What course of action should the U.S. take?

[RE]

In trying to think about this, I realize that to some degree the idea of a
moral course of action is determined by one's sense of the moral compass of
the attackers.  Are these guys capable of anything?  In trying to gauge
this, their relative anonymity and the impossibility of communicating with
them, coupled with the enormity of the attack, creates a push past
"punishment that fits the crime" in the direction of preemptive action to
ensure safety.  As a number of commentators and insiders have said, the
assumption had been that explosives, conventional or nuclear, or biological
weapons would be used.  Now that it becomes impossible to avoid the
conclusion that they would use them, aren't we pushed in the direction of
"treat them like mad dogs," or some other exterminative notion?   And, who
knows when they will strike next, do they have anything in reserve, etc.
It seems like the Fisk article, while not advocating this, does begin to
raise the idea  that we are in the position of dealing with people driven
mad with rage (not just over injustices, I think some of the jihad draws on
hatred of the liberation of women and a form of feudal ideology) and
religion.

I realize this is absurdly abstract, and ignores the ideal option that the
US could say "OK, we're going to rework our Mideast policy.  Israeli
settlements are going to be rolled back to x, Palestinians will have a
contiguous state with guaranteed water rights..."  on and on.  If that were
done, presumably the madness would lift to a significant degree, and then we
could talk about punishments for crimes committed, context, and so on.  But
it won't, and so we're driven in the direction of the laptop bombardiers,
because the jihad guys have declared themselves capable of anything, are
communicating by massacre and narcissistic blather about jihads, making the
death of thousands, or millions, legitimate (am I right about that, or does
the jihad concept have some internal limits?), and US policy on Israel is
inviolate.
re

----- Original Message -----
From: <lweiger at umich.edu>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: What course of action should the U.S. take?


> Earlier, I posed a similar question in the more general "when to respond
> tit-for-tat and when to turn the other cheek" form.  I haven't gotten any
> responses.  Assuming that Bin Laden is responsible (along with possible
> collusion from certain Arab states), what is the moral course for the US
to
> follow (regardless of the fact that the Bush will not take it)?
>
> -- Luke
>