(continued from previous page)
"Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans,
they don't move too fast; they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying
over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals
who did this horrific thing."
I agree, if the bombing were indiscriminate. But there are other options.
"Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
"So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops."
Heavens no! Does the author think that a ground war means that the bullets would only enter the bodies of the bad guys? Will Afghans fight our troops? Judging from their recent history, yes, and fiercely. As the Russians learned during 10 years of war. Street fighting in Kabul? With tanks? Artillery? Troops fighting house to house? How many innocents will die in that kind of an assault? Is that what he wants?
"When people speak of 'having the belly to do what needs to be done' they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed."
Possibly. And if so, it's the kind of thoughtless shoot-from-the-hip reaction we can do without. But it could have another meaning. Since Vietnam, Americans have increasingly demonstrated a desire for quick fixes. They soon become impatience with "military" campaigns that involve loss of life and are not resolved posthaste. Give us a Granada or a Desert Storm and we're happy. But give us a Somalia, or a Bosnia, and we soon lose patience.
"Do we have the stomach for it?" could instead mean: Have we the staying power to persevere when results may come slowly, or may not be readily apparent; when our campaign may not produce dramatic "victories"; and when our actions may result in the loss of American troops and matériel. In sum, it is unclear which meaning the "TV pundit" referred to had in mind when he questioned whether we have the belly for doing what needs to be done.
"Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan."
Possibly, but that's hardly a given. There are other alternatives. For example, it's been reported that Uzbekistan (whose Moslem population is mostly Sunni) may offer us access. Territory controlled by the Northern Alliance is another.
"Would they let us? Not likely."
While I'm also skeptical, surprisingly, actions by the Pakistani government over the last couple of days suggest it might not be as unlikely as the author would have us believe. On the other hand thousands of pro-Taliban Afghans and Pakistani (you know, the ones the author assures us want the Taliban overthrown) were demonstrating in the Pakistani capitol against the US and in support of the Taliban.
Continued 
|
Menu
