NP Afghanistan

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> lycidas2 at earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> > This is simple I know,  but I'm simply suggesting that there are
> > alternatives to a USA led military option.
> 
> It seems pointless to say this now, once that military operation has
> virtually done its job. 

Right, but the point is, the USA did have options. The chose was not
simply to bomb or do nothing at all. 


Are you saying that there should have been no
> bombing and that the Taliban's planes and armouries, and the terrorist
> encampments and communications networks, should have been left intact? 

First off, I am convinced that the Taliban is responsible for the
attacks on the USA. Clearly some military action was necessary. I'm not
a military strategist, but from a tactical perspective, the use of air
power (planes and missiles) seems like the smart way to go about it.
However, I think that a coalition from the region would have been a
better way to go.  


I  can't see how that would have been good for anyone, American or
Afghani. But
> whatever, it's irrelevant now. The attacks, the refusal to negotiate, the
> bombs: these have already happened. It's what comes next which is important.

Right. It's what comes next. Again, I'm not a military expert, but it
is  interesting too, that the bombing option was not what Secretary of
State Colin Powell advised. 


> 
> Of course there are refugees fleeing the bombs and fighting. That doesn't
> mean that they support Osam and the Taliban leaders, or that they won't
> return to their homes if and when the Taliban regime is ousted. I think that
> it's pretty important now to at least finish off what has been started, for
> the sake of the Afghani people if nothing else. From all accounts that's the
> plan.

>From here it looks very complicated. The USA has begun bombing Taliban
troops. These bombings have been limited in part by an agreement struck
with the Northern factions. There is a real concern that the Northern
factions will push the Taliban back to the city and this could make
things very complicated.  

> 
> It would be nice to see those humanitarian aid organisations and the UNHRC
> getting their act together to help the refugees at the Pakistani border, as
> well as those languishing in the detainment camps (i.e. gaols) elsewhere,
> putting pressure on govts to expedite the processing and repatriation of
> refugees. The propagandists try to make out that the tide of refugees has
> only just begun, and is the result of the U.S.-led campaign. This is
> patently false.

Certainly the bombings have, in the short run, exacerbated a dismal
situation. No? 


> 
> Also, last week there were reports that a flood of cheap heroin was hitting
> the markets in countries neighbouring Afghanistan as the Taliban sold off
> its stockpiles. The regime seems ready to collapse: there have been
> defections from and divisions within the Taliban as well it seems. It might
> be time to start putting together a plan for a replacement government, such
> as that suggested by the former King in the article David Morris posted:
> 
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1,,2001370904,00.html
> 
> best

God knows the people deserve some peace and progress.