You guys are being awarded this medal for maintaining the highest accuracy in mainatining your bombing patterns (the crew were actually bombing the ocean to avoid having to go near the enemy).

Hmmmm - For an attack on Afghanistan to have any meaning it must be a purposeful strike against terrorist training camps & as with cuban missile crisis, the govt needs to satisfy the world & esp Islamic world, that the targets were real & perfectly legitimate.

In order to do that without triggering a wider anti US Jihad, the US must let some of these countries know in advance (and therefore Bin Laden & his minions indirectly). So then the attack can be undertaken with the hope of not killing poor decrepid miserable Afghanis who were either too poor, disabled or just unable, to evacuate away from any areas near Afghan military locations that might get attacked as a result of Taliban trying to strike back at US attackers.

There is that question of 'If Afghans try to stop ane attack in any way (not sure how they could), does US military strike back & widen the original attack ?'.


Well my plan is this.

Attempt to strike a deal with the Taliban that allows US to attack some probable terorist bases that are empty. The US can transmit lots of pictures of missiles striking their targets in these camps & thus satisfy those people who desperately need to see a gulf war rerun. The Taliban can claim they supported the US in attempting to rid Afghanistan of terrorists. US can reward them with some recognition & by not sending any more Christain evangelists disguised as aid workers.

The Taliban can 'expell' Bin Laden to another country, say Sudan or Ethopia or Somalia. This country can then repeat the whole cycle.

While all that is going on, The US can then quietly go about assasinating terrorists identified by their new updated, highly funded, intelligence services.

Does this all seem bizzare ?, yes probably does, I think it is as a result of absorbing too much of what was in Catch-22.

Cheers

Doug Marker