As distasteful as the kind of response Mark describes may be, I believe it
is necessary.  I suspect many of the people involved in inflicting or
sponsoring terrorism reacted (privately) to the attack on the U.S. with
thoughts such as "Oh shit - this time they have gone too far, and the
retribution will be terrible!"  If that response fails to materialize, those
people will be emboldened.  They will see that a horrifying attack on the
U.S. is both possible and inexpensive in terms of consequences, and they are
going to want a piece of the action.  It will be like the rash of
kidnappings in Beirut back in the 80s: one group started it for a specific
purpose, then many more jumped on the bandwagon.  Sadly, we have been thrust
into a position of having to make war or face a huge escalation in anti-U.S.
violence if we don't.  We didn't ask for this choice, but here it is...

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bixby [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: USA under attack


[log in to unmask] wrote:
> X-no-Archive:yes
> If the killing begins, where can it end? If we kill bin Laden, then surely
> other will line up to join him in martyrdom if need be. If we kill them,
> still others will want vengeance until they have it. Do we then kill these
> fresh enemies? And then death toll would have to approach genocide. We
will
> make others nothing but martyrs and enemies this way, at the cost of our
> lives and the lives of our allies.

I think it's pretty safe to say there will always be another bin Laden.  The
actions of extremist individuals  can probably never be influenced by any
state.

The true battle here is against state-sponsored or state-tolerated
terrorism.
I think we have an opportunity to bring this awful era to a close provided
that
we respond in a way that inflicts truly horrible punishment upon the guilty
state(s).  A punishment so terrible that no state will ever again dare risk
its
infliction.

Current evidence suggests bin Laden is responsible.  If this evidence holds
up,
the Taliban government who harbors bin Laden must be punished.  Via moral
condemnation?  Ha -- as if they care.  Via U.N. sanctions?  Ha -- they'd
only
laugh.

No, it's time to send an unmistakable message that state terrorism will no
longer be tolerated.  Instead of useless cruise missile pin-pricks, the US
and
NATO need to be willing to inflict a massive amount of non-nuclear damage
upon
Kabul, the Afghan capital (i.e. completely reduce it to rubble, at least the
parts of it not already reduced to rubble by the ongoing Afghan civil war).

There are a few choices for doing this:

- as an ultimatum, i.e. "send us bin Laden or we will destroy Kabul".  This
gives them an option to avoid civilian casualties (good), but lets them
escape
punishment for harboring Evil (bad).

- we start bombing Kabul, and say "we'll stop if you hand over bin Laden".
They pay the price for harboring Evil; it's up to them how high the price
goes.

- completely level Kabul, then ask for bin Laden, and if they refuse, move
on
to the next largest Afghan city, and so on and so on down the list.

Harsh?  No doubt about it!  It's supposed to be.  The only thing Pure Evil
understands is Raw Power.

We need to be willing to consider responses that will likely result in
civilian
deaths.  To unconditionally avoid this level of response (as in past
incidents)
makes us look weak and invites future attacks without fear of retribution.

The firebombing of Dresden and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagaski both
inflicted terrible civilian casualties, but both helped to end the
respective
wars.  Yet both Germany and Japan survived, and evolved to become stronger,
better, and more "good" than they once were.

Regarding nuclear retaliation -- I've heard comments during the news
coverage
of the past few days that suggest nuclear is one of the options on the
table.
My own opinion is that would be GROSSLY irresponsible, creating far more
future
problems for the entire world.  Nuclear weapons must never be used, and
complete nuclear disarmament should still be a worldwide goal.
--
[log in to unmask]
Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve scarce California electrons...

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *