> Jacob Segal wrote:
>> What I haven't seen is Doug or you explain just how this
>> theoretical military action could occur without the killing of innocents.
>
> Killing of innocents can't be avoided under any scenario. The Taliban
> kill innocents now, an unbroken al Qaeda will kill innocents in the
> future, a UN force would kill innocents. Our resident revolutionaries
> would have to concede that a revolution would kill innocents. This is
> an impossible standard to uphold. Doug
>
Max writes (snip)
>
> The UN solutions are not worth much either. You cannot
> expect effective military action by a broad coalition.
> The asymmetries of power make such coalitions illusory
> in the first place.
> There will be some lead dogs with closely shared goals,
> and some show dogs who risk little because they have
> little to gain. What soldier would want to put his or
> her life in the hands of an apparatus suffused with
> a plethora of political interests? There is enough
> of that in one country's armed forces. That's why
> it would be hard to muster a political majority in
> the U.S. for a conflict where U.S. soldiers were not
> under the command indirectly of polticians who have
> at least a smidgeon of local accountability.
>
> The many-named-babe made a point that has been glossed
> over: sometimes all of the choices suck. They still
> have to be made. We, and I do mean 'we,' have been
> attacked. We would be fools not to accept the need
> of the Gov to respond, not because that is what
> everybody thinks, nor because it is easy to do, nor
> because the Gov is an effective or legitimate instrument
> for such purposes, but because it is the only way to
> do what must be done.
>
> mbs
>
And up the ladder we go. With unknown consequences for Afghans in terms of killed in bombing and starvation due to bombing, and god knows what else. Obviously some civilians will be killed in any action. The question is whether any military action, whether US or UN can be conducted without large-scale loss of life. Perhaps Max is correct that action is necessary given the deadly nature of the al-quida network and the unknown dimensions of their weaponary and skill. But anyone who supports such action would have accept that the security of many is bought at the cost of the lives of another many.
Jacob Segal
Jacob Segal