The first mistake was to declare this a "war"
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, well, you can read the whole of George Monbiot's article here: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1030-02.htm
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]
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.
[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: fobotcso ]
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ]
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 ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
