Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The tortuous path from Kandahar to Guantanamo
They say journalists provide the first draft of history. With the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, that draft led to an almost universal consensus, at least among Americans, that the attack was a justifiable act of self-defense. The Afghanistan action is commonly viewed as a "clean" conflict as well – a war prosecuted with minimal loss of life, and one that didn't bring the kind of international opprobrium onto the United States that the invasion of Iraq would lead to a year later.
Those views are also held by many Americans who are critical of the excesses of the Bush administration's "War on Terror." But there's a disconnect there. Everything that followed – secret detentions, torture, the invasion of Iraq, the assault on domestic dissent – flowed inevitably from the failure to challenge Bush's claim that an act of terror required a military response. The United States has a rich history of abandoning its purported liberal values during times of war, and it was our acceptance of Bush's war narrative that led to the abuses that have shattered America's moral standing before the world.
Thus does Joshua Holland begin an article in which he presents an interview with Andy Worthingnton, author of The Guantanamo Files which
... offers a much-needed corrective to the draft of the Afghanistan conflict that most Americans saw on their nightly newscasts. Worthington is the first to detail the histories of all 774 prisoners who have passed through the Bush administration's "legal black hole" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But his history starts in Afghanistan, and makes it abundantly clear that the road to Guantánamo – not to mention Abu Ghraib – began in places like Kandahar.
From there the process is one of connecting the dots and tracing the path that led to the abandoning of principles once held to be fundamental to the US system of justice. The process has been cloaked in lies and spin and the first question and answer addresses a fundamental misrepresentation:
Joshua Holland: I think most Americans believe that we went into Afghanistan to rout anti-American or anti-Western "jihadi," but your book captures the fact that the U.S. entered on one side of a long-standing civil war that had nothing to do with any sort of "clash of civilizations" between East and West. Can you give us some sense of what that conflict was about?
Andy Worthington: Sure, it's a very good question, actually. Briefly, the roots of the conflict lie in the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, when the United States, via Pakistani intermediaries, and the Saudis vied to fund the mujahideen – Afghan warlords and their soldiers, backed up by a rather smaller number of Arab recruits.
At the end of the 1980s, when the Soviet Union withdrew, the country was plunged into a civil war, as the various warlords, pumped up with billions of dollars of U.S. and Saudi aid, fought each other to gain control of the country. Tens of thousands of civilians died, and crime and human rights abuses were rife.
Largely in response to this lawlessness, the Taliban – initially a group of ultraorthodox religious students from the south of the country – rose up to cleanse the country by creating a pure Islamic state. Their project, too, was soon derailed by brutality and by a religious fundamentalism that shocked the West, but it was the struggle between the Taliban and the warlords of the Northern Alliance that attracted thousands of foreign foot soldiers to Afghanistan in the 1990s, summoned by fatwas issued by radical sheikhs in their homelands, which required them to help the Taliban in their struggle against the Northern Alliance.
Osama Bin Laden, who had been living in Saudi Arabia and Sudan in the post- Soviet period, returned to Afghanistan in 1996 and became involved in funding military training camps and building up his plans for a global, anti-American jihad, but – although there was some overlap between Al Qaeda and parts of the Taliban leadership – the vast majority of the recruits, as I've indicated, were involved not in a grand "clash of civilizations" but in a provincial inter-Muslim civil war.
And from that we get to Guantanamo, and Iraq.
For more on the Guantanamo trial processes there is this further article by Worthtington.
It has been a long and twisted and tortuous path indeed.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Winning Hearts and Minds
Based in Afghanistan?
Ian MacDougall: "Terrorist attacks on targets in the western world carried out by terrorists based in Afghanistan have arguably diminished severely since the invasion of that country began."
Please argue it, Ian, because I think that is a completely fallacious statement.
How many attacks on targets in the western world were carried out by terrorists based in Afghanistan before that country was invaded (again)?
Can you name for us just one, Ian?
How about any attack on targets in the western world carried out by an Afghani, can you cite even one for us?
Make sure you're accurate, Ian
Ian, please do make sure you give an accurate account of the attacks on targets in the western world carried out by terrorists based in Afghanistan before that country was invaded.
Follow the official line on responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, for example, and we have to consider where the 19 9/11 hijackers had been "based". We know where each was born and from in the sense of being a national: Saudi Arabia; United Arab Emirates; Lebanon; Egypt. Where would you say each on was "based"?
We also have to consider KSM's role. He confessed his responsibility "from A to Z." Where would you say he had been "based"?
Credible answers
Ian, I'd provided an answer when pointing out that you'd been disinclined to even mention what we might call the "Smart Response" or "Sustainable Security" school.
I'd pointed out that the appropriate response was: First, learning something about "cause and effect"; second, seeking to capitalise on the great deal of sympathy evident in the world that September (sympathy much eroded since then); and third, doing something intelligent to cooperate in addressing the causes and cease creating the very conditions that are likely to lead to further acts of a similar nature.
I'd asked you a few questions, including: What of this school that knows that terrorism is a tactic, a means to an end, ... this school that realises you cannot declare war on a tactic, ... this school that sees a sustained campaign to win hearts and minds as one that makes so much more sense?
And: Why did you not list this school?
I'm assuming you couldn't answer those questions.
So now I've got two more for you:
Why didn't you answer those questions?
Why do you think the Sustainable Security approach isn't a credible answer?
Sub-humans? Carpet bombing Gaza?
Can we take it from your comment, Alan Curran, that you are aligned with the 3.6% who praise Dr Goldstein?
Do you also admire the HaYamin HaAmiti and other Kahanist organisations?
Carpet bombing
Craig Rowley, No I do not admire the Kahanist organisations as I believe they were outlawed in 1985. It is a pity the Palestinians don't outlaw Hamas, that would be a good starting point but they will not because Hamas are not fussy whether they kill Israelis or Palestinians. However I think if you polled 500 Israelis after the massacre of the students you might get a different result. I know I felt sick to my stomach when I saw the Palestinians celebrating in the streets after the students were shot, they did the same thing when the Twin Towers came down. How the hell can you negotiate with people with this mentality, however a couple of hundred smart bombs might do the trick at least it's worth a try. However don't you worry about it, the Israelis will do what has to be done they are the ones that have to live next to these sub-humans.
How the hell?
Alan, how the hell is it that you can't see how "people with this mentality" become "people with this mentality" in the first place?
How the hell is it that you can't see the need to stop creating the very conditions causing people to have adopted that "mentality"?
How the hell do you think your demonisation and calls for indiscriminant killing of Palestinians (by "carpet bombing" Gaza) does any good in discouraging people from adopting that "mentality"?
The only language
Yep, Alan, the extremists on both sides of that conflict -- Islamist and Zionist -- certainly do speak the same lingo.
Thing is they never seem to learn that whether you call it qisas or middah k'neged middah in anyone's language, lex talionis leads to blindness.
Murder And Moral Depravity
When Dr Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Moslems at prayer in 1994, there was no attempt at "linkage", least of all by those so quick to find links now. The atrocity was condemned unconditionally by all other than a few ratbags. As it should have been.
It has been said many times and needs to be said many more. To find moral equivalence between the acts of murderers and defence forces doing their jobs is morally depraved. To jump to trumped up "root causes" in mitigation when the murder victims happen to be from one ethnic group, but not from another, is at best intellectually lazy and probably something far worse.
Everything is linked to everything elses
The linkage was made at the time of the '94 massacre, Geoff Pahoff. For example, this Time story puts the massacre into the context of the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
That's what "linkage" is all about - or should be. Not "moral eqivalence", but context. Perhaps the USA has been right to veto all those resolutions condemning Israel that do not include a corresponding condemnation of Palestinian atrocities. To set them in context.
The UNSC passed resolution 904 condemning the Hebron massacre, paragraph by paragraph. The USA abstained on two of the preambular paragraphs:
and The resolution then passed without putting it to a vote. Afterwards, Mrs Albright said: That's linkage, but it wasn't convenient to have it in the resolution.I note that Israel has approved 750 new homes in the West Bank, near Jerusalem (ABC report). Does this have any relevance to "moral equivalence"?
PS: UNSC resolution 904 and the associated debate are available on the UN site, but I'm not finding exact addresses at this time of night.
Ahem....
"Scott: Guerillas do have a record of targeting 'their own'.” etc. Shooting from the hip rarely pays Ian, I've also fallen into the trap of not reading posts properly.
“To find moral equivalence between the acts of murderers and defence forces doing their jobs is morally depraved.” Ferkrisake Geoff hit me but don’t shit me. You talking about Genghis Khan’s boys or the Panzers here? Let’s examine your terminology. “Defence forces”, probably the most sickening of euphemisms when the proper name would be “Attack forces”.
“To jump to trumped up "root causes" in mitigation when the murder victims happen to be from one ethnic group, but not from another, is at best intellectually lazy and probably something far worse.”
Bollocks, what is intellectually lazy is the deliberate misrepresentation of another’s position. Worse, it is dishonest. When will apologists for US foreign policy stop accusing rationalists of “giving comfort to the enemy” and shit like the foregoing. Get it into your, not so much thick but wilfully ignorant heads, we do not find any mitigation or excuse for terrorism, ever. We seek reason and sensibility.
A hip shot?
Scott: "Let's get down to basics. Just for starters; to include 'guerrillas' in this context is wrong. Guerrillas do not wage war against their own (unless they are collaborators with an occupying force) and only operate in their homeland."
You only occupy after you have conquered. Apodeti in East Timor were collaborators with the occupying Indonesian TNI. The KMT in China were never in any such relationship with anyone. Nor were the Batista gang in Havana (except maybe with the US Mafia). Nor were the various regimes in Saigon, for the US was never an 'occupying force' in South Vietnam.
Now of course, the US bankrolled the French (who were fighting in 1945-54 to retain their colonial presence) and after they gave up, bankrolled a series of puppet regimes in Saigon, supplied them with arms and rotated from memory about 2 million troops through the country, but were never properly speaking an occupying power the way the French and Japanese had been, for unlike them, the US was trying to set up indirect rather than direct rule. A puppet regime of course is different from an outright colony.
A terrorist can operate against his own fellow nationals or against foreigners. Hence the old saying, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. However, I am disinclined to call the Taliban, Al-Quaeda and the jihadists freedom fighters from any perspective.
"I've always thought that 9/11 was not designed so much to punish the US as to provoke it. If that is the case it has succeeded spectacularly. To extend US military and financial resources to breaking point. Ring any bells? Now maybe you understand what I meant by appropriate response."
You are quite right there, without need for any bells. The US was mightily provoked, and as I have said, was placed into a position where it was damned if it did and damned if it didn't. Which only raises my original question: what (specifically) would have been an appropriate response? Note that a search for 'root causes' was suggested in some quarters at the time, but confinement to that failed to get much support at all politically.
Justin: Your link to the SMH was most informative. The book sounds like a total bucketing of Ms Rice. However...
"Why does the above article in todays SMH not surprise me?
"Because it was plain for all to see."
What was plain for all to see exactly? A coming AQ attack such as occurred on 9/11 (amongst a number of possibilities)?
I disagree. It was plain for some to see: those given the information. Arguably, given Rice's refusal to listen, the frustrated intelligence people should have taken it straight to the press, with immunity for doing so.
"In the best of possible worlds skyscrappers [sic] are made for aeroplanes to fly into, fingers are made in just the right shape to pull triggers and innocent babies are born so we can murder them again when revenge suits."
Sorry. You've lost me.
Disinclined?
Ian MacDougall: "...I am disinclined to call the Taliban, Al-Quaeda [sic] and the jihadists freedom fighters from any perspective."
Unfortunately, Ian, the same cannot be said for Republican President Ronald Reagan and his supporters and as a result of the "Reagan Doctrine", the US government certainly wasn't disinclined to apply the label "freedom fighters" to various mujahedeen, including those whom in time formed the core of al-Qaeda and other groups of muharibun.
Though I'm pretty sure you're disinclined to acknowledge that.
Blindspot, Geoff?
I understand that a poll of 500 Israeli adults for the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East found that 78.8 percent of people condemned the Purim massacre while only 3.6 percent praised the extremist Dr Goldstein.
I did write "... the extremists on both sides ..."
Did you miss that, Geoff?
What words would you use?
If expressions such as 'confusion', 'division', 'moral/political weakness' would have described a "non-military response" to the Sept 11 atrocities, Ian, then what words would you use to describe the pattern of systematic prevarication and deceit, at the highest levels of Western 'authority', that enabled the Iraq war?
The thesis seems to be that "most people in the world" expected Bush & Co to do something — hell, any old thing — to exact what often looks, feels and smells like retribution for Sept 11.
For some, moreover, it's just plain unremarkable that the Administration exploited this broad 'expectation' in order to advance various other strategic and mercantile agendas, beyond the imperatives of security and justice.
Ah well, perhaps ultimately that really is the time-honoured way in which people 'do business' with each other, in the best of all possible worlds.
Panglossian possibilities
Jacob: "For some, moreover, it's just plain unremarkable that the Administration exploited this broad 'expectation' in order to advance various other strategic and mercantile agendas, beyond the imperatives of security and justice.
"Ah well, perhaps ultimately that really is the time-honoured way in which people 'do business' with each other, in the best of all possible worlds."
I have encountered a number of schools of thought on 9/11 and the Afghan and Iraq wars.
The 'America has a devil government' school says that 9/11 was a conspiracy set up by the Neocons to enable them to get into Iraq and grab the oil, and to put that pipeline through Afghanistan from Azerbaijan. (eg former Webdiarist Damian Lataan.)
The 'America is always wrong' school says that Bush & Co grabbed the glorious opportunity 9/11 presented to enable them to get into Iraq and grab the oil, and to put that pipeline through Afghanistan from Azerbaijan. (eg John Pilger)
The righteous indignation school more or less accepts the official line that came from Bush & Blair. The original attack was because the jihadists hate America for what it represents, and see their own interests as best served by perpetual poverty and ignorance in the Muslim world, but they must not be allowed to get away with it. Any attempt to weaken the West, especially via the petrol pump, must be strenuously resisted. (eg John Howard)
The 'strike while the iron is hot' school unabashedly used the opportunity presented to make up for letting Saddam off the hook in Gulf War 1. (eg PNAC)
Each of them consists of its own special blend of cynicism and sincerity, opportunism and principle, and selective perception. For my own part, I judge political projects according to the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, (but with this important modification: I do not hold the life of a car bomber to be of equal value to that of one of his victims.)
I saw the 9/11 attack at the time as one hell of a provocation. Bush was over a barrel; damned if he responded militarily, and damned if he didn't. I think it was Thomas Friedman who said at the time that, whatever else happened, an Arab government had to fall. (Two did, one secular Arab, one fundamentalist Afghan.) How cynical Bush and Blair were can only be known in the light of the actual intelligence they had, which will not be available to historians for some time yet.
I, along with a mass of people ranging from the UN Security Council across to Saddam Hussein's own military high command, believed at the time that Saddam had WMD, and I think Bush and Blair went into Iraq sure and certain that they would find stacks of them.
On that subject, I disagreed stongly at the time with those who said that it did not matter if Saddam had WMD, on the grounds that even if he did have them, he could not possibly use them (eg Scott Burchill.)
As a young man I had the opportunity to travel extensively in North Korea, 5 years after the armistice of Panmunjom. I have seen what war does to people, and have listened to many eyewitness accounts from both combatants and civilians.
The one consolation lies in the fact that relatively few of the world's present 6.8 billion people have fallen victim to it, though arguably all lives have been affected by it in some way.
The smart response school?
What of the school, Ian, that we might call the "Smart Response" or "Sustainable Security" school?
What of this school in which what happened on that day (9/11) is viewed as a consequence of conditions created over time, the combined effect of a range of actions preceeding that date?
What of this school that had perceived the appropriate response as first, learning something about "cause and effect"; second, seeking to capitalise on the great deal of sympathy evident in the world that September (sympathy much eroded since then); and third, doing something intelligent to cooperate in addressing the causes and cease creating the very conditions that are likely to lead to further acts of a similar nature?
What of this school that knows that terrorism is a tactic, a means to an end, ... this school that realises you cannot declare war on a tactic, ... this school that sees a sustained campaign to win hearts and minds as one that makes so much more sense?
Why did you not list this school?
The greatest good?
Warning! warning!
Run Will Rogers, go and find anybody who has personal contact with Ian McDougal and inform him that someone has hacked his password and is masquerading as him. I've had my suspicions and now I'm certain.
"I think Bush and Blair went into Iraq sure and certain that they would find stacks of them."
The Ian that I thought I knew would no more write that than record his recent conversation with the pixies that live in the Woden valley
Keeping on track.
Ian MacDougall, given that this thread is relatively new it would be unfortunate if it were to be sidetracked into a discussion about Israel. Some of your comments might be a trigger for such a diversion. I suggest to you and Justin that there are other threads where there is Israel related material already resides which might be a more appropriate venue.
As to your comment, Ian that "9/11 was arguably the greatest terrorist outrage in history", surely there have been far worse. Immediately springing to my mind is the US bombing of Cambodia. Hundreds of thousands killed and Cambodia bombed back to the stone age and the conditions created for what happened next.
Mistakes, they made a few ...
Justin, thanks, just trying to provide possibilities and to part the curtains. Unfortunately, those whose job it is to do so have often failed. Been doing some good work in cutting through the fog yourself. And a bit more - from 2003, a PNAC primer. Just another reminder.And a Pilger - A New Pearl Harbor.
Not to forget Bush wanted to be a war president as he thought it would make it easier to get his domestic agenda through. So, how many people was Bush prepared to kill to enable him to give, for example, tax cuts to rich folk? And what does it say about Bush's psychology? Sociopath is good. Oh, but let us not forget the attacks on the Constitution and winding back of freedoms in the US conducted under the cover of the war on terror.
Back to torture and DemocracyNow!.
Back to Taxi to the Dark Side and the Oscars.
Craig, of course you keep making the same mistakes over and over, you don't want to break the habit and if you keep doing it you can improve your mistakes - this one's pretty good with a couple of failed states, $6Trillion spent and smack aplenty. Not forgetting blackening the name of the US, all those millions of dead, injured, deprived,and displaced people. But a caution, not all these outcomes are necessarily mistakes - some people might be benefitting, and they might consider all the costs worthwhile.
A self evident truth
"What historical precedents for this manner of response to such a gross and overt attack do you have in mind?"
Ian the historical precedents in relation to capturing terrorists rarely include the invasion and occupation of two countries, along with the associated rape and pillage of people and property.
Israeli intelligence did a pretty good job rounding up Nazis after the war, they used their intelligence and patience. Now the Israeli intelligence services are arguably the best on the planet.
I wonder how many innocent people Mossad killed in capturing Adolf Eichmann. It took 15 years but they got the bastard and they done good and hurt none of the punters.
Eichmann got what he deserved and many rejoiced. OBL is still free but thousands of innocent human beings have been slaughtered in not trying to catch him.
I think the consequences of this military stupidity speaks for itself hey Ian.
Eichmann Schmeikmann
Justin, Eichmann was a mass-murderer of Jews trying to live a low-profile life in Argentina when the Israelis caught up with him. They had no trouble getting themselves into Argentina, and little in bypassing border controls while getting themselves out again, with Eichmann for company.
Israel is a rather unfortunate example for you to choose while trying to maintain the position you do. Since its 1947 colonisation of Palestine, it has been attacked from beyond its borders on countless occasions by hostile Palestinian Arabs and/or their Arab and Muslim sympathisers. Israel has never hesitated to retaliate in kind, often by cross-border raiding and air strikes in which large numbers of innocent people have been killed. This vendetta pattern would be breakable if one side chose a policy of non-retaliation, but so far that has not happened, because it is taken by all and sundry as a sign of weakness rather than strength, and is rightly seen as inviting further attacks.
If the US had been seen as not responding to 9/11 (beyond 'gathering intelligence') I think most people in the world would take it as a sign of confusion and division up to the highest levels of the administration, and ultimately, of moral and political weakness. In actual fact, the Americans adopted the same course re OBL as Israel did with Eichmann, and attempted to bring him to account. But the geography of Afghanistan is a bit different from that of downtown Buenos Aires. Eichmann had little beyond the tacit support of the Argentinian state; OBL had much more.
9/11 was arguably the greatest terrorist outrage in history. If it had been carried out by uniformed soldiers of Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, a US invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath would have met even less opposition internationally than we have seen, which has not been much in any case. The Taliban would have lost too much face (re the Muslim world) if they had handed OBL over unconditionally, and the US too much there and everywhere else if they had allowed the Taliban to play diplomatic cat-and-mouse with them. That would have been a real victory for the jihadists.
As it is, the jihadists are in retreat everywhere.
Accurate assessment?
Ian MacDougall: "As it is, the jihadists are in retreat everywhere."
Really?
Isn't it a more accurate assessment of the situation to say that the neoconservative influenced Bush administration's "military solution" has enhanced the ability of jihadist organisations everywhere to recruit new members?
Jihadists? No, more accurately Muharibun
I think we've been making a mistake by calling the baddies, Jihadists.
The mistake in categorisation limits our effectiveness in winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world.
Muharibun, those who commit hirabah, is a much more accurate categorisation, don't you think Ian?
Accurate assessment?
So I'll rephrase one of my questions to you, Ian.
Isn't it a more accurate assessment of the situation to say that the neoconservative influenced Bush administration's "military solution" has enhanced the ability of muharibun everywhere to recruit?
Disappointed
Ian and surprised, I thought I knew you better. Surely you can't believe that the wearing of a uniform somehow changes the nature of the crime? "9/11 the greatest terrorist act"? So the attacks on cities in the second world war weren't terrorism? For krissake that was the whole point of them. How does 9/11 stack up against Hamburg, Dresden Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
A matter of categories
Bob and Scott: Acts of violence perpetrated for political ends by people in plain clothes qualify those people as terrorists in normal terms. Sure, if we want to categorise all soldiers, sailors and airmen by definition as 'terrorists' then 9/11 fades into insignificance. But that is not how the word 'terrorism' is normally used.
From Wikipediia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism ) : 'terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest."'
9/11 was the most destructive terrorist act ever by the above definition. We are not talking about a category that includes Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Cambodia, the whole Vietnam War, the Rape of Nanking etc etc etc.
Bob: Many a poster has watched in dismay as his/her thread strayed off its original path. I confess that my question "What should have been done after 9/11?" while definitely on thread, none the less seems to have set a derailment going. But it is an essential question, itself triggered off by your own quotation from the Holland/Worthington exchange at the very start of the threadstarter: "They say journalists provide the first draft of history. With the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, that draft led to an almost universal consensus, at least among Americans, that the attack was a justifiable act of self-defense. The Afghanistan action is commonly viewed as a "clean" conflict as well – a war prosecuted with minimal loss of life, and one that didn't bring the kind of international opprobrium onto the United States that the invasion of Iraq would lead to a year later.
"Those views are also held by many Americans who are critical of the excesses of the Bush administration's "War on Terror." But there's a disconnect there. Everything that followed – secret detentions, torture, the invasion of Iraq, the assault on domestic dissent – flowed inevitably from the failure to challenge Bush's claim that an act of terror required a military response."
So there you go. 'Tis but a Webdiary skip from there to the streets of Jerusalem and the shores of Lake Galilee.
A matter of categories indeed
The way in which we define terrorism will influence the way in which we understand the ethical limits to our response to terrorism.
Terrorists commit criminal acts including kidnapping, hijacking, and murder. Thus, an act of terrorism is first of all a crime in the classic sense. Although such acts are politically motivated, they are still criminal. Even if we accept the fact that the terrorist is at war with us, the terrorist’s acts are, according to standard definitions of justice in war, war crimes.
As terrorists commit criminal acts, law enforcement activities will be the only ethically justified response.
Insofar as terrorism is an international problem involving international victims and perpetrators, as well as targets involved in international activities, it requires international law enforcement mechanisms.
Ian, have you considered the problem this causes for a superpower that doesn't support international law and international law enforcement mechanisms?
Comparing apples with apples
Nanking, Rotterdam, Coventry, Leningrad, Auschwitz, Oradaur Sur Glane, Changi, Radji Beach, Burma.
Stack them up against the places you mentioned Scott and maybe appreciate why Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened
The albatross and the hawk
Ian, it would appear that I am an albatross and you a hawk.
"You are a national security adviser to GWB..."
On September 12 the world was in shock and at that point in time the perpetrators of the crime were unknown.
I still haven't personally seen anything in the media that proves OBL was responsible except a translated video which means nought to me. However for the sake of the exercise let's assume it was OBL; besides OBL has done heaps to warrant capture sans 11/9.
If I was an adviser for GWB I would most definitely encourage a non military solution. Unless the military will of the Coalition (and families at home) could defeat the collective will of the locals which should just about take forever.
History teaches us that winning the war in Afghanistan is easy; but winning the occupation is impossible. Only a fool would invade Afghanistan and think they could control things.
The same for Iraq.
But really this is all a moot point for Bush has better things to do than look for OBL, he's lost interest. No wonder, for catching OBL was not the main game, just an excuse so that war mongers (and liars) like William Kristol (Editor of the Weekly Standard) and founder of PNAC could embark on military adventures that would unilaterally benefit America.
Sadly Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq were all about PNAC, foreign policy and empire.
I suppose the best way to decide whether the military option in Afghanistan and Iraq was the best option is to judge same by the results.
A fucking disaster!
So much so that America now grows weak while its competitors and enemies grow strong. This is what OBL desired.
The battle with China has already been lost. Note that China has not even fired a shot. Sun Tzu would be nodding.
Now that it is plain for all to see that the military option was stupid what about intelligence?
Sadly 11/9 exposed the weakness of American intelligence. There is much documented about that. Instead of spending 3 trillion on a stuff up they could have invested in upgrading intelligence.
But that is a moot point also for the PNAC neocons were determined to have have more wars. 935 lies to manipulate intelligence about Saddam. The Office of Special Plans and White House Iraqi Group to sell the war and and and.
Bob Wall has documented it pretty comprehensively over the years and really, it is all very sad. Really I find it hard to believe that anybody could imagine that these military adventures were about anything but foreign policy and control. The unnecessary loss off human life is tragic. 11/9 was an opportunity too juicey to resist, a neocon dream come true.
The military option has now been well and truly tried and tested - it's stuffed. End of story. When big bombs and little dicks are put back in their place we could all look forward to a better world.
I suppose when all is said and done the albatross in me simply finds it abhorrent that we could bomb population centres, in the full knowledge that innocent people will be killed, to hopefully kill a bad guy or two.
Father Park, Blair lies as usual; we will abandon "them" sooner of later and most of "them" will be pleased. They will then carry on as usual, fighting and squabbling, but hey that's what they do.
An empty phrase
Justin Obodie: "If I was an adviser for GWB I would most definitely encourage a non military solution. Unless the military will of the Coalition (and families at home) could defeat the collective will of the locals which should just about take forever."
At the time of 9/11 various commentators said that there was no response possible: the US would just have to wear it. I don't think that advice went down well with too many Americans, or for that matter, westerners. Jihadism would have gained enormous prestige, whereas now it is on the ropes.
'A non-military solution' is, as it stands, an empty phrase. What historical precedents for this manner of response to such a gross and overt attack do you have in mind?
Mistakes ... condemned to repeat them?
Ian MacDougall: "What historical precedents for this manner of response ..."
Ian, it seems you think the appropriate thing to do can only be the very thing that proved to be mistaken the last time ... and the time before that ... and the time before ...
Insulting To Innocent People
Bob Wall:
Complete abject and ignorant nonsense. The type of uneducated pandering that criminal defendants have used to defend rapists, gay bashers etc since justice began. The victims of 9/11 are not to blame for their own demise. The blame for their murders rest squarely with the criminal terrorists that committed the atrocity - criminals (those still living) that should face justice.
Does a female enable her rape for wearing short shorts? No. Does a person enable their own gay bashing for being gay? No. Does a person enable their own murder for previous government decisions? No. Do we as people need to enable the pathetic excuses that attempt to find moral equivalence for an atrocity such as 9/11? No.
To avoid blowback, stick head in sand.
Scott, yes, all that havoc, so it is no surprise there are a lot of people bot that well disposed to the Merkins. At least the governments of the US over the past six decades. I could almost say I was surprised that more people haven't addressed the matter of cause and effect. But then I am not that surprised as some (many?) people would adhere to the "Us good, Them bad" position. A legacy of our tribal past? An instinctive "we couldn't do that?" reaction? The stance does not help in finding solutions to problems but can fuel the fires in that there are governments and their helping hands (media and such) which will exploit ignorance and prejudice and similar sentiments and simplistic attitudes. And, in the case we are examining, we have seen how unscrupulous and dishonest the Bush administration has been.
Yet some remain in denial and ignorance and grasp at anything regardless of veracity or relevance, whether through an almost unthinking response or with deliberation to confronting possibilities that they find distasteful.
The might not commit the kinds of behaviour we are examining here, but they could be said to enable it.
Blame The Victim
Craig Rowley
Every [even] first year lawyer instantly understands to find out about the girls first boyfriend.....and so on......
Any [half] intelligent person (including jury) should be mighty wary of these done to death personal assasinations (yawn).
Shakespeare on Burleigh on terrorism
Shakespeare on Burleigh on terrorism. Not a bad read at A&L Daily. Also this helps explain why things have quietened down in Iraq of late.
David R: Ian, your link to A&L Daily was a repeat of the Telegraph link ...
A&L Daily link
Agendas.
Blowback indeed, Craig. Good to see attention being paid to cause and effect.
On the matter of responses:
For almost nine months, according to Clarke, he sought approval from top Bush officials for an aggressive strategy against Osama bin Laden. Clarke writes that he could not convince National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to schedule meetings to advance an action plan against al-Qaida. Instead, George W. Bush and his most powerful officials - Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - pursued an obsession with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. When the Sept. 11 attacks took place, their first instinct was to bomb Iraq - even though Clarke and other experts had long assured them that there was no intelligence connecting Iraq to any recent acts of terrorism against the United States. On Sept. 12, Bush pulled Clarke aside to demand that he search for evidence of Saddam's involvement, which never existed.
Not so much a response as an agenda. Which was pursued at enormous cost in blood and treasure.
Blowback
Isn't the lesson in all the tragic history we've witnessed one about blowback?
Violence begets ... and all that.
Spy v Spy v Spy
...what then would have been appropriate?
Ian, a question like that appears to imply that the military option was the best one. For the Yanks and their PNAC dreams the military option was always going to be the only option.
I'm sure Sun Tzu would more likely ask the question: Would a military response in relation to the capture of OBL be appropriate?
The answer,of course, would have been no.
Sun Tzu would not have used the military per se, he would have used spies. The military only being necessary at the very pointy part of the operation. Intelligence will catch criminals, not the wide scale murdering, rape and humiliation of innocent children and women. That creates hatred and revenge.
Sadly the Yanks dismissed Sun Tzu who would have immediately predicted an American defeat, along with the related loss of treasure, life and morale of the plebs at home. Instead they used 9/11 as their Pearl Harbour in an attempt to realise their unilateral global ambitions as outlined in PANC.
At this point in time OBL must be laughing his head off, the war profiteers are laughing their heads off, and Sun Tzu is shaking his head in disbelief.
BTW, if say a Kiwi based terrorist group was responsible for bombing the Opera House would we bomb the crap out of Wellington or embark upon a more forensic and intelligent course of action to achieve our goals?
An answer that is no answer
Justin Obodie, no, a question like that does not imply that the military option was the best one. It just asks what should have been done in the circumstances of the time.
So, let's nail it down. You are a national security adviser to GWB, and it is September 12, 2001. What specific advice would you have given? Recruit spies in Afghanistan? So what then? What would you have done with the information they sent back (assuming it to be genuine)?
If they told you where to find OBL, what then?
"BTW, if say a Kiwi based terrorist group was responsible for bombing the Opera House would we bomb the crap out of Wellington or embark upon a more forensic and intelligent course of action to achieve our goals?"
It would depend how big the 'Kiwi based terrorist group' was. If as big and as uncompromising as the Taliban, which was the state power in Afghanistan at the time, bombing their bases conceivably would have made sense. As far as I am aware, the NATO force operating in Afghanistan has never bombed 'the crap' out of Kabul, and has not operated under a policy of indiscriminate murder, rape and pillage, whatever certain individuals may have done.
'A more forensic and intelligent course of action to achieve our goals' implies that 'we' know what our goals are. So what would they have been, if not to bring the ringleaders to justice and close down all their local and international operations, through some act of retaliation designed to do just that?
Revenge is sweet, usless and deadly for kids and women
Professor Marc W. Herold:
It would appear that by March 2002 the the Coalition of the Stupid evened up the 9/11 score, give or take a few hundred.
Today OBL has not been captured and it would appear the Yanks could no longer give a shit anyway.
Why are we still in Afganistan?
Why JO?
Why? Because Tony Blair exclaimed that "this time the West will not abandon you" - or some such gibberish - at the time of the invasion.
It was, even as Tony Blair promises go, singularly empty.
Father Park.
We need to do our own thinking.
Australian diplomat, Bruce Haigh, who was posted to the Australian Embassy in Pakistan. These days Bruce is a regular commentator on Australian foreign and defence policy on Radio National Religion Report this morning.
I'm talking about the fact that nobody, but nobody's prepared to say "What do these people think"? We need to enter into negotiations, I mean we're in Afghanistan, people just say "The Taliban are bad because the Taliban are bad". That's too simplistic by half. I mean this war is not going to be won by the western forces, NATO forces in Afghanistan, so we need collectively, to sit down and talk, just as the Israelis need to sit down and properly talk with the Palestinians. And we're in a stage in our history where we're led by slogans, and we're led by a desire not to establish the facts. And we've had that in the past 11 years with things like water, with things like climate. It also relates to political situations. And so we're getting into sloganeering. Fundamental Islamists are bad. And that's it. What we need to unravel is we need to find out what motivates people, what's behind their actions, even though some of those actions may be abhorrent to us, we nonetheless need to find out the sort of thinking that goes into causing these sorts of acts.
This is the problem within America. The intellectual life it seems to me in America, and I'm generalising here and people are going to get stuck into me, but it seems to be closing in on itself. And this is a real worry for all of us, particularly if you get a government like we've just had that follows every move that America makes. We need to do our own thinking, whether it's in relation to Islam, whether it's in relation to defence expenditure, no matter what it is, we, Australia, need to do our own thinking, and stop letting the Americans have the whip hand in this.
Bruce is correct. For far too long Australia's foreign policy has simply followed US policy. This has led us into wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to know what we stand for and are willing to fight for. Not simply follow the US into wars with no moral ground.
Another Read
It could be a companion book to this tome but Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East gives an amazing account of Afghanistan from a seasoned journalist's point of view.
One passage that sticks with me – apart from all the empirical adventures that Fisk details that have ended in failure – is Fisk's personal account (as much of the book must be) of how he attacks and beats a young Afghan youth who has taunted him and stolen something from him. The memory of what he has done haunts Fisk for months after as he contemplates that it's he who is the intruder in someone else's land.
It's certainly gives a better insight than Prince (Taliban Harry) Harry's Boy's Adventure style TV clips that had him chortling as banged off a few rounds in the direction of the "enemy" then home to pops in time for the pub opening.
A discrepancy?
Jenny Hume, while I await answers to my previous questions I draw your attention to a couple more of your statements:
Now to an extract from the thread header I posted in my previous post:
Compare that with your statements above. Do you see a discrepancy?
Explanations, please.
Jenny Hume, "From the twin towers to Guantanamo is more accurate."
In the thread header you will note passages detailing a chain of events:
Also, the Carter administration set out to deliberately entrap the Soviets in a war in Afghanistan. Do you dismiss this chain of cause and effect and, if so, on what basis?
In the article there is material about the relationship the Taliban and OBL. For example:
Do you also dismiss this? If so, on what basis?
Also, who is "ruling the roost" in Afghanistan at the moment?
Can be appropriate
A military response to an act of terrorism can be justified and appropriate. Especially an act as enormous and heinous as the felling of the twin towers.
From the twin towers to Guantanamo is more accurate.
Acts of terrorism are cowardly acts against innocent civilians. We should not forget that in our indignation at the response such acts can provoke. Had the terrorists not attacked the US in the way they did and the Taliban not given haven to OBL, then it would most likely be business as usual in Afghanistan with the Taliban still ruling the roost.
Nothing New II.1-5
I tend to agree with you Jenny. Had there been no terrorist attack on the US, including the WTC, we would still be agitating in Afghanistan. Indeed the US might well have continued its agitating and sanctions whilst negotiating access for oil pipelines.
Afghan problems pre-date the Soviet invasion just as Iranian and Iraqi "problems" predate the Shah and Saddam. The situation in Afghanistan has altered only in the sense of the weapons now used by the various tribes are far more modern than the spears, arrows and swords that the insurgents noted in my former post used.
More importantly, the tribes themselves would seem to have altered hardly one whit. What occurred after the Soviet withdrawal has largely occurred after our decamping to Iraq for a (not so) quick Babylonian sojourn. Possibly that should be not so short surge. They have always, though, resisted invaders; those keen to impose their ways even more so. They resisted the Soviets and they resist(ed) us.
Might well be written of Iraq.