Now that Afghanistan is more charred...no w what?

Was anything in this whole stupid sequence of events a good idea? The answer being no, life continues.

two wrongs dont make a right

We should try bush blair and UBL in the same dock for crimes against humanity. With an added charge for bush and blair for stupidity for doing exactly what UBL wanted them to do.

A world crimes court is a peerless and urgent idea: but who polices and enforces it? What power constitutes it? Currently the US is only the available strong-arm for all the "world justice" there is (ie it sponsors the Courts at the Hague; and the UN is situated in New York): is there a real-life way to undo this and build a system up by another, fairer route?

Surely some modification of the structure and powers of the UN would be a start -- for example the dissolution of, or at least the removal of the right of veto within, the Security Council (where the USA will veto any constructive suggestions re: Palestine, on behalf of Israel). Ending the dismal habit of linking aid to the imposition of particular forms of bureaucratic or governmental control? An end to the tyranny of the concept of Security in international relations? Widespread acknowledgement amongst the liberal intelligentsia that their political and economic doctrines belong to a time long-past?

Sadly history is politics, i.e. contingent and constructed here and there, now and then, in polemical, contested and agonistic situations, not mapped out on the basis of plans and blueprints. Some combination of piecemeal reform and inspirational planning is needed. But urgently. And not wrapped up in Blair's Christian imperialism re: freedom, democracy etc. which is guaranteed to exacerbate difference rather than finding common ground.

And stopping the bombing would be a start. Too late, sadly, but a start.

Its true Bin Laden wanted us to wage war on Islam because he hopes all Muslims will join in this " JIhad" . And we walked righ t into it. Now the US has even said it may bomb other countries too. US vs. the world. The WTC attack was unjustifiable, but I still question whether this military action was the intelligent move.

Not to be contrarian, but I must admit that the current scope and direction of things hasn't bothered me as much as I thought it would. It's the Panama / Grenada / Ethiopia plan, with variations: destabilize the present government, give the rebels a little push to take control, and then prop up a moderate regime. The questions, though, are (a) will this spark a shitload of resentment? I don't think there's much to worry about outside of Afghanistan -- I mean, only two nations in the region even bothered recognizing the Taliban -- but internally, it seems possible that we may end up just shifting the sides (ruling Northern Alliance defending against Taliban insurgents) and inviting a hell of a lot more terrorism. And the second question is (b), will it really be so easy to construct a new government there -- like our fortnight excursions in Panama and Grenada -- or will we be pushing into a serious, serious mess? The scary consideration on this latter front is that it's a big, craggy, decentralized country, and even up until now the Taliban's control of the southern 3/4 hasn't stopped the Northern Alliance from keeping at them; so how long and messy is it going to be to try and install a moderate government that doesn't leave a Taliban stronghold somewhere?

I guess the related questions are: (a) how tenacious are the rank-and- file Talib? My reading seems to imply "not very" -- destroying the power structure may well just send them wandering home to do something else -- but then again, how do we know that? Which leads to (b) surely we don't plan on trying to wipe out the Talib?

he hopes all Muslims will join in this " JIhad" . And we walked righ t into it.

Let it be noted that if it *was* his plan, he is a fool. How many millions of Muslims are in the US, Canada, Europe, elsewhere, for example? Do you see any sort of jihad happening right now? Fuck no! Do you see the entire Middle East on the march? No, and no again. Mike, you've got to be careful of the monolith fallacy here -- Islam is *not* a unified entity. The Taleban calling for jihad is much more along the lines of a splinter Christian sect calling for Armageddon, and you need to keep that in mind. Hell, Iran, who has been right next door to the Taleban all this time, loathes them and almost went to war with them when a number of Iranian diplomats were killed in Afghanistan a while back. That the actions of the US are at the least questionable is beyond debate, and the repercussions will exist, whatever they might be, and the bit about taking on other countries is pretty lame (I suspect it's more along the lines of way *way* ahead advance notice/chest beating rather than actual commitment of effort). But you're immediately assuming a worst case scenario here -- take a deep breath and relax. Nitsuh's cogent observations are the ones to consider more thoroughly (and I can't suspect they're going to try and wipe out the Taleban themselves, surely the idea is to let the Alliance or whoever do it for them).

OK: prob isn't half the world lining up unequivocally behind the taliban, it's *every* community *anywhere* splitting into murderously hostile camps: clear example on our doorstep being the suddenly sundered lib-left (as per chomsky vs hitchens: a breach that may never heal). War exacerbates *existing* divisions, even if unrelated, cuz it makes everyone think abt the bottom line (eg think: is my own way of life worth giving up my life for: if ans = no, as it does for some ppl in EVERY POLITY anywhere, then the dissensus begins).

I can't suspect they're going to try and wipe out the Taleban themselves, surely the idea is to let the Alliance or whoever do it for them.

And right there is where it gets really, really sticky, and I get a little nervous. Because: what if the Taliban turn out to be harder to knock over than we think? (Cf. Soviet experience -- the difference there being that we were backing the mujahadeen, but the point still being that the Soviets really underestimated the challenge they were taking on.) But so what if the Northern Alliance can't make much progress despite our air support, and this starts to drag on into an extended conflict? Would we be willing to keep on cruising and bombing for years and years, waiting for success -- or would someone like Bush be a lot more likely to ramp up the pressure, throwing in ground troops to get it over with quickly? (The American people, post-Vietnam, aren't too good about supporting extended conflicts, after all.) And what if that turned out to be a little messy?

Another note, by the way -- we've already heard complaints from the Northern Alliance that we're not supporting them in the way they were promised. It is way too early to be hearing that, and it scarily echoes the mujahadeen -- "You tried to control this area without ever getting your hands dirty, and we took the brunt of it."

I don't trust the Northern Alliance at all. I suspect they're just as bad. Who knows? And even if all Muslims don't back Jihad, it only takes a few Muslims in power to initiate actions.

Caught an interview with Pakistani author of book on Taliban (didn't catch name) in which he stated the US/British air attacks had left much of the Taliban's armoury alone, and pondered why they hadn't directed their firepower more heavily on their military installations. His only explanation was that Washington isn't keen on handing Kabul to the Northern Alliance on a plate (NA ethnic minority who would never command wide-spread support in a post- Taliban Afghanistan). If he's correct it begs the question what is the end-strategy of these attacks?

Fom what I understand, Cheney/Bush will not accept a Northern Alliance-controlled gov. in Afghanistan, have told them as much, and promised them favors down the road in return for letting us set up our entirely theoretical "moderate" government apparatus (translate: lackeys who will allow us to administer Afghanistan). I wonder what those promises are, and whther they're worth anything. NA is probably wondering too. Course I'm wondering who the NA even are, really.

If he's correct it begs the question what is the end-strategy of these attacks?

Hmm...put that way, then we could in fact be seeing an extended version of the diplomatic moves previous to Sunday. Consider that to avoid the 'hand over on plate' scenario, more Pushtun-based forces would have to be, shall we say, persuaded to switch sides, thus broadening the Alliance's appeal. This could almost be the equivalent of the US etc. saying to the Taleban in general -- not the leadership in particular -- 'we've done this much, and we can do more if we feel like it -- but you can escape hanging around the 'more' part.'