>I remember Chomsky being asked, not long after 9/11,
>what actions he would support. I remember him saying
>that simple police procedurals -- enhanced from time
>to time by special forces action to take on the truly
>hardcore and well-armed -- would be enough IF married
>to a change in American behavior.
>
>Seems just right to me.
well, not to rehearse the ancient battle that occurred in the months post 911, but doll, the special forces were in Afghanistan and Iraq before 9.11. So was the CIA. There were stories that we didn't have good intelligence on the ground and all that hoo ha. Not so. We were already there, infiltrating al Qaeda, the Taliban, and various outfits in Iraq.
If some terrorist outfit is holed up in the inaccessible mountains of Afghanistan, how do you get inside Afghanistan if Afghanistan doesn't want you in? Before 911 Clinton shot 66 missiles at the mountins trying to al Qaeda. They were doing it with technology that let them track ObL's movements as if you could see him across the street.
If you hear about something coming down the pike, and the guys you're after are in Pakistan, how do you get Pakistan to let you in their country to hunt them down. Oh, you use Pakistani police? Who's gonna pay for it? And are you just letting some other country's cops do the dirty (terrorizing) work?
Basically, I just think that the juridico-legal answer seems nicer because no one's really thought about how you go after terrorists. As we speak, I know of a few people who are sitting around with a bunch of futuritsts, technologists, the NSC, NSA, FBI, CIA, etc talking about the future of warfare using new tech and new warfare tactics. I shit you not.
Kelley
Kelley