Desperado:
I agree, this was not "Just" a terrorist act, we should not "just" respond as if it were. I think Jacko summed it up in his itallicised quotes on what is, and is not, a measured response.
Understand that I do not think we should do nothing. We are as aggrieved as the US because we lost more British lives in one single act of terrorism on the WTC than in any one single act perpetrated by the IRA. It should be a high priority to bring those responsible to justice. However, I do not feel the approach that the US is taking is justified. I think that is where we differ. I would be interested to know why you think I am looking at this from a few paces back as I don't think I am? I am with you on the idea we should be involved, I just think we should use our oun judgement in terms of defining what we as a nation will and will not support, and not get caught up in the very American trait of looking to avenge first, think about the consequences to everyone else second. I doubt very much if the US as a nation would be so quick to defent the UK in the terms it has used thus far had the terrorists flown into Canary Warf and the Nat West tower and the loss of American life was negligable. In fact I am confident we would have had a message of condolance and that would be it. As far as the US would be concerned the party line would be "sorry to hear Limeys, tough break and all, but on yuor own with that one". Individually I suspect Americans would be disgusted and appalled, but they would not advocate a single US serviceman coming home in a body bag for our sake, but they are quite willing to see British servicemen die on their behalf. It is called the Vietnam factor in the US. So this being the case, why shouldn't we dictate our own terms for getting involved in any response? If we are going to act why not set our own terms with the Americans? Why shouldn't we say that we will get involved, but only when the criteria of the response being measured, just, and assured are met, and not before. Why should we not say we will not get involved if the US is intent on a retaliatory duck shoot of innocent civilians, or sending a 3rd world country back to the stone age just to flex it's military muscles? I believe we should be more civilised than that. I have seen no convincing argument or statement from Bush to indicate to me that he is intent on anything other than taking an eye for an eye, any eye, innocent or guilty, just because he feels he can. I also feel that TB is writing a blank cheque we may not be able to cash. I do not want to see British Forces bogged down in Afghanistan long after the US has lost the stomach for the fight. Neither do I want to see us committed to sending troops to prop up struggling regimes in India and Pakistan for years to come because the US wrecklessly chooses to ignore the implications of attacking Afghanistan. We just cannot afford in human or economic terms what that entails. Again the US will not be prepared to spend dollar 1 on what it will pass ff as our colonial inheritance having spent billions on a war it cannot win. So we again will be faced with the brunt of the clean up operation repairing the damage wrought by flawed US foreign policy as we have been doing for years in the Balkans. Having done me the courtesy of hearing my argument, I look forward to hearing yours.
Roc:
The first 6 lines of your response gave me hope of a reasoned argument. I should say to you that things deteriorated from there, and you reinforced your own stereotype. I could bang the table and say "I won't have it sir!" and demand you retract your accusations of cowardice, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. I will at least try and give you the benefit of the doubt as I see you are geographically close to the events of the past weeks and I will assume you are rightly angry and that it is your anger which speaks louder than your true intent.
I do not advocate, and never have, trying to have a diplomatic answer when the Taliban have no intention of acknowledging that the attack on the WTC was in any way wrong. Their request to OBL to leave the country was an act of self preservation rather than an act of acknowledgement. OBL will leave Afghanistan, of that I am confident because it is culturally unacceptable for him now to stay. Arabic culture is by far stronger than western culture in terms of society's norms and values. I also agree that if OBL were brought to trial it would degenerate into a media circus, and the US would be the star attraction in all 3 rings! (let us think of the OJ trial in this respect). You would also be opening yourself to backlashes against moslem communities at home and every crazy in the US would be coming out of the woodwork, especially the right wing fundamentalist Christians, the KKK, and your own firebrand extreminsts. That leaves us with a military response, which may or may not be appropriate depending on the limits imposed on it, and here lies the crux of my argument. I am not arguing that we should do nothing, what I am arguing for is a greater analysis of the circumstances and the wider implications of acting in such a fashion. We cannot adopt a "kick ass now, ask questions later" model of military planning because we are open to failure if we do. We also then become the terrorists we seek to destroy. Imagine you were an Afghan family living in terror of the next wave of US led bombing against your village. Think about what that would make the US where it to bomb any town or collection of buildings simply because it might just contain a terrorist or two and imagine the outrage that would be felt in the moslem/Arabic world if the justification used was "better 100 innocents die than a single terrorist escapes". Add to that the vitriol from Bush that leads us to the conclusion that Afghans should die because Americans have died and we have a recipe for disaster. Note that Bush has already set himself up as God in Islamic terms by promising "Infinate Justice" through the proposed code name of the operation, Infinate Justice being something only God himself can bring in terms of the Koran. I question the notion that anyone should be pleased that Powell, Cheney, et al are advising Bush when he comes out with comments such as this and calling his actions a "Crusade", another deeply offensive comment to moslems in the US. It just evidences my point that he is, in fact, badly advised.
As for your comments about a attack on Britain, I think we have to look at our cultural differences. I can say from personal and first hand experience that they are many, and vast. We as Britons are more reserved. We do not have the "frontier sprit". We do not have a constitution that binds our thoughts into a single paradigm. We do not have the ideological battles you face on gun control and religion. We do not therefore need to concern ourselves as a nation on what role the right to bear arms has on society. These battles have built up in the minds of many Americans a need to justify the need to defend individual state freedom against a federal oppressor with violence and the taking of life. Neither have we built a money meritocratic society that sees the right to defend property with violence as sacred. This is what makes us, as Britons, less hawkish. It is not in our culture or psyche to want to avenge every act with violence. It is not in our culture to believe that we are the greatest country on Earth and that everyone else would naturally desire to be British if given the choice. We do not pledge allegiance to the Union Flag (though I sometimes wish we did!). We do not hold the office of Prime Minister as sacrosanct. We criticise and ask questions of our leaders. We are cynical and have to be convinced of the merits of a course of action. We are often quiet and will take hard knocks on the chin. We try and act responsibly, and most importantly, we are not isolationist in our approach to world affairs. But understand that we are courageous. We withstood the blitz and everything that the Germans could throw at us for years before the US got involved with WW2. You would have happily left us to it had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, and you may wish to consider this when attacking Chamberlain or British Diplomacy. We have endured 30 years of domestic violence from the IRA. We have suffered attack after attack on our shores but have stood resolute since 1066, our shores never being breached. When you understand that we are not like you Americans you will understand why Jacko, Helmut, Rattus, Beagle and I do advocate think first, then act as the appropriate course of action.
[ 23 September 2001: Message edited by: kbf1 ]