<HTML>Claire,
> To act to capture just those you can prove were connected to
> these attacks is only part of the problem - they all survive
> and operate only because they are able to operate in 'safe'
> countries - capture the guilty ones this time and others will
> fill their shoes.
But thats a moral judgment in itself - who is to say who those 'safe' countries for terrorism are? Do you include Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Colombia, Chechnya etc.? How about the US and the UK? And if you differentiate between them on what basis can you say that some acts of terrorism do not require military action but others do?
There are only 2 things that distinguish what happened last week from terrorist incidents elsewhere in the world and they are the scale of the tragedy and that it happened in the US. I wonder if this had happened in London would we be on the verge of war right now? Would Bush and the American people be talking about US military intervention in Afghanistan? I personally don't think we would.
> To attack those governments that aid terrorism against
> Americans (if this is an American or NATO action) would be to
> kill other innocent citizens who have no control over what
> their governments choose to do - but may (only perhaps)
> diminish the ability of the terrorists to operate in their
> goal - to kill innocent people.
Doesn't that say it all? "attack those governments that aid terrorism against Americans" and presumably turn a blind eye to those that operate elsewhere in the world? What about the terrorists like Bin laden that were funded and trained by the CIA? Presumably so long as they don't attack the US they can consider themselves safe from attack?
> I don't see any moral high ground in any option. We are all
> struggling to find the right way. Ideals about only
> attacking those specifically guilty for this crime are the
> best way - but we don't live in a world where we can control
> how others act - we can only respond.
Agreed. A response is a necessity as we cannot let this crime go unpunished. However I would prefer that the appropriate pressure be applied so that Bin Laden be extradited and tried for this crime. No form of military action could guarantee that he would be taken out of Afghanistan alive and if you murder him you will create a martyr. There is also huge local support for bin Laden in Pakistan. Who is to say that the military dictatorship there is stable enough to withstand their dissent in allowing foreign troops to use their country to engage military action against him and the Taliban?
If Afghanistan were to
> declare war - and I think that have declared a holy war now
> against America - then is America to send out it's troops
> with a warning only to kill the guilty?
The Taliban have declared a jihad or holy war only if the US invades its border.
I don't know how
> that works. We already have more than 5000 innocent people
> killed. What should America (NATO) do next?
The US will decide whatever course of action it thinks is necessary and the UK will stand right alongside whatever decisions they make. The rest of Nato will offer vocal support initially but if military action goes ahead, casualties become high and the campaign draws on watch as France, Italy, Germany ultimately condemn it.
KRs,
Duncan</HTML>
