An Afghani perspective

[Anonymous]

The following is by Tamim Ansary, an Afghani-American writer: "I've been hearing a lot of talk about 'bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.' Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but 'we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?' Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we 'have the belly to do what must be done.' And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even tthe government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think 'the people of Afghanistan' think 'the Jews in the concentration camps.' It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity.
They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban?
The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying
over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of 'having the belly to do what needs to be done' they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand.
What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?" --Tamim Ansary

[Anonymous]

I do.

This is no longer a question of the "west" versus the "arab states". As things stand today, the entire world lives in fear - afraid to go to work, afraid to get on an airplane, afraid to live their lives. We simply cannot live this way. The world changed on September 11 and will never be the same.

The objective of the US response will be not be revenge but PREVENTION. This must not be allowed to happen again. Ever. It doesn't matter how long it takes, how much it costs, nor how many US lives are lost in the process.

We have tried political and economic sanctions against the governments that harbor these terrorists.

We have tried surgical strikes against suspected terrorist compounds.

These efforts have failed.

The governments of these countries know full well that the terrorists are living and training within their borders. They do nothing to stop them and will not cooperate with international efforts to do so. The only way to stop these groups is to remove the places they plan and train. The only way to do that is to make it worth the while of the Taliban and other arab state governments to get rid of them.

If the rest of the world agrees to attack any nation which harbors these people, they will make every effort to root them out and get rid of them. I am confident that the Taliban is more likely to be able to find and capture Osama Bin Laden than the US troops. They simply have to WANT to do it. They will.

I am prepared for a prolonged fight. I am prepared for lives to be lost. I am prepared to fight for this cause.

Will there be more terrorist attacks? Yes, certainly. But if the US and the rest of the world takes this issue as seriously as it MUST now be taken, there will be only a few more and they will be unorganized and poorly planned and funded. If, however, we try to find the people directly responsible and are afraid to dirty our hands, there will be more and more frequent terrorist attacks which will be worse and worse until we are willing to take them seriously.

The world cannot live in fear. The objective of the US action will be prevention. And I am hopeful that our leaders will have the stomach to do the right thing.

And if it does come down to a fight between the arab states and the rest of the world, I am confident that we will prevail.

[Anonymous]

good response, IHAH.

I think we're already seeing the moderate Arab states kowtowing to the might of the US and NATO. Even anti-American Pakistan has turned on its heel, realizing that obstucting us would put them in Afghanistan's shoes.

The French and the Russians are calling for restraint, but they won't resist us except with words. Bush's goal and resolve are quite clear: terrorism (especially the Al Qaeda brand) is a stubborn weed, and we are going to dig and spray until the thing is dust.

There will be no Bin Laden hiding in the hills, waiting for another day. It won't be allowed. Their attack was bigger than Pearl Harbor, we will never forget it or forgive it. He will be caught or killed, as will all who are with him. END OF STORY.

[Anonymous]

not that we don't sympathize with the oppressed people of Afghanistan, we do, but first we must dispatch their leaders and their "guest". Then we will help them join the world as a legitimate, free state.

[Anonymous]

Excellent post, TA

To Idle Hands: I believe the point is that if the ordinary people there could get rid of OBL, they would have done that already.

"Making their live miserable until they give him up" won't work.

This will be a ground war half a world away from the US, without any truly "friendly" staging area. It will mean a lot of US teenagers getting killed. It will mean that a lot more innocent people get killed.

I hope that we can avoid the Great War that OBL wants to precipitate. Even if we do, the likely result is that it will create more martyrs and more terrorists.

It has always amazed me that "the old country" has so many pointless feuds. Look at N. Ireland for example. Everyone involved in the original issues is long since dead. But the killing continues since "we need to avenge the last atrocity from the other side".

The US is ready to make itself into a player in that type of world.

I am frustrated that I can't see any way to avoid it, but I sure don't see any reason for your cohort's innocent optimism that we can just "root it out like a weed".

This war isn't winnable. The best we can hope for is that most of the killing will be on the other guy's home turf during our lifetimes, and that my grandchildren won't be killed by the grandchildren of the people we will kill in the next few years.

[Traci]

"This war isn't winnable. The best we can hope for is that most of the killing will be on the other guy's home turf during our lifetimes, and that my grandchildren won't be killed by the grandchildren of the people we will kill in the next few years. "

Now I'm really depressed.

If only I could argue with that!

:'(

[Anonymous]

I respectfully disagree. Why would the people in Afghanistan have gotten rid of OBL before now? They have had no reason to oppose him and if they tried they would risk being attacked by his people. However, we have to make sure they are more frightened of the US then of OBL. In a similar way that Pakistan is bending to our will despite the Taliban's threats because they are more frightened of the US than the Taliban.

As for this war being "winnable", it is. It must be; the alternative is unthinkable. We have the means to win it if we have the resolve. As I said before, the world cannot live in fear of a few small factions of insane terrorists who are willing to commit unimaginable atrocities against innocents to further a religious war against the supposed evil of those innocents. We must do whatever it takes to ensure that this cannot happen again.

And remember, this is not about revenge. Although revenge might make some of us feel a little better, it is not enough of a reason to put millions of lives at risk at home and abroad in a prolonged military campaign. This is about prevention. Now that the terrorist community has proven the horrible lengths to which it is willing to go to hurt the US, we have to make sure they are incapable of doing it again. I am not usually in favor of significant military actions, particularly those that involve US lives at risk as well as the killing of non-combatants. However, in this case I would support ANY action in the Middle East that would help to ensure that there was one less place for the terrorists to hide, plan, and train; one less institution to supply the terrorists with funds and weapons; and one less person to commit these atrocities. If that means a prolonged and major war the likes of which has not been seen since WWII, so be it. If that means that weapons of mass destruction have to be used to protect the free world from these terrorists, so be it. They have raised the stakes and now the entire world has to live with the consequences.

[Anonymous]

I think I'd rather see people like "Idle Hands at Home" tossed into the looney bins they belong in than millions of Afghanis eradicated.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I'm sure that will prevent further terrorist attacks. Thanks for the great advice.

Wait, I have a better idea. Why don't we pretend it never happened? Why don't we go back to living our lives the same way we did before September 11th? Why don't we rely on economic and political pressure to weaken the governments that support terrorism?

Oh yeah, I remember. Because if we do nothing then this type of terrorist attack will happen again, and again, and again. Silly me, I almost forgot.

[Anonymous]

Afghanistan is one of the saddest, most pitiful lands in the world. This is very sad.

[Anonymous]

IHAH: Of course you are right. We have been Neville Chamberlain until now, it's time to be Winston Churchill.

If we wait too long, we won't be attacked by psychos with boxcutters, we'll be attacked by psychos with nuclear weapons. We must eliminate this group, and all related groups, NOW.

Our 2 or 3 vocal naysayers here can keep their heads in the sand. Very fortunately, most of the rest of us aren't: 80% of the country supports military action.

Anon: Yes, it is sad. The Afghanis are the poorest of the poor, with the worst government in the world. And some innocents will die. But those that survive will find themselves in a new country where they may speak their minds, with a better and brighter future.

[Anonymous]

"As for the war being winnable. It is. It must be. The alternative is unthinkable."

That makes about as much sense as a patient with terminal cancer saying "There has to be a cure, the alternative is unthinkable".

Sorry, but sometimes the world doesn't align itself to meet our needs. Even wishing really, really, really hard isn't enough.

Terroism is like the Hydra. Cut off one head, and two more will grow. There is some value in cutting off the first head, since you gain some time before you need to deal with the next two.

This is a time to be smart, not stupid. Thankfully, no one in Washington is going to listen to someone who says "do ANYTHING, just so we're 100% sure". That would require killing hundreds of millions of people.

The facts have changed in the past week. We're not as safe as we thought we were, we're not as rich as we thought we were. We have the ability to achieve some objectives, but absolute victory isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

" some innocents will die, but those that survive ... will find themselves with a new and brighter future."

I expect that the terrorists say the same thing. They're really "doing those Americans a favor by getting them to think about all the terrible things their government has done".

[Anonymous]

Terrorism is like the Hydra?

No, not at all. They don't get two recruits for every death. Terrorism is more like a starfish. Cutting off one leg, or two, is useless because they grow them back.

You have to kill the whole organism, Al Qaeda. If you leave a leg left, that's okay, chances of it having enough material to grow back into a full star is quite small.

Bin Laden's terrorism needs lots of charisma and lots of cash. Eliminate him, and jail his influential generals, and the cash and charisma will dry up.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-16 11:03, Idle Hands @ Home wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that will prevent further terrorist attacks. Thanks for the great advice.



Hey, if we make sure all of our looneys are treated and/or locked up, and every other nation does the same: no more terrorist attacks.

[Anonymous]

Okay! I'm running away to canada yet??

I think most postings here have failed to address how best to approach this situation, with an eye on elimination of bin laden and maybe the taliban, too. Sounds like the indiscriminate attacks of afghan. will hurt the wrong people, like trying to sanction castro out of existence. Maybe an attack would just free up more resources for the taliban, less mouths to feed.

So, how would we get them in a ground war? What kind of price would we expect to pay. How successful would we be? The soviets had some trouble here, I think, anyone know how we could do it differently? what if bin laden has left the country. what's the assurance that hasn't happened? do we chase him then? Are we just gonna slaughter suspected taliban till they cough him up. where do we find them? who qualifies for slaughter. will this just steel their resolve? I want to hear the plan.

[E. Blackadder]

Terroism is like the Hydra. Cut off one head, and two more will grow. There is some value in cutting off the first head, since you gain some time before you need to deal with the next two.


Fail to cut off one head and four more will grow.

[Anonymous]

I doubt the war will be easily winnable. Just because the US has superior technology does not guarantee easy battle. Remember Vietnam? The only easy way out will be full scale nuclear attack. What about those innocent civillians? Those that someone here equated to the Jews during World War 2? If I were a Jew, I would take that anology as an insult. Just watch all the news on TV. True, many peace lovers are fleeing for Pakistan, but many more are embracing a "holy war", giving full support to their government instead of trying to talk them out. Since when did Jews started yelling "Hail Hitler!"?
All it takes is to hand over ONE terrorist.
But they have deliberately chosen war.

[Huki]

Vietnam was a war that the public didn't support and the leaders didn't want to win.

[Anonymous]

Follow the money. Somebody is making tons of money off this. Computerized trading virtually guarantees we can trace the money. Force Switzerland and other money hideouts to open their books.

Then cut off the money. But we do not talk of this. We talk of spending money. I can just imagine some arms making assembly lines: ok, the afghani order is filled, time to change the paint symbol and do an allied run.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

No one cries about all the German and Japanese "innocent civilians" who died at our hands in WW2. Either we're serious about waging this war or not. If we're wringing our hands in advance about the prospect of civilian casualties, then we're not.

[Anonymous]

Just a couple of historical facts. There was a secret muslim sect (called Assassins) several centuries ago based in some remote monastery in the mountains. They terrorized the rulers of Middle East when the policy was "unacceptable". The Mongol invasion wiped them out copletely and for good.

The history lesson - to me - is that it is doable. The tricky thing about modern world is that the super-powers often balanced each other. The Soviets would wipe ot fundamentalists in Afghanistan but the US was in opposition 20 years ago. If no super-power is in the opposition to the US it will be done - they will be wiped out completely and for good.

[independent]

"Vietnam was a war the public didn't support and the leaders didn't want to win."

I find both halves of that hard to believe.

The public was very supportive early on.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution slid through Congress just as easily as last week's resolution.

It wasn't until we found ourselves bogged down for years, with the famous "light at the end of the tunnel" continuing to recede, that the public decided we couldn't win (unless you define "winning" as killing the entire population).

This could be just as hard. The Afghanis defeated the Russians, we lost to the Vietnamese. Those precedents aren't real encouraging.

[independent]

The point of the "terrorists are like the Hydra" comment is that many terrorists are people who sustained horrible losses in their own families. The kid who is 12 today, and loses both his father and brother in an American bombing run, is a prime candidate for top terrorist of 2010.

On a different comment: I expect the Mongols got rid of the Assassins by killing every human in the area. I don't think we're going to do that with our terrorists

[Anonymous]

There is one thing that has been really bothering me since somebody else asked it. Everybody keeps talking about eliminating middle eastern terrorists. If we and our allies are truly determined to rid the world of terrorism, and if we believe the way to do it is to kill the terrorists (and I've heard some say civilians who happen to be around them), does that also mean that we hunt down and kill the Timothy McVeighs who were born and raised and living in America? What about the terrorists in the IRA?...

[Anonymous]

Viet Nam was on its way to becoming a successful, profitable Communist regime due to the diligence of its populace. After the French fought til they were tired and then we took over for 14 years, the economy was devastated. Viet Nam is developing again as an economic engine but a resurgence of Communism in the world's eye is unlikely. From this perspective, we won that war. Since the US government never answered the basic question of the American people of the time: Why are we fighting there?, perhaps this economic end was our goal.

[Professor Frink]

It is doubtful that Vietnam would have become a truely successful communist country.

[Rockhound]

"When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think 'the people of Afghanistan' think 'the Jews in the concentration camps."

That is a clever turn of the phrase this apologist has written, but the last line is more correctly written: "...think the people of Germany."

[Dick the Bruiser]

Yes. Acts of terrorism are designed to instill fear into the masses, disrupt economic activity and destroy an economy. They think that once the economy is ruined the people will blame the gov. and overthrow the incumbents.

It worked for the Nazis.

Most terrorist seek power hoping that other whackos will see their courage. Others, such as that dead a-hole muckvay, seek revenge.

We must stop both.

The IRA seeks power, but since they are so full of hate (cursing 5 yr old school girls) even if they did achieve power it is unlikely they would know what to do with it.

[independent]

I thought it was a deal with the brother. Didn't his brother turn him in on the condition that the Government wouldn't seek the death penalty?

[Anonymous]

Curly,

I would like to clear up one point: It was the protestants that where cursing at the catholic school children trying to walk to school through a predominately protestant neighborhood.

So next time you throw IRA out, perhaps the people on the other side should be mentioned: Ulster Defense League

The conflict in Northern Ireland goes back over 300 years. The actions on some on both sides are disgusting and are terrorist in nature



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: NOYB on 2001-09-24 11:24 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

If you check any of the internet white pages, there is one Tamim Ansary listed in the US.

There is an author by that name. GO to Amazon.com and put in his name.

He wrote the book
Score Booster Handbook for Reading & Language Arts (for Children Ages 9-12)

He makes an interesting argument.

This my opinion:

1) we are not going to occupy Afghanistan, we are going to kill (bring justice to, murder, execute, vengence...) a few of their guests.

2) We will not need to "conquest of Pakistan would have to be first" as events recently make so very clear. I did not feel this way shortly after Sept 11 when I first received his letter. Why? Because they need us for support against a much larger nation with more sophisticated weapons; India. The India card is been played very well. And India is taking the opportunity to show that Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism against them because of the disputed province.


3) The goal of Islam vs rest of world simplifies the Bin Laden motivations but maybe that sums up his hatred for western culture and its involence on the islamic world.

[The Drunken Actuary]

It is doubtful that Vietnam would have become a truely successful communist country.Yes, very doubtful.