked on the right, on LBO no less. I must act.
>
> It seems to me that nation-building has much more risk of mayhem and
> destruction of innocents than a more limited invasion. It's one thing
> to go in, kill some bad guys (and some innocents in the process), and
> split. It's another to hang around and have to defend yourself -- be
> the object of a guerilla war -- while creating a new state.
No one's talking about physically hanging around, Max. It will be the same short intervention in both cases. The result of the intervention you describe will be the weakening and fragmenting of the Taliban, and therefore a the end of the balance of power that is now keeping most of the country at peace. The Northern Alliance will then advance whether we want them to or not, and many of the local Pashtun commanders that previously supported the Taliban will give them up and become free agents. So there is no avoiding it: you will be bringing back war. The only question is now: will you back a UN political process that, in large part through your backing, gives these newly loosened fragments a clearly advantageous side to throw their lot in with? And that has a chance of helping them attain their common interest in peace? Or will you just pull out the rug and, having set it off the war by having destroyed the balance of power, walk away unconcerned, and by doing so, ensure it will last? The latter is what you are advocating, as far as I can tell. I am still at a loss as to how that will entail less suffering for the people that live there or more security for ourselves. Really I am.
For what it's worth, I envision the military intervention in either case being the same. The US will strike air defenses, such as they are; training camps, which have long been empty now; and whatever hiding place we think we can find OBL. The Northern Alliance will then use this opportunity to advance overland. The Taliban will have two choices: mass to meet the Northern Alliance, in which case they will be destroyed by air power out in the countryside, minimizing civilian casualties; or head for the hills. In either case, this will confirm to tribal chieftains and local commanders what they've already been surmising, that the Taliban is no longer the horse to back. And then, as our soldiers leave, the real jockeying will begin, both political and military. There is an opportunity here, since a legitimate government must have serious Afghan-Pashtun elements, and those can only be liberated by fragmenting the Taliban, which can only be done by military threat. But if there is no clear horse for all factions to back, a re-ignited civil war, with all its dangers and suffering, seems inevitable.
As for being outflanked on the right, no, I don't think so. Yours is the Wolfewitz position. Liberal internationalism is to your left.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com