Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT) From: oconnell-AT-oz.net (Mark O'Connell) Subject: Re: War I thought this was good, fairly free from political/philosophical bullshit and abstractions, so I'm sharing it: >This was written by Tamim Ansary, a writer and columnist in San >Francisco, who comes from Afghanistan. > I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back >to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that >this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to >do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept >collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some >TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be >done." > > And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard >because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for >35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want >to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm >standing. > > I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There >is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the >atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about >those monsters. > > But the Taliban and Bin Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not >even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of >ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is >a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think >Nazis. When you think Bin Laden,think Hitler. And when you think >"the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration >camps." > > It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this >atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They >would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and >clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their >country. > > Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the >Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, >incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations >estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan -- >a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. >And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. >The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed >by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people >have not overthrown the Taliban. > > We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the >Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it >already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level >their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. >Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut >them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already >did all that. > > New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would >they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, >only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. >They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those >disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have >wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't >really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific >thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the >Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping all >this time. > > So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak >with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go >in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly >to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the >belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any >moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out >of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And >not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through >Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that >folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go >through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of >Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just >stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war >between Islam and the West. > > And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what >he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. >It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. >It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the >world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the >West wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with >nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of >view. He's probably wrong, in the end the West would win, whatever >that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would >die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden >does. Anyone else? Mark O'Connell oconnell-AT-oz.net
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005