You don't know much about the region, and you don't know anything about the first words out of my mouth on 9/11. The first words out of my mouth were to a bunch of seventh and eighth graders at my daughter's school who thought that the Sears Tower was next. So the horse you rode in on, too!
If you want to fight Pakistan, I'm afraid you're going to have to go out and organize international brigades to do the job, because Bush & Co. aren't interested. There's no other place bin Laden could have gone, whether ISI lifted him out of Kunduz or he slipped through the Hindu Kush. Pakistan was accessible and where he has friends in high places. If not there, where? But Pakistan's quid pro quo for their "alliance" with the US in this war was that the war stops at the Afghan border (along with lifting sanctions imposed when they tested the bomb, increased aid, etc.) If the international coalition goes into Pakistan in force, I'll eat my words. (A few operatives traipsing around NWFP on a fool's errand don't count).
So, it appears, the only people being fooled by the rhetoric about the fight against terrorism as a fight against the new fascism are Hitchens and his kindred spirits. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld aren't about to let real American blood flow to stop what they regard, in fact, as a minor threat. They ARE interested in parlaying that threat into a capacity for imperial incursion throughout the world, just as Ashcroft is interested in using it to suspend civil liberties.
What do we have then? We had a war that overthrew the Taliban, but that did little to impede the operations of al-Qaeda. We have wars brewing against regimes and movements that have nothing at all to do with al-Qaeda. We have alliances with the principle supporters of al-Qaeda. Now just who is fighting thiswar against theocratic fascism that excites you so much?
Michael McIntyre
>>> peterk at enteract.com 05/04/02 12:42 PM >>>
McIntyre:
>Didn't happen, of course. Instead, we decided against all reason that Pakistan was >our ally in
the war against terror. Go figure. The al-Qaeda-linked camps in Pakistan >and Kashmir are in full
operation and we have no plans to go after them. Osama bin >Laden, the person we were supposed to
be after, is almost certainly in Pakistan or >Kashmir, and we have no plausible plan for extracting
him.
Remember, Pakistan wasn't a willing ally. They were forced. You failed to mention Saudi Arabia which supplied many of the hijackers. The U.S. should put its full weight on the both S.A. and Pakistan. Since they aren't, they're being soft on theocratic fascism, just like part of the left.
I believe the international coalition will be going into Pakistan soon, correct me if I'm wrong. Military dictator Musharraf says he will hand over the "power to govern" to an elected prime minister in October. What this does for the war on al-Qaeda, we shall see. I definitely think we should have aligned more with India and Iran even.
>In other words, removing the Taliban is one thing ad going after the al-Qaeda network >is another.
9/11 has almost nothing to do with the former, and the war that removed >the Taliban hasn't achieved
the latter. So, my manly men, are you up for a real war? >Since Osama has now taken refuge in
Pakistan and since Pakistan was, all along, his >real patron, do you extend the war or not?
How do you know Osama is in Pakistan? And why are you convinced they aren't looking for him?
Sure I'm up for a real war. Better that, than have al-Qaeda pull another 911 on the United States. 9/11 had a lot to do with the Taliban, because the members of al Qaeda were their "guests" according to the Taliban and they wouldn't turn them over. Poor memory on your part, unless this is just a dishonest selective recounting of facts.
>Or, like ush, are you two just cynically posturing?
>
>Michael McIntyre
I wouldn't call it cynically posturing. I would call it seriously thinking through the consequences of our actions and words. Fine, if the peaceniks are okay with stopping Osama too than we merely differ on tactics. Just as the peaceniks during WWII probably differed with elements of the left on tactics of stopping fascism and Hitler.
In general, the first words out of your mouths after 911 wasn't that U.S. should immediately do some sort of police action to prevent another 911. It was that the U.S. is not innocent and some even said America deserved it a la Falwell and Robertson. There was no call for a police action, just a call to discuss the "roots" of the problem. Very bad style.
And once the Taliban was removed and al Qaeda sent running - contrary to predictions of disaster and further terrorist attack I might emphasize - and once you received a rhetorical thrashing, there was belatedly a call for some sort of police action, short on specifics which might contradict previous arguments against force.
So I see it as either you never wanted the war to begin and in effect let al Qaeda roam free *or* you supported a hardcore police action - would there be any other kind? - that minimized casaulties on both sides. Manly enough for you?
Peter