From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 03:07:26 MST
<<Well, did the allied forces find bin Ladin? Did they destroy the Al-Qaida
network? Not at all. Conventional military is good when you can input the
coordinates of your enemy into GPS directed bombs, but they are worthless
against an internation network of small groups in several countries>>
Al Qeida surely wasn't destroyed. This was chiefly because the powers that be
decided they could develop a workable relationship with the Pakistan
governement. There may be many was to solve a problem as there are ways to
write a computer program, but it breaks down to elegent programming and
inelelegent programing. Similarly, the war against islamic terror, can be
conducted in a number of ways.
Terrorist attacks against Osama sympathizers would have shocked the jihadis
into re-thinking their options. This would have been my way, at least. But,
as I indicated before, this is the only game in town, so I will play by
Bushes rules for now.
<<Today, Afghanistan is a devasteted country, were only a small area around
Kabul is a relatively safe place. It only is because of the UN troops
there who help the new regime to establish and maintain a lawful system.
The farer away you get from Kabul, the less important all this becomes.
There are still clans fighting about control, power and influence in
their region. And many former Taliban are hidden among them.>>
Should I break out the hankerchiefs? The Taleban regime was deposed, and as
far as the UN goes, those bastards have caused more wars then they have
resolved. They and their stupid blue helmets can go to hell. Afghanistan is
freer now and the murderous regime, which you seem to gloss over is kaput.
Also, do you want us to discipline the clans so they behave themselves? We
can do that, but you would complain about American oppression of traditional
tribal culture, would you not? As for as hidden bad guys, in Japan, Italy,
and Germany, we had a few of those folks also, after WW2, securing office.
Kurt Waldheim as Chancellor of Austria, and yes UN chieftan, comes to mind.
<<The main problems in Afghanistan have not been solved, yet. It will take
decades to develop a civil and democratic society in Afghanistan. This
process will require a lot of personnel, money, tedious talks and
development aid. But if we don't spend this aid, Afghanistan will fall
back into its old system and be a wonderful shelter for every fanatic
muslim group.>>
I have no problem helping a 15th century society make its own way, but you
have to kick out the the Taleban and co-mingled Al Qeida thugs before any
progress can take place. The USA invaded for its own self-serving reasons,
and Afghanistan benefited anyway. There was considerable Afghani resentment
against the Taleban for bringing Islamic Arab enforcers into Afghanistan to
perform the dirty work, of executions and enforcement of Sharia.
<<The question is, if we will survive the counterstrike of the other
chicken :-) How many young, politically mislead people from arabia will
this "omlette" push into the fangs of Al-Qaida and other terrorist
groups? How much more funds will these groups raise in islamic countries?>>
This hypothesis has been bounced around, and what actually results
experientially is the Islamic street, the Souk, respects power and its steady
use. The vast majority of Muslims will (apparently) ride the winning horse,
so to speak. Under Clinton, the perception, correct or not, was that of
American decline and weakness. This is not what I believe of the recent
American past, but it seems to actually be what many Muslims believed.
<<The bad news is, that the islamic militants have won the war of the minds
in their countries by providing schools, social aid and a meaning for
their life. This gives them almost unlimited support. We, the western
world, have to convince the majority of the people there, that it is far
better not to follow those ideas of a closed belief system, but to go
with us. We have to convince them, that we are not going to plunder their
resources, destroy their culture, fight their religion, raise McDonalds
temples on their holy ground. >>
I think you try too hard to please people who may just dislike you no matter
what you attempt. The success of the Islamist today are a reflection of the
failure of Arab nationalism, Baathist Socialism, and so forth. They are
pissed off at the west because they are envious, and they seem to feel that
if they have all the answers, due to being the 'true faith,' then why does
the West prosper?
Finally, I believe its fair to announce that "fighting their religion" is
almost axiomatic. The general philosphy is a kind of religious-political
imperialism, all its own. Just because you are tolerant of other kinds of
people, does not mean that your forthright behavior will be returned. Respect
is a two way street, and not merely a moral obligation of western lands.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST