I am going to jump on board with Yoshie's suggestions here. Even though I think the terror network involved in the attacks will eventually be shown to be some form of Islamic clerical fascism, I don't think a military attack by the US will solve anything, and most likely will make things worse. Also, let's reject US unilateralism and support problem-solving by the United Nations, the World Court, etc.
I now say:
This is one of those very rare instances in which I would actually (in theory) support so-called "humanitarian imperialism" -- exploiting 9-11 as an excuse to liberate the Afghani people from the Taliban, as long as there was international consensus on this (via substantive deliberation in the UN that did not kowtow to the realpolitik that prevails within the Security Council), actual multilateral command-and-control over military logistics, the minimization of civilian casualties, resources in place to deal w/refugees, and a commitment to setting up a post-war secular reform regime that had popular backing. I don't think progressive formations in Afghanistan (or in exile in Pakistan) -- Revolutionary Women of Afghanistan, small radical labor parties, secular reformers -- would oppose this. They have even come out in favor of installing the pre-1978 constitutional monarch as the head of state in a transitional government.
The reason I say "in theory" is b/c no such possibility of a bona fide multilateral military effort that minimizes civilian casualities exists. Apparently the U.S. has already had special ops inside Afghanistan (as USA Today reports) trying to pin down and assassinate Bin Laden for 2 weeks or so, despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence services have yet to convince NATO (much less world opinion) that Al Qaeda was behind 9-11. Despite all the soothing noises about military restraint and coalition-building from the Pentagon and the State Department over the last few days (which may have served to stem anti-war organizing in the U.S.) it looks like the U.S. is planning massive air raids in the very near future, which will ostensibly provide "cover" for Northern Alliance ground troops -- both with the purpose of ousting the Taliban in mind. The only "coalition" partners the U.S. really seems to care about are those states on the perimeter of Afghanistan that can provide air bases or staging grounds for land invasions (Russia, Central Asian states, etc.) or those which might undergo social explosions when the really heavy hitting begins (Saudi Arabia, e.g.) -- and obviously Pakistan fits into both categories. Quite clearly the unfolding U.S. pseudo-multilateralist carpet-bombing-as-"air cover" approach is a recipe for massive civilian casualties, a refugee crisis, inability to quickly construct a viable state afterwards, etc. It doesn't even appear to be very ideal from UnoCal's point of view.
Another point which doesn't fit neatly into the narrative I have outlined above: supposing that one supports a multilateral, casualty-minimizing campaign to overthrow the Taliban in addition to "capturing" Bin Laden and destroying the El Qaeda infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that according to Afghani labor radicals the Taliban will fall more easily (due to the populace's almost total antipathy toward them, save a few groupings of students in the clerical schools) than will bin Laden, since he apparently has a huge private army of sympathizers (and possibly chemical and biological weapon capacity) at his disposal. The irony is this: there is clear domestic and (less so) international support for a "limited mission" to "bring Bin Laden to justice" (by a combination of diplomatic, intelligence, and special op means). There is less ample domestic and international support for toppling the Taliban (in the U.S. domestic case b/c of the "Vietnam syndrome" and latent isolationist/anti-imperialist sentiments amongst the populace). Yet the "limited mission" of wiping out Al Qaeda within Afghanistan may prove far more bloody and cruel (for ordinary Afghani people) and far more likely to exacerbate the civil war within Afghanistan than will the "expanded mission" of toppling the Taliban.
Even though I am still espousing Yoshie's program, I must admit that the more and more I survey the details of this whole atrocious mess, the harder it becomes to take a clear position. All the better, then, I suppose to take an unyielding stand against U.S. military intervention of any sort, including the "special ops" allegedly aimed specifically at Bin Laden (although this is almost a moot point, since the Delta Force and the Navy Seals etc. have already been unleashed).
John Gulick
John Gulick Postgraduate Researcher Institute for Research on World-Systems University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92521 e-mail: jlgulick at sfo.com work phone: (909) 787-4203 home phone: (909) 788-9816