>I did? What I said was that the police approach wouldn't work if it
>just meant parachuting the NYPD in with subpoenas.
Assuming that Washington had evidence to request extradition of individuals residing in foreign nations including Afghanistan, it should have presented evidence to existing governments and negotiated with them for extradition of suspects. Whether the foreign governments that agree to cooperate with Washington decide to use their police or military or anything in-between, that's their business.
In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban did ask for evidence, but Washington basically said "fuck you" and proceeded to invade Afghanistan. That's not the way to go. Some would say that the Taliban might have failed to arrest Osama bin Laden and Co., on purpose or due to lack of competence, but if they had been allowed to try and fail, we would not have been any worse off, and their failure would have saved a lot of lives and money that Washington's failure so far has cost Americans, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.
>Punishment. Not that it's easy to know what to be for right now. But
>one thing is clear - our entire inherited antiwar vocabulary just
>doesn't apply in this case. The message used to be easy: no
>intervention. Things are very different when you're opposing not yet
>another outrageous imperial adventure, but a hugely murderous attack
>on your home territory.
Well, it can happen again, and if it does, see above. Just say no to any use of the US military force overseas -- it wastes lives and money.
>What is needed is some kind of seriously international action to
>capture the guilty - following upon a serious worldwide
>investigation - and to rebuild Afghanistan. That would require some
>sort of force; it's not like you could parachute the NYPD into Kabul
>to serve some arrest warrants. But whatever force that's applied
>should be multilateral and tightly focused.
It's now multilateral all right, and the largest numbers of foreign troops today come from Germany (2159), Canada (998), France (873), Belgium (609), Spain (544), etc.: <http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm>.
But what should they focus on? Do they know? Do we? Does anyone?
As for rebuilding, you know it won't happen. International aid is a racket. Money simply goes to paying for security forces and aid workers from rich nations (and a few petit-bourgeois natives who speak English or some other European language), and their purchasing power makes many things more expensive for locals than before. Not worth it. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * "Proud of Britain": <http://www.proudofbritain.net/ > and <http://www.proud-of-britain.org.uk/>