Clarifcation of my inquiry.

Thanks for your reply.

Brandioch wrote:
#1. How could the current situation have been handled different? I've addressed this by saying we should have provide the Taliban (and the world) with the "proof" we had of Osama's involvement. Unilateral action is BAD. If the Taliban didn't want to deal, then freeze all of their accounts and blockade them.

There were legitimate reasons why turning over evidence to the Taliban wasn't appropriate. And evidence subsequently became public - e.g. OBL's boasting tape. Finally, [link|http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/blockade-act-war.html|blockades] are traditionally regarded as an act of war, so wouldn't the end result be the same? That is, a blockade isn't a police action somehow separate from war.

How does one implement an effective blockade in such a situation?

Helicopter gunships, fighter jets, etc. Define the border and shoot anything approaching it. That way, the only people killed are people who travel into fire zones.

Such a similar approach isn't working too well in Afghanistan, and we have troups on the ground there. Helicopters have trouble over 14,000 feet or so. Helicopters need bases in the area, so the military would have to have a presence on the ground in the country in question. Fighters can't loiter. And AFAIK, the US isn't patroling the Iranian border.

Such an approach might be useful in a small area, but it has practical problems that mean that extensive military action would be required for a blockade to be effective if the country in question wasn't cooperative.

If so, what's to prevent the use of willing (or unwilling) "human shields" causing a veto on military action?

It sounds like you're talking about hostages.

I'm thinking more in terms of Saddam building extensive communications and intelligence infrastructure and inviting in families. Or Somalia where, IIRC, gunmen would roam the streets hiding behind women and children. Or in Palestine where children are often involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers. If action is prohibited where the possibility of deaths of children and non-combatants exists, then action will always be prohibited (because terrorists and others will take advantage of this prohibition).

Now, it is rather difficult to have hostages involved in military operations. They don't travel easy.

See above.

I would question whether a group holding hostages (If they're willing shields, they're not "innocent". Only the unwilling are hostages.)

Don't they also have to have the ability to make a choice? How does a child make a choice like that? How does someone living under a military dictatorship make that choice?

would require military response. What happens when a bank robbery involves hostages?

A bank robbery isn't an act of war. A robbery's purpose is to gain money and get away without capture. An act of war's purpose is to impose the will of a government or a foreign political organization on another country or foreign political organization. Which comes closer to fitting al Quaeda's aims? I choose "act of war".

We were not at war with Afghanistan.

The US Congress used very similar language to the Delaration of War against Japan in the legislation passed in September or October. We are at war with the former government of Afghanistan because of its complicity with the attacks on 9/11/01. Germany hadn't invaded us when we declared war against her in 1917. She hadn't attacked our soil directly. Wilson asked for a [link|http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm|declaration of war against Germany] because of her attacks against our ships and because "armed neutrality ... is impractical".

I think acts of war can be committed by relatively small groups. Only a few people in Germany decided to invade the USSR, even though they were the government of Germany. Before governments existed, warfare existed.

If the actions had been done by agents of the Taliban government, would you regard them as an act of war?

Yes. The Taliban is the government of Afghanistan. If one government orders an attack on another country, it is an act of war.

Would you change your mind if the reports of al Quaida and the Taliban being effectively the same organization (e.g. intermarriage of principals, etc.) were true?

Expand on this, please. Are they any more similar than the governments of England and Canada? Or Germany and Austria?

I'm referring to a post by boxley that talked about OBL's daughter marrying into Omar's family. I believe Powell and/or Rumsfeld or someone else in the administration also used this, and other facts, as evidence that al Quaeda and the Taliban were effectively the same organization. If al Quaeda is a terrorist organization, the the Taliban is as well. (And there's independent reporting of actions like skinning people alive that also points to the Taliban being a terrorist organization.) The Taliban protected al Quaeda (they wouldn't turn over OBL and others).

Now, if I could show that the Mafia had billions of dollars of adverse effect on our economy and had killed 3,000 people, would you recommend military action against them? And by military action I mean bombing cities.

No, I'd not recommend military action. The time scale of the damage and the aims of the actions are important, to me, in deciding whether something is a criminal act or an act of war. The aims of the actions are completely different in comparing the Mafia and al Quaeda.

A better example of what you're talking about, IMO, is what's happening in Columbia. Armed groups are involved with kidnapping, drug production and trafficing, attacks against the government, and a civil war. That's a much more complicated situation than what's happening between the US and al Quaeda. I regard it as a civil war that's being coopted by criminals and terrorists and think that military and police action are needed, as well as government reforms. Finding the right balance will probably be very difficult.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Gotta run.

Cheers,
Scott.

There were legitimate reasons why turning over evidence to the Taliban wasn't appropriate.

I'll agree that there MAY have been legitimate reasons. But I don't recall that any were given. Nor did we share it with anyone else.

And evidence subsequently became public - e.g. OBL's boasting tape.

Which came out AFTER we started the attack.

We're back to the Rule of Law as opposed to Might Makes Right.

Would we have turned over one of our people to the Taliban if it demanded him and wouldn't provide any evidence that he did anything wrong? No.

But we expect the world to provide us with the consideration that we will not provide it with.

Finally, blockades are traditionally regarded as an act of war, so wouldn't the end result be the same?

Only if you regard the declaration of war as being the end result. I don't. Rather, I view it as establishing that a certain Rule of Law exists between countries and that any countries that do not follow such will not be allowed to trade with the others.

That is, a blockade isn't a police action somehow separate from war.

No, the blockade comes AFTER the police action has failed to extract the individual(s). The blockade ONLY happens when the individual(s) are in a country that will not extradite them nor allow Interpol in to capture them.

Steps and stages.

Such a similar approach isn't working too well in Afghanistan, and we have troups on the ground there.

It isn't being tried in Afghanistan. There are enough reports of our failure to cooperate with troops from other countries and our use of local forces in attacks. That is politics.

Helicopters have trouble over 14,000 feet or so. Helicopters need bases in the area, so the military would have to have a presence on the ground in the country in question. Fighters can't loiter. And AFAIK, the US isn't patroling the Iranian border.

14,000 feet is pretty high. Like a mountain. If they stay in the mountain, in caves, they are, effectively, neutralized. If they leave the mountains, they are killed.

Helicopters can operate from jump FARP's (Forward Arming and Refueling Points).

Fighters don't loiter. They patrol long stretches of flat terrain.

And the US isn't patrolling many borders. That doesn't mean we can't.

Such an approach might be useful in a small area, but it has practical problems that mean that extensive military action would be required for a blockade to be effective if the country in question wasn't cooperative.

I never said it wouldn't be an extensive military action to blockade a country. I even said that we shouldn't do it unilaterally. I did say that we wouldn't be killing innocents with our bombs.

I'm thinking more in terms of Saddam building extensive communications and intelligence infrastructure and inviting in families.

Okay, let's look at this on a time line.

At one point, the family is living somewhere.
That place is NOT militarily significant.

The family, willingly and knowingly, moves to a place that is militarily significant.

With me so far?

So the family has, willingly and knowingly, placed itself in a target location.

I think that removes their "innocent" status.

This would also qualify as "child endangerment" in the US.

Or Somalia where, IIRC, gunmen would roam the streets hiding behind women and children.

Different scenario. That's a hostage situation. And it's kind of hard to hide an army behind a hostage. Unless the women were willingly shielding them. In which case, they aren't "innocent".

Or in Palestine where children are often involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers.

By "attacks" do you mean "throwing rocks"? Or do you mean "carrying a bomb"? Or do you mean "providing a shield for gunmen"? Each situation is different. Again, "child endangerment" is the term that comes to mind.

If a terrorist is hiding behind a willing shield, then they are both criminals. The terrorist for attempted murder and the shield for aiding and abetting.

If action is prohibited where the possibility of deaths of children and non-combatants exists, then action will always be prohibited (because terrorists and others will take advantage of this prohibition).

Okay, from my previous post responding to your questions.

Perhaps I'm misreading you, but it seems to me your posts could be interpreted as saying that military action is only permissible when there is no possibility of civilian casualties.
No. But I don't see the difference between them killing civilians and us killing civilians and both of us claiming that such killing "has" to be done or is "permissible" or "justified".

Dead civilians are dead civilians to me.

I also stated:

If it is military action, then we have established precedents for burning how cities down to destroy strategic resources.

What I'm seeing with al Queda is a Mafia type organization. And we do NOT bomb cities to get thugs.

I hope I have made this very clear at this point.

Don't they also have to have the ability to make a choice? How does a child make a choice like that? How does someone living under a military dictatorship make that choice?

If they do not have the ability to make that choice, then they are unwilling. By definition.

If they were willing, they wouldn't care that they couldn't refuse.

As for children, indoctrination is very effective. But, since a child cannot make an informed decision, they are classified as "unwilling" and the criminal is charged with "child endangerment" and "illegal restraint" or whatever the legal terminology for taking a hostage is.

As for a military dictatorship, again, willing or unwilling depends upon the person.

A bank robbery isn't an act of war.

That's right.

Unfortunately, you've already defined, in your mind, that terrorism is an act of war. So, even when I provide another example with very similar factors, you will not view it as a similar situation. You will still consider it as "act of war" or "not an act of war".

I, on the other hand, do not think in those terms. I look at similar situations and what the final goal is.

A robbery's purpose is to gain money and get away without capture. An act of war's purpose is to impose the will of a government or a foreign political organization on another country or foreign political organization.

And the reason to impose their will on the other organization? Check back in history. Most wars are fought over "property". And money is "property". The only difference is who is doing the taking from whom.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, not because Iraq wanted to change Kuwait's political agenda, but to get the oil fields. Because oil == money.

Which comes closer to fitting al Quaeda's aims? I choose "act of war".

I know you do. And I don't agree. I don't see them as any different from the Mafia. They want us off their turf and they're willing to kill to get us out. They deal in drugs and launder money. They buy political influence where they can to protect them from prosecution.

Just like the mob.

The US Congress used very similar language to the Delaration of War against Japan in the legislation passed in September or October. We are at war with the former government of Afghanistan because of its complicity with the attacks on 9/11/01.

I seem to recall that we were just going into Afghanistan to get Osama. Over time, the "mission" has changed. But there was never, to my knowledge, any particular point where we stated that we were at war with Afghanistan. At war with "terrorists" I recall. But never Afghanistan.

We've just moved into something that we can accomplish easier. Beatting a third rate country.

Germany hadn't invaded us when we declared war against her in 1917.

I didn't ask about invasion. Have we declared war on Afghanistan? If so, when?

I think acts of war can be committed by relatively small groups.

Yes, but not smaller than the government of a country.

Only a few people in Germany decided to invade the USSR, even though they were the government of Germany.

I think you're losing your train of thought here. Only the GOVERNMENT of a COUNTRY can order an ACT OF WAR be committed. Only the GOVERNMENT of a COUNTRY can declare war.

Before governments existed, warfare existed.

Governments have always existed. Even amongst the primates there is a "chief" and "territory". The "chief" is obeyed and "territory" is defended.

I'm referring to a post by boxley that talked about OBL's daughter marrying into Omar's family.

No. And I'm surprised that you'd even ask that. Particularly given the status of women over there.

I believe Powell and/or Rumsfeld or someone else in the administration also used this, and other facts, as evidence that al Quaeda and the Taliban were effectively the same organization.

So if our president had fucked a cute Russian interpreter, we'd be suddenly Communistic?

If al Quaeda is a terrorist organization, the the Taliban is as well.

No. No more so than if the US would be Mexican if one of our congress critters married a Mexican.

(And there's independent reporting of actions like skinning people alive that also points to the Taliban being a terrorist organization.)

Okay, what are you talking about? We have capital punishment. Does that make us a "terrorist organization"? Or is it just the gruesomeness of the punishment that defines "terrorist organization"?

The Taliban protected al Quaeda (they wouldn't turn over OBL and others).

Covered previously. We wouldn't turn over anyone on our soil without proof so why should they?

No, I'd not recommend military action. The time scale of the damage and the aims of the actions are important, to me, in deciding whether something is a criminal act or an act of war.

So, how many people could a terrorist kill, per day, before it would be considered an "act of war" by you?

And the aims are the same. They want people off their turf.

Welcome to IWETHEY!