The first mistake was to declare this a "war"

[kbf1]

Sir Michael Howard yesterday delivered a speech to the Royal United Services Club which was published in today's Evening Standard. His comments are worth consideration.

When in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center the American Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that America was 'at war', he made a very natural but a terrible and irrevocable error. Leaders of the Administration have been trying to put it right ever since.

"What Colin Powell said made sense if one uses the term 'war' in the sense of war against crime or against drug-trafficking: that is, the mobilisation of all available resources against a dangerous anti-social activity; one that can never be entirely eliminated but can be reduced to, and kept at, a level that does not threaten social stability.

"The British in their time have fought many such 'wars'; in Palestine, in Ireland, in Cyprus and in Malaya, to mention only a few. But we never called them 'wars': we called them 'emergencies'. This meant that the police and intelligence services were provided with exceptional powers, and were reinforced where necessary by the armed forces, but all continued to operate within a peacetime framework of civil authority. If force had to be used, it was at a minimal level and so far as possible did not interrupt the normal tenor of civil life. The object was to isolate the terrorists from the rest of the community, and to cut them off from external sources of supply. They were not dignified with the status of belligerents: they were criminals, to be regarded as such by the general public and treated as such by the authorities.

"To 'declare war' on terrorists, or even more illiterately, on 'terrorism' is at once to accord them a status and dignity that they seek and which they do not deserve. It confers on them a kind of legitimacy. Do they qualify as 'belligerents' ? If so, should they not receive the protection of the laws of war? This was something that Irish terrorists always demanded, and was quite properly refused. But their demands helped to muddy the waters, and were given wide credence among their supporters in the United States.

"But to use, or rather to misuse the term 'war' is not simply a matter of legality, or pedantic semantics. It has deeper and more dangerous consequences. To declare that one is 'at war' is immediately to create a war psychosis that may be totally counter-productive for the objective that we seek. It will arouse an immediate expectation, and demand, for spectacular military action against some easily identifiable adversary, preferably a hostile state; action leading to decisive results.

"The use of force is no longer seen as a last resort, to be avoided if humanly possible, but as the first, and the sooner it is used the better. The press demands immediate stories of derring-do, filling their pages with pictures of weapons, ingenious graphics, and contributions from service officers long, and probably deservedly, retired. Any suggestion that the best strategy is not to use military force at all, but more subtle if less heroic means of destroying the adversary are dismissed as 'appeasement' by ministers whose knowledge of history is about on a par with their skill at political management.


"It is like trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow-torch"



"Figures on the Right, seeing themselves cheated of what the Germans used to call a frisch, frohliche Krieg, a short, jolly war in Afghanistan, demand one against a more satisfying adversary, Iraq; which is rather like the drunk who lost his watch in a dark alley but looked for it under a lamp post because there was more light there. As for their counterparts on the Left, the very word 'war' brings them out on the streets to protest as a matter of principle. The qualities needed in a serious campaign against terrorists - secrecy, intelligence, political sagacity, quiet ruthlessness, covert actions that remain covert, above all infinite patience - all these are forgotten or overriden in a media-stoked frenzy for immediate results, and nagging complaints if they do not get them.

"All this is what we have been witnessing over the past three or four weeks.

"Could it have been avoided ? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened.

"But we do not live in an ideal world. The destruction of the twin towers and the massacre of several thousand innocent New York office-workers was not seen in the United States as a crime against 'the international community' to be appropriately dealt with by the United Nations; a body for which Americans have little respect when they have heard of it at all. For them it was an outrage against the people of America, one far surpassing in infamy even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Such an insult to their honor was not to be dealt with by a long and meticulous police investigation conducted by international authorities, culminating in an even longer court case in some foreign capital, with sentences that would then no doubt be suspended to allow for further appeals. It cried for immediate and spectacular vengeance to be inflicted by their own armed forces .

"And who can blame them ? In their position we would have felt exactly the same. The courage and wisdom of President Bush in resisting the call for a strategy of vendetta has been admirable, but the pressure is still there, both within and beyond the Administration. It is a demand that can be satisfied only by military action - if possible rapid and decisive military action. There must be catharsis: the blood of five thousand innocent civilians demands it.

"Again, President Bush deserves enormous credit for his attempt to implement the alternative paradigm. He has abjured unilateral action. He has sought, and received, a United Nations mandate. He has built up an amazingly wide-ranging coalition that truly does embody 'the international community' so far as such an entity exists.

"Within a matter of days, almost, the United States has turned its back on the unilateralism and isolationism towards which it seemed to be steering, and resumed its former position as leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War. Almost equally important, the President and his colleagues have done their best to explain to the American people that this will be a war unlike any other, and they must adjust their expectations accordingly. But it is still a war. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible.

"Now a struggle against terrorism, as we have discovered over the past century and not least in Northern Ireland, is unlike a war against drugs or a war against crime in one vital respect. It is fundamentally a 'battle for hearts and minds'; and it is worth remembering that that phrase was first coined in the context of the most successful campaign of the kind that the British Armed Forces have ever fought - the Malayan Emergency in the 1950s (a campaign incidentally that it took some fifteen years to bring to an end). Without hearts and minds one cannot obtain intelligence, and without intelligence terrorists can never be defeated.

"There is not much of a constituency for criminals or drug-traffickers, and in a campaign against them the government can be reasonably certain that the mass of the public will be on its side. But as we all know, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorists can be successfully destroyed only if public opinion, both at home and abroad, supports the authorities in regarding them as criminals rather than heroes.

"In the intricate game of skill played between terrorists and the authorities, as we discovered in both Palestine and Ireland, the terrorists have already won an important battle if they can provoke the authorities into using overt armed force against them. They will then be in a win-win situation. Either they will escape to fight another day, or they will be defeated and celebrated as martyrs. In the process of fighting them a lot of innocent civilians will certainly be hurt, which will further erode the moral authority of the government.

"Who here will ever forget Black Sunday in Northern Ireland , when a few salvos of small-arms fire by the British Army gave the IRA a propaganda victory from which the British government was never to recover ? And if so much harm can be done by rifle fire, what is one to say about bombing ? I can only suggest that it is like trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow-torch. Whatever its military justification, the bombing of Afghanistan, with the inevitable 'collateral damage' it causes, will gradually whittle away the immense moral ascendancy that we enjoyed as a result of the bombing of the World Trade Center.

"I hate having to say this, but in six months time for much of the world that atrocity will be, if not forgotten, then remembered only as history; while every fresh picture on television of a hospital hit , or children crippled by land-mines, or refugees driven from their homes by western military action, will strengthen the hatred of our adversaries, recruit the ranks of the terrorists and sow fresh doubts in the minds of our supporters.

"I have little doubt that the campaign in Afghanistan was undertaken only on the best available political and military advice, in full realization of its military difficulties and political dangers, and in the sincere belief that there was no alternative. It was, as the Americans so nicely put it, an AOS situation: 'All Options Stink'. But in compelling us to undertake it at all, the terrorists had taken the first and all-important trick.

"I can also understand the military reasoning that drives the campaign. It is based on the political assumption that the terrorist network must be destroyed as quickly as possible before it can do any more damage. It further assumes that the network is master-minded by a single evil genius, Osmana bin Laden, whose elimination will demoralise if not destroy his organisation. Bin Laden operates out of a country whose rulers refuse to yield him up to the forces of international justice. Those rulers must be compelled to change their minds. The quickest way to break their will is by aerial bombardment, especially since a physical invasion of their territory presents such huge if not insoluble logistical problems. Given these assumptions, what alternative did we have ?


"Blair urges us to keep our nerve. We must also keep our heads"



"But the best reasoning, and the most flawless logic, is of little value if it starts from false assumptions. I have no doubt that voices were raised both in Washington and in Whitehall questioning the need and pointing out the dangers of immediate military action; but if they were, they were at once drowned out by the thunderous political imperative: Something Must be Done. The same voices no doubt also questioned the wisdom, if not the accuracy, of identifying bin Laden as the central and indispensable a figure in the terrorist network; demonising him for some people, but for others giving him the heroic status enjoyed by 'freedom-fighters' throughout the ages.

"We are now in a horrible dilemma. If we 'bring him to justice' and put him on trial we will provide him with a platform for global propaganda. If we assassinate him - perhaps 'shot while trying to escape' - he will be a martyr. If he escapes he will be a Robin Hood. He can't lose. And even if he is eliminated, it is hard to believe that a global network that apparently consisting of people as intelligent and well-educated as they are dedicated and ruthless will not continue to function effectively until they are traced and dug out by patient and long-term operations of police and intelligence forces, whose activities will not, and certainly should not, hit the headlines. Such a process that , as the Chief of the Defence Staff rightly pointed out, may well take decades.

"Now that the operation has begun it must be pressed to a successful conclusion; successful enough for us to be able to disengage with a reasonable amount of honour and for the benefit of the tabloid headlines to claim 'victory' (though the very demand for 'victory' and the sub-Churchillian rhetoric that accompanies it shows how profoundly press and politicians still misunderstand the nature of the problem that confronts us.) Only after we have done that will it be possible to continue with the real struggle that I have described above; one in which there will be no spectacular battles, and no clear victory.

"Sir Michael Boyce's analogy with the Cold War is valuable in another respect. Not only did it go on for a very long time: it had to be kept cold. There was a constant danger that it would be inadvertently toppled into a hot nuclear war, which everyone would catastrophically lose. The danger of nuclear war, at least on a global scale, has now thank God ebbed, if only for the moment, but it has been replaced by another, and one no less alarming; the likelihood of an on-going and continuous confrontation of cultures, that will not only divide the world but shatter the internal cohesion of our increasingly multi-cultural societies. And the longer the overt war continues against 'terrorism', in Afghanistan or anywhere else, the greater is the danger of that happening.

"There is no reason to suppose that Osmana bin Laden enjoys any more sympathy in the Islamic world than , say, Ian Paisley does in that of Christendom. He is a phenomenon which has cropped up several times in our history - a charismatic religious leader fanatically hostile to the West leading a cult that has sometimes gripped an entire nation. There was the Mahdi in the Sudan in the late nineteenth century, and the so-called 'Mad Mullah' in Somaliland in the early twentieth. Admittedly they presented purely local problems, although a substantial proportion of the British Army had to be mobilised to deal with the Mahdi and his followers.

"The difference today is that such leaders can recruit followers from all over the world, and can strike back anywhere in the world They are neither representative of Islam nor approved by Islam, but the roots of their appeal lies in a peculiarly Islamic predicament that has only intensified over the last half of the twentieth century : the challenge to Islamic culture and values posed by the secular and materialistic culture of the West, and their inability to come to terms with it.

"This is a vast subject on which I have few qualifications to speak, but which we must understand if we are to have any hope, not so much of 'winning' the new 'Cold War', but of preventing it from becoming hot.

"In retrospect, it is quite astonishing how little we have understood, or empathised with, the huge crisis that has faced that vast and populous section of the world stretching from the Mahgreb through the Middle East and central Asia into South and South-East Asia and beyond to the Philippines: overpopulated, underdeveloped, being dragged headlong by the West into the post-modern age before they have come to terms with modernity. This is not a problem of poverty as against wealth, and I am afraid that it is symptomatic of our western materialism to suppose that it is. It is the far more profound and intractable confrontation between a theistic, land-based and traditional culture, in places little different from the Europe of the Middle Ages, and the secular material values of the Enlightenment .

"I would like to think that , thanks to our imperial experience, the British understand these problems - or we certainly ought to - better than many others. So, perhaps even more so, do our neighbours the French. But for most Americans it must be said that Islam remains one vast terra incognita - and one, like all such blank areas on medieval maps, inhabited very largely by dragons.

"This is the region where we have to wage the struggle for hearts and minds and win it if the struggle against terrorism is to succeed. The front line in the struggle is not Afghanistan. It is in the Islamic states where modernising governments are threatened by a traditionalist backlash: Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, to name only the most obvious. And as we know very well, the front line also runs through our own streets. For these people the events of September 11th were terrible, but they happened a long way away and in another world. Those whose sufferings as a result of western air raids or of Israeli incursions are nightly depicted on television are people, however geographically distant, with whom they can easily identify.

"That is why prolongation of the war is likely to be so disastrous. Even more disastrous would be its extension, as American opinion seems increasingly to demand, in a 'Long March' through other 'rogue states' beginning with Iraq, in order to eradicate terrorism for good and all so that the world can live at peace. I can think of no policy more likely, not only to indefinitely prolong the war, but to ensure that we can never win it.

"I understand that this afternoon, perhaps at this very moment, the Prime Minister is making a speech exhorting the British People to keep their nerve. It is no less important that we should keep our heads.

Sir Michael was speaking to the Royal United Services Institute

[X-QUORK]

Thought provoking stuff.

How can Western culture confront the medieval mindsets of these people without using medieval methods ? Beats the hell out of me. :confused:

[Ali Barber]

Excellent stuff, especially the "heart and minds" which we Brits have specialised in for a while now and that the US have almost seemed to have ignored. I cringe when I read in the press of talk by Pentagon officials of a full scale invasion in the Spring. Presumably this is because they will not have acheived much by then from bombing mud huts and Red Cross warehouses. I am also very dubious of the publicity surrounding special forces operations. These always used to be covert and, despite the CNN factor and the need to keep the public informed that something is being done, should still be covert i.e. no publicity.

I live and work in the middle-east and people need to be aware of how sensitive the coalition is to other factors. Most Arabs I have spoken to were as horrified about the 11th Sep as were the Westerners. But there is a quid pro quo for their ongoing support, and that is some sort of resolution to the Israel/Paestine situation. There are UN mandates against Israeli occupation that have not bothered the US or anyone else since they were first published. We don't need to talk solely about the Afghan situation, or whether Iraq is next. We need to see the bigger picture.

Afghanistan is a Muslim country and, no matter what we think of the Taliban, it needs a Muslim input to find a long term solution. Bin Ladin is seen by some of the younger hot heads in the region (not so much in this country) as a hero because he is fighting the devil USA. That image needs to change. To do that, the USA needs to provide a positive input to resolving the Palestinian situation and then it will go some way towards winning the "hearts and minds".

[Jackonicko]

1) But Israel's the only democracy in the region (OK, so you don't get a vote if you've been ethnically cleansed).

2) But the Palestinians are all trouble making terrorists, look at the PLO, look at Arafat blah blah blah (OK, ignore membership of the Irgun or Stern Gang among Israeli politicians)

3) You must be a) unpatriotic (You're either for us or against us) and/or b) anti-semitic.

4) The war's going swimmingly, and the general public's still right behind us, and there is no problem with Johnny Foreigner (we'll bomb any who aren't still with us) so there's no need to change the pace at which we're doing this, or the nature of the targeting. Everything's bleedin' peachy!

I don't believe any of the above, by the way, but it is the inevitable response to anyone who states such common sense (even if it is "bleedin' obvious") so I'm just saving the knuckle draggers the bother.

Toodle pip!

7.38 and pi$$ed already? Dearie dearie me.

[West Coast]

Oh Jacko, don't go wobbly on me now. Its awfully early to be getting fubared(drunk, excuse my slang). When will you savage Brits learn to drink cold beer and keep the pubs open later. O.K.,

1&2. Lessor of the two evils. Did you bet and lose money on the 73 war or something?

3. Afraid so. Next time it could be a 747 into Harrods. When you fall off the fence, please note which side you land on and report to all. Perhaps you won't tumble off, Hard to imagine a greater fiat to destroy terrorism. Enuff said.

4. What I know comes from my friends still on active duty, and from what I see in the press. Its not the blitz, but no one promised one either. I have been near the buisness end of a B52 raid in the Gulf, something I wouldn't want to be on the buisness end of. Perhaps your drinking too much of the Kool aid your brethern journalists are dishing up. The pejorative sense of doom is based not on some intimate
knowledge of the battle but one the reporters style. I saw a report one network about a large number of fighters squatting on the Paki side of the border, the Taliban telling them to stay put. One network with their ill informed "military correspondent" reported this as a sign that the war was bogged down because the Tailiban essentially told these guys we don't need your help whipping the infidels. Funny, another network reported this as a sign that the effort was going well because the taliban didn't want to take a chance on these guys getting wacked by a strike as they crossed the border. You have inside knowledge of the effort?

Hope you get over the hangover quicker than I do. As I get older I find it takes awhile.

[ABGO]

IMHO, Sir Michael Howard made a lot of sense. So did Ali Barber.
But the simple truth is that Mr. Blair, Mr Bush and all those conned by that pair, and the President's men, continue to be deceived by their own rhetoric and the propaganda they have sanctioned (CNN and BBC).
The air power delivery of murder on the ground in Afganistan must stop immediately if the Anti-Terrorism Coalition Governments are to preserve ANY credibility with the Islamic peoples of this World. Already, enough resentment, hate and the vengeful desire to retaliate by some means at some time into the future has been spawned in the minds of millions who ally with the Taliban or Bin Ladin. Or indeed Moslems who believe it is a Crusade against Islam.
So by their actions the Coalition Governments have presented themselves and their successors with a massive escalation of the level of police and defence preparedness against terrorism for the years to come. (A self-imposed, huge economic burden for their taxpayers to shoulder for as long as those with a GRUDGE hold that grudge and attempt to get evens by some small margin.)
Because the Israelis are still delivering State Authorized Terrorism against whomsoever they hold suspicions about, and thus collaterally ALL the non-jewish people who reside and attempt to live in Palestine and Israel, the 'DOUBLE STANDARD', the "BLIND EYE" being exercised by the leaders of the Coalition Governments is recognized by any and all intellectual half-wits and above across the World.
The Government of Israel continues to order and sanction citizens to commit 'crimes against humanity' - on a daily basis. Acting unilaterally - regardless of the UN or the objections from other legitimate Governments.
The Taliban are not. And, re 11 Sep, no proof has yet been provided to the citizens of this World that Bin Ladin and his followers have either. It is not enough to have Mr. Blair or any one of the other Coalition Leaders state that 'the evidence is compelling' and so justify the war aginst the people of Afganistan. Present it, in the open, out in full and convince the people.
So now, frustrated by the lack of success in bringing the Taliban to heel and handing over Bin Ladin, the USA is continuing to make all the mistakes as they did in Vietnam, by bombing whatever, more than yesterday!
What cock-eyed logic from the outset. To get one man they commit war on a country. Then they justify that by saying the Taliban will not hand him over therefore they are collaborating and supporting international terrorism. So they extend their revenge to include all who harbour and support. Again no proof!
Then they decide to interfere with the internal business of a legitimate State and declare that because they are not being given what they demand, ipso facto they are going to change the Government of Afganistan.
So now they justify destroying the little that remains of the infrastructure of Afganistan.
All done remotely by airpower because domestic USA politics can not accommodate or tolerate the loss of any American lives in such a campaign - even though it is in revenge for the 11 Sep events. Yet it is OK to kill and maim innocent Afgani civilians. To all involved, and the outside observer, that means that America continues to regard the life of an American as valuable but that of a citizen in another country expendable! Again, a 'DOUBLE STANDARD'.
So, now with four weeks past and the frustration of stalemate mounting the arsenal has escalated to cluster bombs and B-52 carpet bombing (used to be 121 X 750 pounders per aircraft load)(dumb bombs).
But still the Coalition propaganda machine makes claim that there were no innocent civilians around those targets.
Hey "George Doublya" and "Tony", what do you take us for???
You cannot suggest that anyone who happened to be walking in the hills, or near the entrance to a cave or in one is a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorism. Therefore you cannot carpet bomb or lay down delay fused cluster bombs and claim they were aimed at known enemy and that there would not be collateral damage to innocent civilians.
So, the cowards at 25,00 feet releasing those weapons are also guilty of 'crimes against humanity', just as are their superiors all the way up to "George Dublya" and "Tony"!
Someone please stop this murderous,unwinable nonsense. Let us hope the pair of them start listening to and acting on the advice of Sir Michael Howard.

[X-QUORK]

ABGO,

I know Melbourne's a long way away, but how the hell did you become so detached from reality ?

If Bin Laden orders a strike on Sydney to punish Australia (for comitting forces to the coalition) and kills thousands, how would you expect your government to respond ?

I find your attitude towards the US aircrews quite unbelievable....."guilty of crimes against humanity" ?!! I suppose Bin Laden's just guilty of freedom fighting ?

Your profile suggests you've been in the military....or just a wannabe ?

[BEagle]

Bolleaux to this. Turn the $odding place to glass - with a dash of Plutonium!

By the nature of their actions, Bin Liner and his criminal cohorts have contracted out of the human race and should be put down without further discussion.

Let the sun shine in....by the bucketful! The BRSL is unlocked......

[ 02 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[tony draper]

Amen to that Mr B.

[misterploppy]

West Coast

As I understand it, the Taliban are declining the offer of 'volunteers' for a very practical reason.

As they go to war, the last thing they need is thousands of wet behind the ears teenagers who can't even fend for themselves, let alone live and fight in the field.

When their LOCs are being bombed back into the stone age (if they weren't there already) and General Winter is on the horizon; acquirng thousands of militarily useless, pubescent zealots to resupply is the last thing their logisticians will need.

[West Coast]

Mr ploppy
Your arguement sounds as plausible as any. My point is that the journalists at least here in the states are very irresponsible in thier reporting as my story illustrates. Each of the networks hire retired military officers for "expert" analysis. I long ago worked for one who knows nothing of the aviation side of the Navy/Marine Corps, yet he is up there espousing his beliefs as gospel on the capabilities of the F18. What he knows, he learned from a Janes book a few minutes prior. In the immediate days following 9/11 I was impressed by the reporting I saw. The story was enough in of itself, however now the hyperbole must be manufactured to compete with other 24 hour news sources. I watched a Pentagon briefing a few days ago in which an Admiral was raked over the coals by a reporter wanting to know why the war effert was "stalled". No one promised a quick bombing evelution and Bin Ladens head on a stick over a long weekend. Bush has repeatedly said this may be an effort that takes years to complete.
I guess as I end this diatribe, my frustration lies in that that journalists should report the news, not manufacture it.
I also hope from my previous post that I am not labeled as intolerant. It seems there is a double standard on the board.

[fobotcso]

kbf1, so what was the second?

ABGO, for heaven's sake get your arse over here closer to the threat, live with it for a week or two and then test your attitude.

And again, Amen, I say to Mr B.

Get real, people. In your lifetime there will be Nuclear Mayhem. Make no mistake about that. Maybe even in mine. Where should the initiative lie in the cause of a return to civilised sanity?

[kbf1]

Abgo: I quote you directly;
Then they decide to interfere with the internal business of a legitimate State and declare that because they are not being given what they demand, ipso facto they are going to change the Government of Afganistan.

Legitimate government? you are aware, are you not, that the Taliban siezed control of Afghanistan in 1996 from the legitimate Government of the day by means of a bloody coup?

I am quite happy to accept that prima faciae evidence that OBL was behind the attacks exists. Also, one does not "commit" war, one declares it. The "war" (sic) is being fought against terrorism in the guise of the Taliban. I can see the entire logic of removing the unelected Taliban from power in Afghanistan and seeing a representative government made up of both Pashtuns and Uzbecks. I am happy to accept that international action should be taken to remove the Talioban from Afghanistan and place OBL on trial in an internationally recognised court of law to be tried for numerous crimes. Where I have a problem is the constant shift of policy and lack of clear military agenda. For example the US refused to bomb Taliban lines in support of the Northern Alliance as it did not recognise the right of the Northern Alliance to form a legitimate government (in other words, the US didn't trust the Northern Alliance any more than it trusts the Taliban, and it too does not have a glowing human rights record). As soon as the US realised that there was no other viable alternative faction to fight against the Taliban the policy shifted and Taliban front lines are being bombed to aid the NA advance on the Taliban. Yet in spite of all of this, I am still unsure as to what the actual agenda for this action is. Are we looking to kill OBL? bring him to justice in an international court? remove the Taliban? Install the Northern Alliance as the governemnt? make a show of force and go home, pride satisfied? None of these questions has yet received an answer which satisfies me. More worryingly is the idea that the PM, the very person who should be answering to Parliament on these very issues is off galivanting around the middle east when decisive action at home is what is called for. I was personally very glad to see him get "taken out for a walk" by President Assad because it brings home to the King of Spin that this is a serious issue that requires a serious response.

[ABGO]

Gentlemen,

My credentials are 34 years in the military; dropped bombs and also got seriously shot at in Vietnam; three tours as an operational squadron or wing commander; graduate of several staff colleges; for several years the assistant commandant of one; student of military history, political science and air power; and currently living in the Middle East.
I may not please you with certain of the points made, but consider this: which CIA assisted with enabling the Taliban to get into power? (As in the history of the USA's foreign policy - My enemy's enemy is my friend all over again!)
Might I also recommend you read through Sir Michael's speech again - particularly with reference to the other way of catching terrorist criminals (primarily by ongoing police, diplomatic, intelligence and secret service actions)( military as a last resort). As he reminds us, together with winning the hearts and minds of the people who otherwise would give succour and support to terrorists, it takes many years but eventually works - as exampled by the Malaysian Emergency.

[kbf1]

Abgo, I have to take your word for your experience as I don't know you, but to an extent it is irrelivant as I would treat your argument the same regardless of background.

I accept that the CIA has to shoulder a lot of responsibility for sporning such a danger. It is worth noting that the Taliban were trying for 3 years to hand OBL over and dispose of the "problem" that his presence created. The CIA, however, failed to appreciate both the potential threat that the man posed to domestic security and the need in Arabic culture to preserve face. The Taliban wished to save face by ensuring that OBL was handed over to a neutral Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia and typically the US refused to accept any other option than for the Taliban to hand him over to the US, which they would never have done. Even up to a couplew of weeks prior to Sept 11th the Taliban were trying to get rid of him. I suspect that they had taken a view that if he did pull off a major act of terrorism against the US (and I suspect that Mullah Ohmar knew what he was planning) the US would retaliate with military power and not only strengthen OBL, but weaken the strength of grip the Taliban has over the southern half of the country and open the door to the Northern Alliance.

The issue I see with the proposal Sir Michael made as far as the Americans are concerned is a cultural one. The Americans are so accustomed to having their needs immediately satisfied (for it is the American way, we didn't have fast food until the Americans decided they should have faster, more convenient food)that the idea of waiting 30 years for a solution where the might of the US isn't on show to the world is anathema to them. The net result is that they were bound to act rashly, even if they waited 3 weeks to do it.

The Gulf War also has a lot to do with setting false expectations of an Arabic enemy. Unlike the Iraqi conscripts the Taliban are highly motivated troops with high morale and the upper hand in their own terrain. They may be poorly armed, but they evidenced the damage which can be done by a highly motivated force of 19 hijackers and a couple of extremely low-tech knives. The US has assumed that as the Taliban don't have laser-guided 1000 lb-ers and AH64s that they won't be able to out up a fight, yet they have begun to be p;roved wrong. Also, the Gulf War was faught with intelligence gained through satellite technology and air power. the scenario was different, as were the
enemy. This methodology was applied in Serbia and the net result was the US ended up bombing a number of cardboard cut-outs and not armour. The real need facing the US is to have intelligence gatherers on the ground who can assimilate into the commuinity, who speak the language, understand the culture, and who are situationally aware. The US don't even have Pashtun speakers to translate the intelligence they have. A satellite might show mass mobilisation as it is happening, but well placed intel on the ground can highlight local recruitment drives, and therein lies the difference, good intelligence at a much earlier stage highlighting things as they develop, not once they have begun. The CIA must invest heavily in a long term intel solution with a viwe to a successful outcome in years to come, not days. They would do well to look at 14 Int and their work in NI infiltrating the republican community and providing key intelligence from what they observed.

Fobotsco, perhaps the second mistake was to commit to the offensive after all of the rhetoric. By using terms like "crusade" in the early stages the US handed OBL a propeganda coup that he is still exploiting now because he can say that the west declared this action a crusade, and extrapolate that to convincing his minions that the intent is to destroy Islam, not remove a terrorist from the face of the Earth. It is worth remembering that they view the infidel as worthless, and that they gain their worth as creations of God by destroying in the most hienous way possible the infidel and dying while doing so. They genuinely believe in a God that will grant them mercy by demonstrating in this world a total callous lack of mercy to the infidel which is not God's creation and should therefore be destroyed. They also believe that this merciless slaughter is pleasing to God. Our only war to victory is to convince OBL's followers that Allah does not wish this, and that, is harts and minds, not bombing out of existence. The 3rd mistake? not having the common sense to select targets that will not lead to collateral damage thereby increasing sympethy from other muslims. The 4th, bombing the same Red Cross depot for a second time, after admiting that they made a huge mistake the first time thereby reducing the confidence of their allies that the US is not being destructivly gung-ho for cathartic reasons.

[Jackonicko]

West Coast,

There is some excellent good sense being written on this thread, and while it is sometimes critical of US policy and actions it isn't anti American.

We can be 'for you' without being uncritically so. You should expect your international friends to tell you when you are getting it wrong.

And in many ways you (America) are getting it wrong at the moment.

1) You are losing support in Europe and the moderate Arab World because the bombing has gone on too long, achieved too little and appears open-ended and aimless.
2) You have not done enough to demonstrate that you are a friend of Islam. It's not anti-semitic to oppose Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, including all those areas seized by force in '67, including the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem.
3) You appear to have double standards in applying and enforcing UN resolutions.
4) Your bombing campaign looks poorly targeted and too costly in terms of collateral damage (Here I suspect it's a matter of perception rather than reality) and seems too slow, insufficiently intensive, and too 'strategic'.
5) This looks like disproportionate knee jerk retaliation, conducted as soon as logistics allowed, rather than a considered response to the terrorist threat.
6) You're making martyrs (and turning OBL into a hero) and storing up trouble for the future.

NONE of the above reduces my sympathy for the tragedy of 11 September, nor does it mean that I think that 'nothing should be done', neither does it put me 'on the fence'. But doing the wrong thing may be worse than doing nothing.

[Smoketoomuch]

Aaaaargh, sorry but I can't let some of the comments here go unanswered.

If this isn't a war then I don't know what is. 4000+ died on Sept 11th, compared to 2,500 at Pearl Harbour. Of course its much more complicated this time because there are no easily identifiable culpable states - and that makes it more dangerous too - but it is undoubtedly a war.
We are faced by a crazed expansionist ideology that freely admits it wants to create a worldwide order - just as the Nazis declared in WW2 - and they've proved that they'll use any means to get it. They probably already have WMD - maybe nukes soon too. To those who say 'But we're alienating muslim countries' well b*ll*x!. The problems we face now are as a direct result of NOT alienating muslim countries in the past. The Saudis and Iranians and Pakistan created the Taleban, it wasn't the CIA. The CIA built the Mujahedeen - who were defeated by The Taleban in 1994 [ish]. We have stood back and watched billions of Saudi oil dollars fund the maddrasses religious schools throughought the middle-east and Africa where extremist Islam is the only subject on the timetable, it would be like turning over our entire education system over to the National Front. After 15+ years of this indoctrination we suddenly find [surprise surprise] that the M.E. and N Africa is falling under the influence of extremists and increasingly hostile to the West. It is little more than medieval primitivism but pretty soon they'll probably have nukes.. and unlike the Soviets they won't be afraid to use them. We simply *cannot* allow them to get that far - they must be stopped, and if you think some Oslo accord or UN food drop will permanently solve this problem then you're deluded.
Whatever the solution it won't be pretty, and lots of innocents will suffer, but there has to be a solution on *our* terms and not on some group who wants to turn the clock back 600 years.
There'll be lots of CNN pics of dead babies but ask yourself.. if CNN had been in Germany in WW2 we would have all been crying 'Oh they're hungry.. look a dead child.. we must stop this barbarity'.. yes we probably would, and it might have lost us the war.
The whole situation is bloody scary, but I think too many people don't appreciate the threat to *all* the west, lets face it, if the US is wiped out through some genetically engineered resistant anthrax strain, we here in the UK are f*cked! Todays US papers reveal intelligence reports of an imminent attack that will 'dwarf Sept 11th'... I'm off to the pub.

[ 03 November 2001: Message edited by: Smoketoomuch ]

[OldBonaMate]

But is bombing the $hit out of Afganistan in the hope of getting Osmond Bin Liner really the answer? I don't think so. The notion that an enemy will collapse and give up the fight because you have smoked out and killed their supreme leader exists only in the annals of the spaghetti westerns.

The solution has got be the "hearts and minds" approach espoused to so eloquently by Michael Howard. It's likely to take a lot longer and will do nothing to satisfy the journalistic feeding frenzy which accomapnies such campaigns, but it has to be the answer. PGMs were clearly unable to achieve their objective, and carpet bombing will only kill more innocents, so some means of regrouping is necessary to allow the more sensible solution to prevail.

Even if Afganistan is ultimately flattened beyond recognition will the problem have gone away? Doubtful; the extremists will move to another of their haunts and the 'war' will be continued by them from there. On the other hand the more measured approach has some historical precedent of success.

Let's hope there is light at the end of this tunnel.

OBM

[Chimbu chuckles]

Where the west is really hamstrung is that it can't control the media the way it's enemies can any more. It also can't fight in the same ruthless manner that it's enemies can and do!

Look back at the history of warfare and you'll see that as soon as the west allowed unfettered access by the media to the frontlines it essentially lost it's ability to fight wars effectively.

During the Civil War President Linciln suspended Habeus Corpus, muzzled the press and went on to, successfully, prosecute one of the bloodiest wars ever.

During WW1 do you think the populations of Britian, America or Australia/New Zealand would have supported the war effort if they had been privvy to what was really going on?

WW2 and Korea were fought in much the same vein, that is all the population was shown was controlled.

Then we come to Vietnam and all of a sudden we can be on the front line too. That, combined with a war run by the Politicians(unfortunately Kennedy and his collegues thought that their success at averting nuclear war during the Cuban crisis armed them with a new method of fighting wars in general, i.e take it out of the hands of the Generals!)took any hope of victory away.

The Gulf War was a victory however it was 'classic warfare' along the lines of WW2 and fought against Iraqi conscipts out in the open.

Anyone who remembers Wesley Clarke appologising for accidentally bombing the Chinese Embassy look no further for the evidence that we can no longer prosecute wars without CNN looking over the shoulders. The Chinese population was told that America had attacked the Serbs 'out of the blue', their only crime being friends of the 'Soviets'. The Chinese Govt controlled media NEVER aired the film showing Wesley Clarke and NEVER told the Chinese population that it was an accident born of bad intelligence.

The Serbian population was told by Milosevics controlled media that the 'refugees' were running from NATO bombing towards their Serbian friends, far from the truth as we know it.

Now you have Govt controlled media telling the populations of many Muslim countries that it IS a war against Islam, and what percentage of the worlds Muslims saw the film taken on Sept 11? Precious f**king few in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran etc I'll bet.

The US is running a very high risk of uniting the Muslim world, or at least the fundamentalist part, in Jihad against the West. It could have been handled better, but American media, and the national psyche can't let it.


Chuck.

[ABGO]

Just to keep things rolling along, 'George Dublya' said that; "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents they become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril".
Yesterday I was reminded, in a 'The Guardian' newspaper article, that; 'For the past 55 years the US has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively out-number the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at Al-Qaeda's door'.
Since 1946 it has graduated 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of that continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists.
((Estrada; 40% of the cabinet ministers under the genocidal regimes of Garcia, Montt, and Victores; 66% of those guilty of the atrocities in El Salvador; Pinochet's key men; Argentina's dictators - Viola and Galtieri; Panama's Noriega and Torrijos; Peru's Alvarado; Ecuador's Rodriguez;; the leader of the death squad under Peru's Fujimori; four of the five who ran the infamous Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (more death squads plus the 1994 Ocosingo massacre in Mexico); and the two who murdered peace commissioner, Alex Lopera in 1999; and now numerous graduates running paramilitary groups in Colombia - commisssioning kidnappings, disappearances, toture, murders and massacres.))
The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts...intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government'.
In 1996, the US Government was forced to release seven of the school's training manuals. Among other tips for terrorists, they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives.
The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation, or WHISC, based at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Until last year it was known as the 'School of the Americas' or SOA. Because of various exposures by the UN and the pressure group 'SOA Watch' the US House of Representatives voted to close it, but then immediately re-opened it under the new name. That was so that it washed its hands of the past. A senator later told the papers that the changes were 'basically cosmetic'.
So, given that the evidence linking the School to continuing atrocities in Latin America is stronger than the evidence linking the Al-Qaeda training camps to the attack on New York and Washington, what should be done about the 'evil-doers' in Fort Benning, Georgia?
We could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure, and to seek the extradition of the School's commanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity.
Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN.

You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree.
But try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afganistan!

[fobotcso]

Yes, well, you can read the whole of George Monbiot's article here: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1030-02.htm

[Liam Gallagher]

Jackonicko and ABGO,

We are all aware of the risks and pitfalls of the actions America has chosen to take.

However, it is the easiest thing in the world to sit on the sidelines and be critical. President Bush does not have that luxury. He has the overarching responsibility to protect the American people and that requires him to make some very tough decisions. Please tell us the exact measures you would wish President Bush take to protect the American people.

[kbf1]

Liam, it is quite right that those of us who may become directly involved in fighting any actions started by the US should debate in ernest the line they have chosen to take. Indeed, we all should discuss and debate the line the US has decided to take rather than blindly follow, or blinkerdly oppose. Such debate is a consequence of the democracy we live in, a fundamental right denied to those fighting for the Taleban. At least we will not be dragged out into the street and be stoned to death for discussing the rights and wrongs of the current action.

[Jackonicko]

Liam,

What would I do?

I'm a journo and a historian, not a politician nor a general, so I could only ever do the 'bleedin' obvious'.

1) Prepare the ground. Get the UN fully on-side and issuing resolutions which would give my actions full 'force of law'.

Ensure that my campaign could not be construed as a 'crusade' against Islam. Take advice before describing it in such terms, or allocating stupid and insensitive code names.

Take the necessary action to prove that I (and my nation) was a 'friend of Islam' (eg give Israel and ultimatum to abide by UN resolutions, threatening to cut off all aid, but promising unlimited security assistance if it did pull out of the West Bank and E.Jerusalem. Make the US presence in Saudi Arabia more sensitive and less visible. Think before criticising Arab states, use the carrot rather than the stick to get them on side.

2) Draw up realistic, achievable short term and long term aims and clearly articulate them.

Short term. Destroy UBL's training camps, destroy the Taliban's military capability (if the consequences of the latter are acceptable).

Long term. Get UBL. Fight terror worldwide.

Use the Press. Explain carefully what's being done and why, and explain that civilian and own casualties are likely (perhaps in a broadcast to the nation voiced over images of 11 September). Admit that 'War is hell' and will demean all of us. Explain why it's still justified.

3) Commit the forces necessary to achive the short term aims in the short term - compressing negative aspects, collateral damage etc. into the shortest possible timescale, achieving the aims before public opinion has a chance to waver. EG all enemy airfields and aircraft to be 'taken out' by Day 3 at the latest.

4) Do whatever is necessary to secure multi-national participation and basing. Especially bases in India and even Iran. Commit a minimum of five carriers (Desert Storm level) and achieve at least 300 bombing sorties per day.

5) Wait until these conditions can be met before being sucked into a long and ultimately counter-productive campaign.

6) Attack the target set repeatedly until destroyed, but within a short and finite period. Then STOP.

7) Bask in glory, prepare for inevitable second-term.

8) Try not to smirk!

[Robert Cooper]

To all those out there who support the "hearts and minds " approach espoused by Sir Michael Howard, I suggest you listen to what Bin Ladin is saying and read what he is writing.

This man is Hitler in another guise, bent on world domination by a muslim caliphate. Yes, hearts and minds can work in situations like Malya and Cyprus, to name a couple, but these were localized actions which lend themselves to that approach. We are dealing with a horse of different colour here, operating on a world stage.

Bin Ladin's Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none yet exist.

Bin Ladin and his Al-Qa'ida support Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and now Kosovo. He also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Ladin has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries. This is why he declared a holy war against the US and the western civilizations some years ago. Bin-Ladin advocates the destruction of the United States, which he sees as the chief obstacle to reform in Muslim societies. Since 1996, his anti-U.S. rhetoric has escalated to the point of calling for worldwide attacks on all Americans and their allies, including civilians. We are a few years late in responding to his declaration of war.

Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council on 15 October 1999 demanded that the Afghan faction, known as the Taliban, turn over Usama bin Laden to appropriate authorities in a country where he would be brought to justice. In that context, it decided that on 14 November 1999 all States shall freeze funds and prohibit the take-off and landing of Taliban-owned aircraft unless or until the Taliban complies with that demand. Since the Taliban did not comply with this obligation, the measures of the resolution have entered into effect. Unfortunately, like most UN demands, it is having no effect.

We went through the appeasment happy horse **** in the 30s, it didn't work then and it will not work now. We are doing the right thing , seeing international terrorism for what it is and finaly responding. Afghanistan and Bin Ladin is only the beginning, we have to root all the tentacles of this octopus wherever they are. The calous murder of 6,000 people on 9/11 was their most recent and best shot to date. We have to eradicate this evil from the world, or our children and their children will be permanently at risk.

We are not carpet bombing Afghanistan, we are hitting selected targets. We are not striking the people of Afghanistan, we are are striking at the international terrorist organization and its head that are taking refuge in that country. The Taliban were not elected by the people and are not representing the people of Afghanistan, they are foreign arabs who took power by force.

Well, that's my rant for the day.

Phew! I need a beer! :D

[fobotcso]

And that, Bob, is the view of most of us over here although I would never deny the right of those who wish to debate the rights and wrongs of it all to do so.

I wish you had left me something to add!

No, the first mistake (as we were reminded by Henry Kissinger this morning) was not to continue to Baghdad to bring down Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm.

The worst mistake of this whole sorry affair so far is OBL's horrendous misjudgement of the democratic world's reaction to his opening gambit on 11 September. He, and his Taleban hosts, are even now unable to see that this conflict will continue until they no longer pose a threat to the open and free societies that they despise so much.

And that will probably take a very long time. So you weak-spirited tree-huggers had better settle in for the long haul because nothing you can say is going to change anything.

Edit: Changing none of the above, I had meant to add for the benfit of OldBonaMate, who hopes that there is light at the end of the tunnel, there most likely will be. But it will be very, very bright and you mustn't look directly at it or it will damage your sight. :eek:

[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]

[Jackonicko]

1) Liberal shouldn't be a term of abuse. Those who choose to think about this issue are not 'weak-kneed tree huggers' or 'weak-spirited' any more than those who support the campaign are necessarily unthinking knee-jerk neanderthal red-necks.

2) Whatever UBL is or isn't, we mustn't stoop to his level, and the fight against him must remain legal and proportionate.

Taking proportionate military action is hardly bloody appeasement, is it?

3) That action must be effective, and it will be more effective if the reservoir of support for him is dissipated. He is after all a reaction to real and perceived injustices. Gaining support for action is a key part of how democracies are supposed to work. Ignoring domestic and international concerns about such action is both arrogant and foolish.

4) The Taliban may be 'foreign' but they're not Arabs. Al Q may be, the T aren't.

5) POI. The Taliban asked for proof of UBL's involvement before they would agree to extradition. Otherwise they offered to try him themselves, asked him to leave, and were clearly willing to talk about trials in neutral countries. In my view we did right in ignoring the dubious legalities and bombing them anyway, but acknowledge that it was dubious.

6) Like it or not, this long and poorly targeted campaign is hitting the people of Afghanistan at least as much as the Taliban and UBL. Continuing and causing mass starvation and continuing into Ramadan will only exacerbate opposition and is thus counter-productive and practically wrong, as well as being morally dubious.

7) The polls are inconclusive, but seem to show a growing mood in favour of a bombing halt. I wouldn't claim that either side of this argument is "the view of most of us over here". It's too close to call, but if those who oppose are in a minority, it's a significant one.

[fobotcso]

Jacko, you don't know how relieved I am to know that I am not a Neanderthal red-neck.

The trouble with your interpretation of "proportional response" is that you see it as a passive response. You wait to see what the bad guy does and then react "in proportion".

Of course, it would be a silly extension of this argument to say that we still have some way to go if all that mattered was the casualty score. I hope and believe that that is not the intention of the allies.

What is happening now is proportional. But it is based on the enemy's known capabilities and intentions; in other words the aim is to deter and prevent. If it were not proportional, the US would have no allies at all.

When we think this through, we must not stop when the picture becomes unpleasant to our sensitivities and settle for what we are "comfortable" with. Keep going. Look to the really ugly sequels that are inevitable if the zealots are not stopped. They don't use our rules or values. Hearts and minds stuff may work on the people they subjugate but not on those who believe that suicide in the cause of a jihad is the gateway to paradise. To them, truly, there are no rules in a knife fight.

Although I had, like many, forecast something like this, my timing was out. But my instincts were right. And I know they are still right when people like Clare Short are prepared to speak out in favour of the campaign. We grieve for the misery of the people who are suffering - but they will never know our freedom and even our most basic quality of life unless we do something about it.

[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]

[Liam Gallagher]

Kbf1,

Calm down, I am not trying to suppress debate. I am just fed up with people sniping at those who are trying to protect me and my family.

Jackonicko is clearly not a sniper, as his post(s) outline his views on what should happen and he backs up his views with reasoned argument.

Jackonicko,

Firstly, your views in my opinion are not that different from the status quo, given that some think the US should stand off and use Nuclear Weapons and others think the US should just "stand off".

However, are you saying that before you would commence any actions you would require a UN resolution endorsing/legitimizing your actions and you would need all forces in place (including bases in Iran)? If you are, this could take months/years and in that time the USA could be ravaged by terror attacks.

I do not agree that a timetable of targeting objectives should be published. The timetable will quickly become a petard by which to hoist your military.

I do not support any rapid changes in foreign policy. Rapid changes just signal to any terrorist, of any persuasion, that the West can be influenced.

I would be cautious about basing troops in Iran, India and even Pakistan. The use of these facilities will have a price and you may find that once the action commences you will have to tailor them to appease your hosts. By using carriers and US bases and overflying Pakistan the US has kept some independence. Should this result in a slower campaign; so be it.

Finally, I believe the press is being used/spun/manipulated at present. However, if you listen to what President Bush and Mr Blair are saying, and not what the commentators are saying, the message is clear; this is not a war against Islam; this war is bigger that OBL; patience is required.

[kbf1]

Liam I am calm as you like, and certainly not attempting to snipe at anyone out in the ME preparing to do whatever job is asked of them. I also believe that my posts outline my views on the current situation, albeit slightly differently from Jacko's.

It is interesting to note that in the recent tape sent to Al-Jazeera OBL lambasts the UN for declaring 2 resolutions calling for him to be brought to international justice after the embassy bombings of '98. He aligns any Muslim country that does not condemn these resolutions as infidel, and calls on all muslims everywhere to revel in the destruction of the US and proclaims that the US and her allies have embarked not no a war against terrorism, but a war on Islam. Had the term "war" not been used (along with a number of other unfortunate terms) by the west, he may have not found it so easy to distort the truth the way he has. In the west we take for granted the power that language has. English, unlike so many other languages, lacks some of the depth and subtlety to convey varying degrees of emotion and feeling. For example the ancient Greeks had 6 different words to convey the various aspects of "love", we only have one faily inadequate description of this emotion. Extreme car must be taken in the way we portray our position, and if we are to win over hearts and minds the language used musty not be so easily distorted.

Bob, I don't think that Al-Qaeda are necessarily such a different animal. The IRA operated all over the world, quite recently in Columbia, with Libyan backing, US money, and with Czeckoslovakian hardware. They had money laundering and drug running operations all over Europe and cells operating all over the UK, Eire, and in training camps in the ME, C America and elsewhere. In 30 years we have waged a covert war using 14 Int, the SAS, regular army, Special Branch, and MI5, all of whom operated in secrecy and under a shrowd. To say that we wouldn't achieve the same ends in time may be nieve in these early days. Bombing won't flush these animals out, it will only make them dig in, and we can't bomb Afghanistan forever. Then what do we do? The clever money is on the long-term game and the only way to win in the long-term is to be covert. This is very different from appeasement, as appeasement is taking the line "if we are friendly to them they may spare us from attack". We don't need to be friendly, but we don't have to be overt and in your face either. America would do well to take a subtle approach that does not flash it's successes on CNN, or involve high-profile and largely unsuccessful bombing raids. Can we really be certain that we have managed to degrade the effectiveness of the Taleban when the Northern Alliance still have made no significant advance? Don't forget Bob that we have been in this situation for over 30 years now and the Real IRA are trying hard to score a big hit, placing a car bomb in a crowded Birmnigham street last saturday night. We are still fighting on that front even if it seems the IRA have won all the concessions they want.