9-11, Eleven Years Later - The Next Steps

[jordan179]

Eleven years ago, the forces of Islamofascism committed a monstrous crime against America and against all humanity.  They made prisoner the civilian crews and passengers of four airliners and then murdered all their prisoners, in the course of an attack which brought down a civilian target -- the World Trade Center -- and slighly damaged one

Comments

[brezhnev]

The US had reason to go into Afghanistan, and should remain there until the job is done, meaning the fruit loops are no longer in danger of getting back in charge again. And Saddam needed to be taken out. But I'm not down with fighting Pakistan and Iran. There are many other means of conducting diplomacy.

And if war does break out without sufficient provocation from those countries to make it a proportionate response, I say we should draft Kristol, Feith, and all those others clamoring for it. To paraphrase Celine, we'll have a neo-con behind every battlement. They should be dragged from their editorial desks and placed on the front line; let them do some bleeding for a change. And I'm definitely not interested in helping India in territorial aggrandizement, especially after what their masses of cheap labor have done to the economy.

[jordan179]

But I'm not down with fighting Pakistan and Iran. There are many other means of conducting diplomacy.

Pakistan harbored Bin Laden after 9-11 and showed that it was the policy of their government, by the cruel treatment they gave to the Pakistani who told America of Bin Laden's presence. There is no way to interpret that other than as a warlike act. I'm curious to hear your explanation.

Iran based and supported armed bands which attacked and killed American and allied forces in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians, after the fall of Saddam's regimes. There is no way to interpret this other than as a warlike act. I'm curious to hear your alternative explanation.

And if war does break out without sufficient provocation from those countries to make it a proportionate response ...

As I have just finished pointing out, Pakistan and Iran have already committed acts of war against us.

[brezhnev]

As it happens, bin Laden is dead. (Three cheers for Leon Panetta on that one!) His presence in that country suggests some degree of bad faith, though how far up the chain of command that was cannot be determined. Be that as it may, attacking Pakistan a year and a half after the fact because of their [cluelessness | looking the other way | active complicity] on the [regional | national] level would produce nothing more than an impressive pile of corpses.

As for Iran, it's a trickier situation, and probably the best solution would be high level negotiations to the effect that they either knock it off or the US will happily fund and supply Iranian dissidents. The Iranian government is very unpopular and is on shaky ground, but an invasion by the US would cause their citizens to rally behind their government.

I say that, if at all possible, even more spit-in-your-eye wars that can't be paid for should be avoided.

[jordan179]

As it happens, bin Laden is dead. (Three cheers for Leon Panetta on that one!) His presence in that country suggests some degree of bad faith, though how far up the chain of command that was cannot be determined.

The fact that the Pakistanis responded to the death of this evil man by prosecuting, torturing and imprisoning the doctor who helped us catch him makes it abundantly clear what side they are on. This act of judicial perscution had to be authorized on the national level, since it was a long drawn-out affair.

Be that as it may, attacking Pakistan a year and a half after the fact because of their [cluelessness | looking the other way | active complicity] on the [regional | national] level would produce nothing more than an impressive pile of corpses.

Pakistan is still harboring large elements of Al Qaeda and the Taliban; they are still refusing to go after the Terrorists themselves and still complaining every time we take these swine out for them. Again, this makes it abundantly clear what side they are on

[jordan179]

As to "proprotionate response

[brezhnev]

That's not what I meant by proportionate. It's the same principle that if some guy in a bar shoves you, that doesn't mean it's OK to shoot him. As for proportionate force, since you mentioned it, being the proverbial "firstest with the mostest" doesn't mean easy, rapid victory with modern asymmetrical warfare. So it pays to choose one's fights carefully. Doesn't that make sense?

My modest proposal was hyperbole. I'm surprised you didn't recognize that. My point was that these armchair Caesars inside the Beltway are quite enthusiastic about getting the US into another batch of expensive spit-in-your-eye wars, without much personal risk to themselves (beyond being shunned at cocktail parties with lots of Democrats).

I never said that economic competition was a reason to go to war; remember, I'm proposing *not* to go to war except as a last resort.

Lastly, I hereby invoke Godwin's Law :)

[jordan179]

That's not what I meant by proportionate. It's the same principle that if some guy in a bar shoves you, that doesn't mean it's OK to shoot him. As for proportionate force, since you mentioned it, being the proverbial "firstest with the mostest" doesn't mean easy, rapid victory with modern asymmetrical warfare. So it pays to choose one's fights carefully. Doesn't that make sense?

Pakistan shielded Osama bin Laden from us. The man who was behind the murder of over 100 civilians taken prisoner by his forces on 9-11 and manned missile attacks against New York City and Washington DC (the first was of course necessary for the second, but he was under no obligation to choose that particular attack plan). By shielding Bin Laden, the government of Pakistan essentially announced its support for the 9-11 attacks.

If we do not respond to this as an act of war, how the hell do you expect us to deter anyone from anything? What happens when the next Third World tyrants feel peeved at America and they go "Well, Pakistan signed on to attacks

[jordan179]

Oh, and you're dead wrong in your assertion that "asymmetrical warfare" somehow magically negates the requirement of a force advantage to bring decisive victory. Asymmnetrical warfare is merely another form of attrition: in fact, it's of the form called "guerilla warfare" or "raiding," depending upon whether it proceeds from bases within or without enemy-controlled territory. And force superiority is at least as important for guerilla as for frontal warfare, in that it determines how openly the guerillas are able to operate and how powerfully the counter-insurgents are able to hold captured territories.