Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The Afghan solution

It's the same prescription I gave eight years go on this blog:

Kill all the al Qaeda within reach. Send in surgical teams to keep killing them, wherever they are.
Kill all the Taliban who shelter al Qaeda.
Keep killing al Qaeda and those who shelter them, no matter where they run, until there's no place on earth that will shelter them.

Instead, we have chosen this approach:

9 comments:

BrainDrainXP said...

Hey, we could even name the Surgical Teams "The Inglourious Basterds"

Ottawa Watch said...

Yup.

Anonymous said...

"Keep killing al Qaeda and those who shelter them, no matter where they run, until there's no place on earth that will shelter them.
"

Here's an interesting thought exercise: if the British had adopted that strategy with the IRA, would they have been justified in destroying South Boston?

Ottawa Watch said...

The IRA is hardly in the same league as al Quada, and the US has the rule of law and will extradite after due process, so I suppose the answer is no. You can't compare Boston to Kabul and tribal Pakistan.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Mark, but the application of US rule of law is highly selective when it comes to US foreign policy. Look up guys like Emmanuel Constant, who Haiti has been trying to extradite, or the 4 Cubans held in US jail for no reason, to cite only a few examples.

Or if you don't like the IRA example, look at Nicaraugua in the 1980s when they asked the World Court to condemn the US support of the insurgency (which, at the very least, was terrorism) and which the US ignored. Did Nicaraugua have the right to bomb Washington?

By the way, I don't mean to single out the US. All great powers tend to throw their muscle around this way (thought I'd add that cavaet lest I be accused of, God forbid, "anti-Americanism").

At any rate, terrorism is not war. It has to be solved through a combination of political and police activities. Political to address the grievances that lead to people to support that kind of crap, and police to track down the perpetrators and bring to justice, or to at least isolate them in the international community. If your solution is to kill everyone that supports al'Qaeda, well that is one approach. I doubt that it will be permenant one, or that you would want to live in a society that would be prepared to carry out those kinds of acts.

Anonymous said...

I would also add that after 9/11, the US/UK demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. The Taliban asked for evidence, which the US/UK refused to give. "Rule of law" indeed.

glosygirl188 said...

There was certainly no lack of evidence, including the manifestos left behind by the 9-11 terrorists and bin Laden's own video masterpieces. I suppose the Taliban, now knowing they were harbouring mass murderers, have reconsidered their earlier position.

Anonymous said...

"There was certainly no lack of evidence, including the manifestos left behind by the 9-11 terrorists and bin Laden's own video masterpieces."

None of which came out until later. The point is, the US/UK demanded that a sovereign nation turn over a person on their soil to another country for trial without any due-process and until the threat of total destruction. Now, I'll be more than happy to debate the morality of gun-boat diplomacy, but that behaviour is inconsistent with the "rule of law" which Mark was arguing the west follows, but the terrorists don't.

Anonymous said...

Instead of demanding other people put their lives on the line to kill, kill, kill, why don't you drag your carcass off to Afghanistan and do the job yourself, Bourrie?