Two things in the speech struck me: 1) The ultimatum to the Taliban. It was purposefully given in a way that the Taliban cannot accept (well, will not accept), which means we're going to erase the Taliban. Fine with me. 2) The bit about how the fight against terrorism won't stop with Al Qaeda. Notice he never mentioned Saddam...
Max: Thanks for the compliments. I hear where glynch is coming from, but you are correct that I am not in complete agreement despite my own feelings on the matter.
Glynch didn't suggest that the terrorists were saints, MadMax. In fact, he never even inferred that they were anything but evil. He's made it quite clear that they deserve punishment. What he is hesitant about is the idea that the US has some kind of divine mandate to destroy a government. Who's to say if God has even picked sides in this situation? Is Taliban's practice of harboring and shielding terrorists reprehensible? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the latest victim (remember, the US is hardly the first country to suffer a terrorist attack) automatically receives God's endorsement and thus gets free reign to act on his/its impulses. While it will probably be necessary to use military force in this situation, I don't think that means we should stop looking for peaceful solutions (and peaceful solutions aren't always of the Chamberlain/sucker form - sometimes they yield the most satisfying results). And if our leaders (who aren't the ones who will go off to die) seem hell-bent on fighting, they need someone to check them. For example, nothing would make me happier if we convinced Afghanistan to turn Bin Laden over to some form of international authorities, who would then try him for his crimes. Our government doesn't have to act as the cop, judge, jury and executioner in order to get justice for its citizens. We can and should utilize the influence of other nations as much as possible. Making "with us or against us" statements and promising destruction will only insult the pride of potential enemies, and alienate those countries who support us but disagree with our choice of action. The Taliban shouldn't be placated, but is our goal the capture of Bin Laden or to flex our muscles at Afghanistan? Furthemore, your Roman analogy is totally misplaced. Don't forget that these "stalwarts of civilization" were the initial intruders into these "barbarian's" lands. And most scholars agree that the Roman Empire fell not so much because of the barbarian's attacks, but because the Romans had spread themselves too thinly across Europe. They were fighting neverending wars all over the place and couldn't protect their home city. Yet centuries later, we believe the best solution to an attack is a long-term war against multi-headed enemies (connected only by their methods) who are spread out all over the world??? Finally, the"with us or against us" attitudes about this issue only damage the debates on this (and all) message board(s). Too many people are allowing the confusion, pain, sorrow and anger inherent with the recent tragedy as a means to promote a "holier-than-thou" attitude. To claim God "is on our side" leads us onto a slippery slope, where the "Godliness" of our justified actions can be wrongly transferred to all our actions. In a war (a situation of enormous duress and confusion), at what point would God stop being on our side? And if we reach that point, will we recognize it?
subtomic: I think the "let's only get bin Laden, and leave everyone else alone" view screws up the discussion of this topic. I for one think that this couldn't have happened sooner. You will not find a single terrorism expert in the country who says that there will never be a biological attack on one of the nation's major cities. You will be hard pressed to find one who says that there won't be a nuclear attack against one of our cities. The only thing anyone disagrees about is where, when, and how bad it will be. Details. This "war" - this rude awakening to the problem of terrorism - is just the kick in the a*s that we needed. I only wish people would've listened to such warnings before 6,000 and counting people had to die. Make no mistake: these attacks will only get worse if nothing is done to stop the perpetrators . And getting bin Laden and handing him over to the Hague is not the answer. That only shows weakness to the enemy. Youssef was given a life sentence for trying to blow up the WTC, when he clearly earned the death penalty in every legal sense (no remorse, willingness to do it again, premeditation). That didn't serve as a "warning" to the guys who did this. The only thing they understand and fear is unabashed use of violent force. I was quite happy that Bush said this wouldn't stop with Osama and Al Qaeda, because they're not the only reason that New York is missing a part of its skyline right now.
How exactly does following the ideal of American justice screw up anything, let alone this discussion? You sound almost gleeful. Again, you sound like you just can't contain your excitement. I have to agree with you here. But I'm not advocating doing nothing. Wrong and wrong. It shows we value American ideals and process. It shows we believe that the American way is both the best and the right way. It shows we are STRONG in our convictions. Any dumb twit can drop a bomb or fire a gun. But there are few persons courageous enough to stick to their beliefs when those beliefs don't come easy. Nor has Israel's assassination policy led to peace in their end of the world. The solution to terrorism is way, way more complex than killing everyone who threatens you (as if that's even possible) I don't think the "war" on terrorism should end with bin Laden either. I think we need to look at the roots of terrorism (poverty, ignorance, religious extremism, disempowerment) and see what our country can do to eliminate them. We would be far more successful in our fight to end terrorism if we created a world where people did not feel compelled to turn to violent means in order to express their views. We can render freaks like bin Laden powerless if we can make sure that people have no incentive to join his campaigns of fear and destruction. Displays of raw power have never made enemies into friends. Japan and Germany aren't our allies because we beat and bloodied them in WW2. They're our allies because we rebuilt their countries. I only hope this generation has someone with the foresight of General Marshall.
