Dear Tami,
<br>You raise good, well thought out points. I, too, have, over the years, admired certain skills, attitudes and competencies displayed by the Israelis. Over the long haul, a “humint” (real live spies) effort seems essential.
<br>
<br>***However***
<br>
<br>While the Israelis have had some successes, I note that Hezbollah, PFLP, PLA and other terrorist organizations still exist, indeed, the PLA is now known as the Palestinian Authority, and verges on Statehood. Not to pick any fights here; there are valid international reasons why Israel couldn’t at any time in history, anyway, mount an overwhelming operation to eliminate any one or all of these groups.
<br>
<br>America, however, can, and should do so. Spying on them is only effective as a response, since you can't begin spying until there's something to spy upon. Aprehending the bad guys, and trying to be nice to the rest, then aprehending more bad guys as they seek attention... that seems more likely to eliminate ongoing, and hopelully deter future terrorism, provided we also keep our neighbors from harboring, aiding and abetting them. But yes, we'll spy on them, too.
<br>
<br>***
<br>
<br>Meanwhile, we can either make violent response, or turn the other cheek. "Turning the other cheek" seems ill-advised, at this moment for several reasons.
<br>First, the proverbial Moslem-in-the-street, who’s feelings matter to me more than anything, won’t interpret it that way, mostly because turning the other cheek was elevated to sanctity by the teachings collected in what is now known as the “New Testament.” While those teachings underlie Christianity, they do not have the same “resonance” in Moslem thought patterns. A more likely guiding metaphor for their thinking is from Hammurabi – “An Eye for An Eye” They will expect this thinking from us, and interpret our acts in light of this ''obvious" (to them) rule of behavior.
<br>
<br>Consider this, please. Osama says we deserved the horrible murders committed on 9/11. Moslems on the street believe this either strongly, weakly or not at all. Regardlesss of whether they believe we deserve it or not, most of them expect a strong, violent response. Non-response will not be seen in terms of ‘Christ-like’ understanding, for the above reasons. Non response will look an awfull lot like either weakness or admission of guilt.
<br>
<br>I’ve seen no evidence that problem resolution in the ordinary Islamic world involves the wronged party (Osama, in his own view) going up to the bad guys (us) and doing grievous bodily harm, whereupon, the bad guys are expected to say, "Oh, Gee. I didn’t know you felt strongly about this. Of course you’re right, I offended, even though I am capable of killing everyone you ever knew, I’ll just be going home now to lick my wounds and beg Allah for enlightenment, and forgiveness.” Whereupon the good guys say, “Okay, looks like you're not such bad guys after all... sorry about your liver, bud.”
<br>
<br>While I’m no expert in Islamic affairs, doesn’t it seem more reasonable that if a person with no cultural heritage of ‘turning the other cheek’ sees one man accuse another of offense, then strike him, and promise to go on striking him, while the other does nothing, that maybe this observer might conclude a lack of resources, will, intestinal fortitude, or worse, conclude that the smitten felt too guilty to respond, and so admitted his guilt?
<br>
<br>My limited reading of the history of the region suggests that these things are expected by all parties to drag on, reprisal upon reprisal, picking up and trading allies, until one side gets sick of the punishment and pays off his opponents or until one side literally exterminates the others, and all their allies.
<br>
<br>I believe, whether they believe Osama’s propaganda about us or not, most observers who know what has been done to the US expect a violent response, and would spit upon a non-response. The biggest problem, that observers might not believe Osama did this has now been alleviated by Osama’s top henchmen, who have promised more Airplanes will strike more buildings. Note, they did not promise to imitate the 9/11 hijackers, but to continue their offenses.
<br>
<br>Our opportunity to think (and act) "outside the box" in this lies in stopping short, way short, of "exterminating" Osama's team - - by only targeting the bad guys and their immediate protectors, instead of everybody they ever shook hands with, and by feeding the poor among them.
<br>
<br>****
<br>
<br>You made the following remark
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>The reality is that we are dealing with a fanatic society, not individual fanatics. We liked to got our butts kicked in WWII by the Japanese Kamikazis (fanatics). Lucky for us, when we applied the big hammer, they didn't have the ability to respond, nor were they quite as fanatical, I think, as the Islamic guys are.
<br>We are now seeing that the Arab nations will stick together when it comes to it. (Surprise.) Collectively, that means they're a lot bigger than Japan.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>
<br>1. Some of them are on our side. (Soudi, Paki, Jordan, Oman, UAE, etc)
<br>3. We didn't come close to getting our A$$es kicked by the Japs. They surprised us, killed our pacific fleet, and we still came back and took the entire theatre back from them conventionally while fignting another war in Europe and Africa!
<br>2. We’re now much, much bigger than Japan ever was. We’re now much, much bigger than we were when we defeated Japan, with help from our Allies. We’re now even bigger than we-and-our-allies were then. I would hate this and am truely horrified even to think it, but one sad, sick end to this involves a huge number of dead poor people who should have never picked up a weapon to find solution to their poverty.
<br>
<br>I want Osama stopped before he invites more of those innocents to pick up weapons, ending their innocence and consequently their lives.
<br>
<br>You raise a very painful point, that citizens of Afghanistan are paying a price for their government’s allegiance to Osama. Our war on the bad guys is, horribly enough, hurting innocent Afghani’s.
<br>
<br>I am tortured by this. In a perfect world, it wouldn’t happen this way.
<br>
<br>I am only partly comfortable saying the following. Nothing suffices to explain killing, except that it may be defensible to say, it was the only way to stop even more killing.
<br>
<br>Here's my point:
<br>It is our duty to keep our government from acting badly to other countries and to their citizens, just because it is our duty, period. It’s the right thing to do. If we fail in this duty, we haven’t “earned” punishment, in a direct mechanical crime-and-punishment way. But, like many failures of duty, we do increase the likelyhood that others will hate us, and try to hurt us for this. I am NOT saying that others are justified in hurting us, only that they, being human, may be expected to want to more, when we allow our government to hurt them.
<br>
<br>Now turn it around. The Afgani’s have allowed their government to keep dangerous criminals around the country. Those criminals have hurt others. And the Afgx’s government has refused to make those criminals accountable, or to allow a true inquiry in the world court. Proof WAS offered regarding the Cole. They obfuscated. Proof WAS offered over our embassy’s. They equivocated. 5000 people are now dead, and more killings promised. We just can’t stand around whining for ‘justice’ while the Taliban alternately denies OBL’s involvement or claims not to have him.
<br>
<br>Yes, in a perfect world, we should go to the world court (again), but please note, the symmetry ends here because, unlike Osama, the US is not intentionally trying to kill Afgani’s for their government’s wrongdoings. Osama is, by his own proud statement, trying to punish US citizens for offenses committed, in Osama's judgement, by their government. The US is trying to get Osama, has asked the Afgani government numerous times for help, and as a last resort, threatened and then carried out War. While we have tried to make it as painless as possible for ordinary Afgani’s, it’s a WAR after all, and there’s a good reason we do this reluctantly, and the reason is that good people die in war. We didn’t go to war over two embassies; we didn’t go to war over the Cole, we let Iran keep our embassy staff hostage for months, I think partly or mostly because war is awfull.
<br>
<br>But this guy killed 5,000 people, and promised to kill more. And still we asked his protectors first, giving him time to dig in, because we’re the good guys.
<br>
<br>And, Tami, you’re absolutely right to be worried about Paki’s nukes. Someone in this thread says the US “Secured” them already. Here’s a contrarian report from today’s paper:
<br>
<br>“Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment's nonproliferation program and a former nonproliferation policy adviser to the U.S. Department of Energy. This is from the Los Angeles Times.”
<br>
<br>"... Pakistan has resisted any outside attempts to help secure its nuclear materials. There is the risk that receiving assistance for its nuclear program from outside powers might further destabilize the current situation. Yet Pakistan has already made its strategic decision to throw in with the West against terrorism. “
<br>
<br>There’s more, here.
<br>
<br>See my post in the earlier thread quoting experts on how Osama’s real goal is likely to be the destabilization and overthrow of as many moderate Islamic countries as possible, Pakistan for the nukes, and Soudi for the oil on the top of Osama's wish list. And it's happening, now.
<br>
<br>Get that post here
<br>
<br>My opinion is get him at all costs, before he gets nukes.
<br>
<br>Ed Norris<br><br>