[geeks] Re: [rescue] The war begins....

[geeks at sunhelp.org]

Ken Hansen wrote:

> Josh,

I'm not he, but I'll respond anyway. This is my first, and probably
last, post on the topic. What you say below makes logical sense, but
unfortunately, the situation is not logical by the rules we usually use.
So you've drawn me in...



>     Let's assume your numbers are correct, if the 90% allow the 10% to
>     do the things we attribute to them, how innocent *is* the majority?


As a starting point, you have to understand the conditions in
Afghanistan right now (or at least as of the day before yesterday). The
general populace of Afghanis has nothing. Those who were fortunate to
have had something in the recent past have likely exhausted their
supplies. I'm not talking about not having anything in the sense of rich
and poor, I'm talking *nothing*. They have no food, to the point that
people were eating grass. The Taliban and it's members are the only ones
with food, and the only ones who can move freely. The rest of the people
have no means of taking care of their needs, period. They have no choice
in the matter, and do not make the rules.

Your statement above seems to assume that the populace approve of the
Taliban. They don't. They don't "allow" the Taliban to do anything, they
shut their mouths or die. And even if they keep their mouths shut, they
likely die anyway, either of starvation or for some infraction of the
Taliban's interpretation of the laws of Islam.

Yes, there are some who fight. We call them the Northern Alliance.



>     The goal of Operation "Infinite Justice"(?) is to provoke the majority
>     os "innocents" into rising up and overthrowing the 10% ruling the
>     country.


Wrong. The goal is to assist the Northern Alliance to achieve their
goals. The general populace cannot and will not revolt.



>     (The US is not so good at picking leaders to Install - think
>     about the Marcos, Noriega, and the Shah or Iran - they are usually
>     dramatic failures).


Agreed, though I'm not sure why the Shah is on your list there... The
U.S. had nothing to do with him ruling Iran.


>     I would be hard-pressed to look at a region like Afganastan or
>     Pakistan where people have lived *for ever* and consider it a
>     region not financially viable... Who air lifted food to them 500 years
>     ago? How have they lived there for so long?


You seem to have been otherwise occupied during the time of the
Soviet/Afghan conflict. Just to catch you up... The Soviet Union
desolated the entire country by bombing them back into the stone age.
The king of Afghanistan was a moderate progressive, who moved his
country into the 20th century in the mid- to late-60's. He was ousted by
his cousin in 1973 for reasons too complex to go into here, but the
country hasn't been stable since then. The Soviet Union tried to
assimilate them as another satellite nation, but when they were unable
to do so, they left the country in a state not fit to support life as we
know it.

The cities were still viable economic centers, but the fighters
(Mujahadin) from the countryside hated the city dwellers for their
apparent complicity with the Soviets (for living comfortably during the
conflict) and ravaged the cities and their occupants after the Soviets
withdrew. The Taliban stopped the Mujahadin, and thus gained the support
of the city dwellers at the time. That didn't last long, though, as the
Taliban began enforcing it's brand of Islam on the poeple who had, until
all this, enjoyed years of comparitively modern life. All of a sudden
they were pulled back into the 12th century by a bunch of ignorant
country clerics and guerilla fighters who considered them spoiled and
decadent. 

All of this coming on top of the Soviet desolation left the country
unable to support it's own population. It's pitifull.



> There are those pundits that feel by attacking the Taliban, the "coalition"
> is helping to form a clear line between the "rightous" and the
> "unrightous" 


Oooh, that's a hard one. By their rules, they *are* the righteous ones.


> It is my sincere hope that we *not* send ground troops into that region -
> history is frought with ample proof that this is a bad idea...

Oh, so you were paying attention. Good. I happen to agree, ground troops
are a bad idea, even if we bribe the people with food. But I think the
bombing strikes are pointless as well. It's not going to affect the
Taliban a bit. The don't care how many Afghanis we kill. Get it? THEY
DON'T CARE HOW MANY WE KILL.


---sambo