From: Peter Pariseau
Subject: Equipping the Taliban

I just read your latest newsletter from OSG and, mixed in with perceptive stuff about Napoleon and the Russsian campaign was much about current politics. And some of what was said I disagree with. That's normal and perfectly fine in our political culture and in our society (happy to be able to say that, by the way).

But there was also a piece of serious misinformation. No American administration acted in any way to "arm and equip" the Taliban.

We of course equipped the mujaheddin. But only a small portion of the Taliban's fighters are former mujaheddin (most are too young), and only a very small part of the former mujaheddin ended up in any way associated with the Taliban. Instead, at the end of the Russian invasion, the resistance split into numerous factions and have been conducting a civil war ever since. The U.S. has NEVER assisted or recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. Pakistan is primarily responsible for the rise of the Taliban, with financial assistance from Saudi Arabia. A good, quick reference for these events can be found in Ahmed Rashid's recent book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" (Yale U. Pr. 2000).

It is important to get this fact right, and not to mislead anyone, even by accident. THEN you can go into "blame America first mode", and we can have a vigorous debate....

From: "Francis.Timothy"
Subject: Counter-Terrorism 102

Yesterday, OSG news commented that the US should be very careful in its military response to the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. I found a few parts of the commentary troublesome, hence this reply.

First, to use Clausewitz as a model, war is neither the last resort nor can it be surgically removed from the political context within which it is waged. When Clausewitz wrote that "...war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means.", he meant that war is one of many means of reaching a desired political goal.

For this reason, worries about "cowboy behavior" to include an all-out assault against Afghanistan or the mass killing of innocent people are unwarranted. Nor will there be major US ground troops in Afghanistan, if only because the logistical constraints on such an option are almost insurmountable, but also because such a campaign would not serve the ultimate political goals of the US. Firebombing civilians does not help reach this goal, nor would it help American diplomacy.

The people who run US foreign policy--or really any country's foreign policy--are not stupid. Making policy is a complex balance of internal and external variables. For example, trying to enforce a 10-mile diameter "no-fly-zone" around Washington and New York or installing lasers or an antiaircraft missile batteries on the Pentagon would send all sorts of unwanted signals to the world. These types of asymetrical and expensive responses are exactly what Osama bin Laden wants to provoke. Some responses are required, of course, if only to reassure the American public as well as the NY and international stock markets, but let's not get too carried away--think of what would happen in Congress and the news media when one of those lasers sends a missile plowing into a soccer mom's minivan.

At the same time, I wish we could all stop using the term "exit strategy." Thinking the US needs one is a misunderstanding of the so-called Powell doctrine. What is more important, and is perhaps the same thing expressed more clearly, is to "think about your last step before taking the first step" a la Clausewitz. I'm sure most of the energy of the foreign policy establishing is going into devising an attainable goal of the opportunity now in their hands.

OSG asked: Where did this hatred of the United States come from? Out of nothing? Out of the Koran? Out of animosity, out of jealousy when they are living in such poverty?

A very complicated question. Not the Koran I would say, more the resentment and jealousy of people angry with the backward state of their civilization, the relentless advance of western culture over theirs, and the more particular details of US military power in the Middle East--which is designed to keep the flow of oil to Europe and Asia cheap and unconstrained--and our support for the state of Israel (in that order).

As an aside, Palestinians don't hate us, they are angry because to them we profess to be a neutral dealer but we really have taken a side. And it is not theirs. And our stand does add friction to a complex European/Western civilization relationship with Islamic civilization in general, and the Arabs in particular.

Finally, I think we will all be surprised at the lengths the US will go to spare the innocent. In some ways, the groundwork for this is already being done, as a close reading of the briefings on CSPAN will reveal. There will be little fighting on the ground--at least in Afghanistan (Iraq may be a different story)--with special forces only. I doubt much will be done to make the lives of individual Afghans more miserable, as I think by now most people should realize economic sanctions are a blunt and indiscriminating tool of policy. It is the poor who are hurt, not the leaders. Better a short, sharp war to remove the leadership than a long, grinding period of sanctions that hurt the mass of the population.

From: Matthew Holbrook
Subject: Who Created the Terrorists?

Much of what you say about how to conduct the coming campaign makes sense, but I respectfully object to what you have to say about the role the US has had in bringing about the events of September 11th.

How did we create these terrorists? Did we enslave them, such as we did to the ancestors of African-Americans? Did we overrun their lands and put them on reservations, such as we did to the American Indian tribes?

We support Israel, yet we have tried to play an honest broker between the Israelis and Palestinians in the peace process. And though the Israelis have targeted Palestinian policemen, as you have said, when will the Palestinian Authority drop its dedication to the destruction of Israel, one among a number of points agreed to at the Oslo accords that they have failed to fulfill? I did notice that Yasir Arafat was not celebrating in front of the TV cameras. I think he understands where his interests are when it comes to the US.

The US armed the Afghans in their fight against the Soviet Union; no doubt bin Laden and other non-Afghans benefited from such assistance. But how did that create the terrorists? Were Stinger missiles used in the attacks? What did the CIA do that pushed these folks into terroristic activities? I don't see how arming the mujahdeen leads directly to September 11th.

Before we start blaming ourselves for September 11th, we should first look at what bin Laden has said about why he's out to get us. If I may paraphrase: He wants to bring down the "moderate" Arab regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, because they are not pure enough in their devotion to Islam, and they allowed the "crusaders" to enter the land of the holy places of Islam. He wants to force the supposed puppet master of those regimes, the US, to leave the Middle East. His motivation is strictly based on a peculiar interpretation of Islam. There are no references to poverty or injustice in any secular sense. He and his associates have been compared to the radical Weather Underground of the 1960's, in that we have a bunch of well heeled people who decide to resort to revolutionary violence for ideological reasons. Look at the hijackers: As far as I have seen, none of them seem to have come from poor families.

Many of our Arab coalition partners have had their own roles in encouraging terrorism. I was reading a column in this week's Newsweek that showed how Saudi Arabia's own brand of puritanical Islam is the source of bin Laden's version of Islam. And Tom Friedman of the NY Times was on Imus this morning talking about how the Saudis and others have tried to control the radical elements in their societies by constantly attacking the US and Israel in their media, thereby focusing the radicals' rage and resentment against convenient, foreign hate figures.

But who really created the terrorists? The terrorists themselves. Are not bin Laden and his kind human beings, can't they make moral choices? Bin Laden's hatred of America is not different from Hitler's hatred of the Jews: all-consuming, irrational, and eschatological. If anyone is to be blamed for that, let's lay it on Osama.

From: "John Theissen"
Subject: Collateral Damage

Let's not forget that the US and Britain indiscriminately killed civilians: Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, etc. The US has never repented, unlike Germany, for this history. Goering was condemned to death for bombing cities, US and British leaders got off free. This kind of arrogance is not lost on the rest of the world. The US deliberatly targeted civilians recently in Iraq and Yugoslavia. People in this country don't like to talk about this, but civilians are civilians, dead is dead, immoral is immoral.

You asked the question: Where did this hatred of the United States come from? Out of nothing? Out of the Koran? Out of animosity, out of jealousy when they are living in such poverty?" The answer to the above questions is: No. The reasons, very briefly, are in part what you mentioned about Israel's attacks, also Israel's illegal occupation, illegal invasions, etc. fully supported diplomatically, militarily, and economically by the US. Also the US attack on Iraqi civilians by bombardment and follow up sanctions - approximately one million civilians killed thus far. Also the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia apparently is offensive to many Muslims. You say by taking Afghanistan off the grid it wouldn't cost a drop of blood. I don't think I agree with that, it probably would cost a lot of civilian Afghani blood, especilly with winter approaching. Afghani civilians are identical to American civilians as far as morality and value. Perhaps it would be better to support militarily and economically the Afghan resistance army of the north.

From: "Joe Willette"
Subject: 3 points immediately come to mind

1) The Deputy Secratary who mentioned getting Iraq simultaneously should have been fired. This was never seriously considered.

2) The laser thing would be too easy to kill innocent civilains with based on pilot errors/emergencies. I don't think we've reached the point of having automatic killing devices in our country. Besides the terrorists will come up with a different scheme anyway.

3) The Taliban is the most oppressive regime on Earth (did you catch the documentary shown on CNN that was secretly filmed last year?). Most Afghans look at the Taliban as hypocritical thugs and would love to see their legitimate government restored. We could accomplish this if done very carefully and teach the world a blunt lesson about rogue regimes. The rebel factions represent the UN recognized government and should be assisted in getting their country back for their people.