"I'll agree with crusade being loaded, but every intention of the current administration makes this look like it will be a war. Call it a police action, call it a measured response, call it a strike against terrorism ... it's still a war." If this is a war, it's unlike any war the United States has entered so far. We are not facing the army of another entity--to some extent, I'm not even sure if we know exactly whom or what we're going to be fighting against, where it is, or how large it is. To think in terms of a conventional "war" mentality at this point limits thinking and strategies. "I can accept those who argue for peace. I can accept those who argue against indiscriminate destruction and only what is needed - I'm one of them. But I can't accept an argument that refuses to assume that anything besides a minimum military response might be needed. If you're going to argue for war, I ask that you do so knowing what that may entail and what the consequences of your choices are." The difference is one of approach, not end results. I am not arguing that we avoid casualties altogether; just that we do not act too severely to "end" terrorism and "punish" states that harbor terrorists. Obviously we can't control for all possibilities. On the other hand, we can temper possible excesses: at no point should we ever say, "OK, bin Laden is in town X--let's bomb the whole thing to ashes." However, if somebody said, "OK, bin Laden is in a bunker in such and such part of town Y, and we're going to wipe out everything in a two-block radius," that would be different: there's complete destruction and there's decisive and necessary action. Nonetheless, if and when a full-blown invasion becomes a necessary action, then it will be up to our leaders to decide if it is necessary. However, so long as there is a way to pursue objectives short of an invasion leading to "the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of people who have no idea who's fighting over what," that should be our first plan of attack. "Many innocents will die and it's likely that many American soldiers will die with them." Unfortunately, war happens, and in modern times takes many more lives in collateral damage. However, your scenario means that the question we have to ask is not whether the deaths of many people will occur, but who suffers the losses. There are no easy answers to that question, but we have to at least be sure that if the sacrifices are going to be made, we're going to actually benefit from them. I would not want to bomb a city to ashes and then learn that my quarry slipped out the back way during the night. *That's* not something I could live with, even if we are "at war." --AEI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST