With reference to what I wrote before saying we should just get the hell out of Afghanistan and watch it from afar and reserve the right to go back in to not allow terrorist activity against us to be planned or staged there SCOTTINDALLAS wrote:

"Sin, I agree with you.... I just wish you were asking this of the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza"

Well Scott, I *would* ask this of the Israelis, but just generally no different than I would ask every government to not to steal land and not to commit the mayhem they must to effectuate same. But otherwise I don't think it's our business because I don't think we have any more specific interest there than just seeing that no other country goes about about stealing land and causing humanitarian chaos. So if they just wanted to decline that request and continue as they are doing I don't see where we have either the right, responsibility or ability to stop 'em. Even though in my further opinion they are maybe not just hurting themselves continuing, but indeed perhaps are committing national suicide.

Needless to say the flip side of this coin is that it also means that I don't think we should be giving one penny of support to Israel so long as it keeps on doing what it is doing. It's just not our business in the first place, and, even worse, it's *against* our interests to be taking Israel's side.

Israel has a right to pursue what it sees as its own best interests. So do we.

I'm not sure I totally agree, but I thought you much more pro-Israeli than that. Thanks for clarifying.

Then the 'mission' (whatever in the hell it is right now) is certainly a failure, right?

Quoting something I wrote earlier SASHA wrote:

"Don't you think that this was the logic of 9/11 terrorists (replacing "Afghanistan" by "US", and assuming that 9/11 was not a false flag operation)? And having "our sole judgment" as the reason for military action is simply criminal?"

Respectively, because I understand and sympathize with your sentiments here, my answer would still be no.

That is, no, I don't think it can be said bin Laden launched either 9/11 against us (or before when he initiated other hostilities against us and started killing our people), because he believed we "posed a threat to him." Yes, he may have thought our culture posed a threat to his religion and culture, and yes he also certainly felt he was retaliating for what we've abetted vis a vis the Palestinians. But I don't think you can equate the violent attack on us on 9/11 or on the Cole or etc. with our culture merely posing challenges to his culture and/or religion, nor does bin Laden even have the standing to invoke name of the Palestinians I don't think.

All I was saying was we should return to what seemed the sensible, definable, seemingly durable nationalistic idea that the world has gradually accepted to the effect that one country (not "religion" or "culture") does not attack or invade or occupy a second unless at the very least there is a clear and imminent threat emanating from that other to the first country, period. And in terms of Afghanistan I believe because it had hosted al Queda, and then refused to give it up, we had the perfect right to go in and invade that country to try to get it, and whack the Taliban when they tried to stop us from doing so. And aside from of course feeling sorry for the damage done to civilians in doing so no I don't think we owe any apology to the Taliban. However I don't think we should have tried to occupy Afghanistan and then somehow try to displace its culture and etc. with something else.

I would also note that I suspect there's been relatively small or moderate "death and sorrow" we've brought to Afghanistan, but concede that whatever we brought during the occupation stage we should not only feel sorry for but have no valid excuse for either. Iraq on the other hand is different in that I don't think we have any excuse for any of what we caused there, and that the death and sorrow have been massive beyond belief.

You dismiss Bin Laden seeing us as a threat. But, I don't think he is wrong here. I think we should review his claims against Muslim Just war theory and the record of our involvement. This will beg the question of whether Muslim Just war theory is rational or not.

Ok, in short, Muslim Just war theory asserts that if a invader/occupier prevents you from living your life, practicing your faith, sows chaos and instability then you have cause to fight. But, if they will negotiate in good faith, honor their treaties a Muslim has no cause to fight them. Let me jump the gun and suggest that this sounds fair to me, but maybe I'm biased or something.

So, let's examine the record. We had, before he had attacked our embassy in Somalia, attacked to Cole, the Khobar Towers or 9/11; invaded Iraq--which was perhaps legitimate, enforced an embargo that kept humanitarian good out and necessary infrastructure such as chlorine for water treatment. We had bases in Saudi Arabia--which is problematic but below the threshold. We had aided, abetted the Israeli occupation of Palestinians, bombing of Lebanon, supported dictatorships in Egypt, Jordan, Iran (a fait accompli) and Pakistan. Our meddling in Afghanistan, even at that time was Machiavellian. We've vastly expanded our sins in the Muslim world since then, falling into his trap. We rejected Mullah Omar's overtures to extradite Bin Laden, allow Saddam to steal off to exile, seek reproachment with Iran, we've since tortured Muslims, used drones to murder innocents in Pakistan, Yemen at the very least, not to forget armed and aided Ethiopia in invading Eritrea, and Somalia.

We don't fare too well in these check lists, nor do we fair too well under our own standards.

SCOTTINDALLAS wrote:

"You dismiss Bin Laden seeing us as a threat. But, I don't think he is wrong here. I think we should review his claims against Muslim Just war theory and the record of our involvement. This will beg the question of whether Muslim Just war theory is rational or not."

Well first of all Scott I'd commend you for forthrightly taking a look at things from bin Laden's point of view. As you note though just because he has a "Just War" theory don't make that theory ... just. (For want of a better word.)

The essence of the question as I see, and indeed as we both seem to agree, is whether bin Laden was ... "justified" in attacking the U.S. out of any valid claim to self-defense, right?

Well, first of all and as my response to Sasha concentrated on, just as a practical matter I don't like the idea that we ought to recognize as valid any claims of "self-defense" from anyone other than *countries.* I.e., on a nationalistic basis. So that no, I don't think bin Laden ought to be able to claim he acted in self-defense of ... all arabs, or all muslims. The world, it seems to me, hard learned its lesson from seeing things in such racial, tribal or religious ways, and while it's far from perfect I think we are better off seeing international rights and responsibilities and etc. from the perspectives of formal nations and countries. So whether bin Laden can be thought of as a Saudi, or an Afghan, no the U.S. didn't do anything to those countries that merited his claim to violence in the name of self-defense.

However, recognizing that nationalism in this sense is very artificial, and is nowhere near perfect, and that to a great extent the "countries" of the ME were only drawn out by British or Western hands on a map ... okay, let's give bin Laden a pass on this grounds. (Even though, again because of pragmatics but also the good that flows therefrom, I don't think *anyone* should be given such a pass because I think the idea of nationalism has been very valuable and has given us some near-global understandings that have been very hard-won things, and that has at least provided some clear, coherent and sensible avenues for resolving difficulties other than endless stupid wars.)

As I said though let's forget all that and give bin Laden a pass and grant him the right to at least argue his claim self-defense for ... all of Islam. Did he really act validly in that defensive cause?

You make some points in this regard, I don't deny. Esp. with our embargo of Iraq and then our (near insane) invasion of same.

However, I think you would grant that bin Laden has a huge incentive to grab any justification he can in aid of his argument, and I think that's what he was doing with those two items in particular. He was never a huge fan of Saddam for instance. And, more importantly, I don't think it can be said—nor do I think that he really believes—that our embargo or invasion of Iraq was really a part of the ... "war on Islam" that he thinks we were waging. That is, not really done by us with the target being Islam itself. Nor done by us with any real view to permanently stealing Iraqi land even for instance.

That is, overwhelmingly it seems to me, bin Laden's real self-defense claim is not truly about our mere presence here or base there or puppet elsewhere, but is instead a *cultural/religious* claim. That, in essence, what he is *really* defending is his culture and religion from ... our culture. Right?

Sure of course he ritualistically (and opportunistically) objects to our presence here or there, but I think they are to him mere *indicia* of the *success* of what he sees as our cultural threat. After all if his brand of fundamentalist Islam was going very strongly and in control in the ME and we were't perceived as being hostile to same ... what would he care if we merely had a base here or there? In fact if they were bases to fight ... godless communism from for instance, you just know he'd be *welcoming* them, right?

No; the real the reason he's feeling "defensive" (which I'd admit) isn't because of some mere physical thing, but instead because he believes our culture is "winning" in the hearts and minds of his own people.

So what then is to be said about anyone making *this* claim of self-defense? That a person like bin has the right to commit acts of violence and war against another country or society or people (or "civilization") merely because his *own* people are *voluntarily* accepting the culture of that other country or society or etc.?

No sensible person I think would or could perceive that it's a valid exercise in "self-defense" to keep one population from voluntarily accepting certain ideas or values or tastes or etc. of another. And while of course the very reasonableness of this might tempt one to disbelieve that bin Laden believes otherwise, aha!, it turns out, that's *exactly* what he believes, isn't it? That's why he was so at home with the Taliban. *Forcing* people to worship Allah, and forcing men to wear beards, and forcing women to dress in certain ways, and making laws in absolute, strict accord with their religious beliefs, and etc. and so forth, right?

Moreover it strikes me it is this very ... insensibility on the part of bin Laden that *keeps* that arab and moslem populations from really embracing him. They know damn well they like certain aspects of Western culture, and know damn well he'd be the first to deny them that choice. No better evidence, to me, of the illegitimacy of bin Laden's "self-defense" claim than the fact that the very people he claims to be "defending" don't seem to want his "defense" all that much.

That said I'll agree with you 100%+ of how moronically we've fallen into his trap. Nothing could better garner support for him than our insanity in invading Iraq and occupying Afghanistan. Nothing. Beyond criminal on our part: stupidity on stilts.

But ... notice: Even despite same bin Laden's star *still* ain't very high in the arab/moslem world, is it? Indeed his name and that of his movement hardly even seems to move the needle in terms of being influential over there, true? And so again I'd ask what other metric would you propose to better judge the legitimacy of his claim of self-defense of others ... other than the negative verdict of the very people he claims to be defending?

I don't agree with what you've just argued, but I wish you'd focused more clearly on the "just war" theory. I derived that from my own reading of the Quran. It repeatedly states that "[if they come into your lands and subvert your way of life]"

So, no, it's not just the occasional base, but rather our support of dictators. Remember, this is an Egyptian movement that's metastasized. It naturally found fertile ground in Pakistan--those are arguably the two most egregious examples of our insertion/interference/meddling in their democracy/right to serve the interests of their own people. I think you'd even admit that as far as our support for Israel, perhaps most offensively our diplomatic cover is another offense.

Those are major disruptions in the democratic will of those countries. These policies run counter to our own ideals. Now, we have a duty to, and wisdom and prudence would guide us to check ourselves for any offenses that we might be unnecessarily causing. (You get shoved in a bar, your reaction should differ if you were stepping on someone's toes or not)

We should be willing to look at our own national interests. Does our Pakistani and Egyptian policy comport with our ideals? Are these breaches of our druthers yielding great rewards? Is there a way to split the difference? I wrote the CIA, (fearing I had said enough wild-eyed shit I'd better state my case clearly for them) suggesting the liberalizing of the press, followed by development of other parties initially in local affairs, then lower houses of legislature, then higher ultimately full and free elections.

Our Egypt policy is largely there to protect Israel. So, this policy would insist that we address the I/P issue, before full democratization. This addresses the legitimate grievances expressed by Bin Laden. This would peel off the many who see these legitimate, indefensible offenses, from the other charges which I'm inclined to agree with you aren't so substantive.

But, rather than dividing Bin Laden from many moderates, we seem to be framing policies so that it does look like a war against Islam. I've long said, that it's hard to argue against the notion that we are at war against Islam, we should craft our policies to make that clearer. As is, we made many Muslims ambivalent regarding US, that is a war we can't win.

SCOTTINDALLAS wrote:

"... I wish you'd focused more clearly on the "just war" theory. I derived that from my own reading of the Quran. It repeatedly states that "[if they come into your lands and subvert your way of life]"

Well I don't know anything detailed about it and certainly have never read the Quran and can only assume, in addition to your seemingly fine encapsulation of it that it's not all that different from the "Christian" "just war" idea.

However, obviously all war-makers will try to seize on whatever "just war" theory or ideology that comes from their religious or cultural or national background regardless of whether that is what is motivating them, and again I'd just respectfully say I think that's what bin Laden has done.

On the other hand even to the extent that bin Laden is "validly" acting according to the Quran's "just war" theory, and assuming (which seems reasonable) that you've correctly characterized it as "com[ing] into your lands and subvert[ing] your way of life," well I guess I'd say, I don't see why we have to pay any homage to that theory.

First of all of course there's its medieval-ness so to speak in that clearly in the modern world no-one is going to honor the idea that one can commit terrorism against another country merely because ... they have people and buildings and businesses and etc. "on your lands." In the main I suspect the muslim and arab people don't mind seeing Shell Oil stations around, and they certainly have no trouble buying Sony CD's and Dell Computers and etc., etc. That "come into your lands" business isn't just medieval, it's overwhelmingly not even accepted by the muslim world anymore clearly. Unlike bin Laden, they don't seem to wanna live in a cave.

And, second of all and as I said before and as is somewhat related, I don't think bin Laden can justifiably claim the right to defend against a "subversion" of the muslim "way of life" when the subversion he means is a *voluntarily* acceptance by muslims of a different way of life. And again that's clearly what he *does* mean as shown by his belief in the Taliban way of doing things of forcing people to practice his religion, and killing those who refuse. (To the point of stoning women to death for insisting on showing their ankles it seems,)

So no, I don't think bin Laden is really motivated by any muslim "just war" theory, and even if he is, I'm sorry, it's just not a theory that I think we should recognize any obligation take same into account. In any fashion. Certainly not moral, and indeed given its medieval-ness not even any intellectual account either.

Especially since, as I said before as well, don't really seem there's a helluva lot of muslims that are recognizing bin Laden as being all that authoritative vis a vis the theory.

Entirely with you however that, as nuts as it seems, our policies over there can certainly appear as tailor-made to change their minds and make bin Laden a hero, that's for sure.

Is bin Laden's existence or his ideas (whatever they are) have any influence on the
present war in Afghanistan? I believe, not. We are told that
the US forces fight Taliban in Afghanistan. Is it true? To a
small extent, yes, but the main fact is that the total majority of
Afghanistan's population does not accept foreigners with
guns in their country - period. Be it British, Soviet, or the US.
It has little to do with religion, culture (whatever it means), etc.
See e.g.
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/06/british-afghanistan-government
The bloodier and the longer the conflict, the more unpleasant
forces it unleashes - be it the North alliance warlords or Taliban.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan resulted in the end of
Soviet empire. The present empire seems doing its best to end
in the same manner.

"we had the perfect right to go in and invade that country..."
Could we try to see 9/11 as a tiny sliver of mirror which
shows us what a murder of civilian population by an
air bombing is - and remember that it is this very activity,
and on much higher scale, in which the US excelled
since the time of WWII? And understanding this would make
any argument for the war a pure hypocrisy?

SASHA wrote:

"Could we try to see 9/11 as a tiny sliver of mirror which
shows us what a murder of civilian population by an
air bombing is - and remember that it is this very activity,
and on much higher scale, in which the US excelled
since the time of WWII? And understanding this would make
any argument for the war a pure hypocrisy?"

If I understand you then Sasha you feel that because we air bombed in WWII it was hypocrisy for us to have responded to 9/11 by going to war with bin Laden?

You have a point I think, but I also think it's somewhat shy of being comprehensive. For one, for example, it's a bit Whiggish in that while aerial bombing of civilian targets seems to have just been widely approved back during WWII in the West, I rather doubt that's true anymore. Clearly bin Laden still thinks so though.

And, as they say, hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice.

And etc., etc.

"Sasha you feel that because we air bombed in WWII it was hypocrisy for us to have responded to 9/11 by going to war with bin Laden?

You have a point I think, but I also think it's somewhat shy of being comprehensive. For one, for example, it's a bit Whiggish in that while aerial bombing of civilian targets seems to have just been widely approved back during WWII in the West, I rather doubt that's true anymore. Clearly bin Laden still thinks so though."

I wrote "since WWII", not "in WWII". The aerial bombing of civilian targets
was in full swing during the Vietnam war.
About "widely approved" - by whom? By the Allies governments -
yes, by the public - that is the matter of propaganda (as you see it now).
In a sense, yes, they are widely approved presently (if done by us,
of course). Those responsible for millions of civilian deaths
during Vietnam war were lavishly praised, never persecuted (and those
alive continue to be praised - say, mr.Kissinger). I do not know what
Bin Laden thinks (if he is alive), but, again, it is completely irrelevant
for the subject.

The actions of our authorities are better explained if you take
their logic (and mental abilities) to be that of petty gangsters.
The main reason for Iraq invasion was that Saddam should
have been exemplary punished for treason (he served the
US during the war against Iran, and had audacity to
turn then against the boss), for the Afghanistan invasion - to
show on somebody weak how terrible we are. The label of
"the war with Bin Laden" is mere pretense.

>And, as they say, hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice.

And after such tribute, it turns into vice.

SASHA wrote:

" The aerial bombing of civilian targets
was in full swing during the Vietnam war....

And after such tribute, it turns into vice."

Well I think I'd challenge you as to the first assertion to cite some example (really? pretty purely civilian targets?), and anyway I think that mores of war have changed since Vietnam too. (Esp. with the advent of so-called "smart" munitions.) But you got me cold with the second re vices. (And got a howl of laughter from me at your cleverness with same too. Good one; I wish I'd have said that.)

Still chuckling....

thank you! I am flattered that you like the comment.

"Well I think I'd challenge you as to the first assertion to cite some example (really? pretty purely civilian targets?)"

I am not a historian, but internet helps. Consider just the bombing of Cambodia
(a branch of the Vietnam war); I am citing Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
where you can find exact references):

The summary of its last section:
From March 1969 to August 1973 the US dropped on Cambodia
540,000 tons of bombs; during 1973 it was 250,000 tons. It was primarily high explosive. Compare with 180,000 tons dropped on Japan in WWII (primarily lightweight incendiary). The carpet bombing.
But sure, the targets were not purely civilian (like Pentagon on 9/11, you know)

"Transcripts of telephone conversations reveal that by December 1970 Nixon's dissatisfaction with the success of the bombings prompted him to order that they be stepped up. "They have got to go in there and I mean really go in," he told Kissinger. "I want them to hit everything. I want them to use the big planes, the small planes, everything they can that will help out there, and let's start giving them a little shock." Kissinger responded by relaying the following order to the Air Force: "A massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."

Don't you think that my petty gangster simile is to the point here?

SASHA wrote:

"Don't you think that my petty gangster simile is to the point here?"

Well certainly you've cited some gangsterish talk, and not petty either. But my sense is that it was just talk as I don't recall ever reading anyone who really even directly charged that in Vietnam or Cambodia the U.S. intentionally bombed purely civilian targets.

On the other hand I said before that I saw at least some merit in your point, and of course if one bombs so much that civilians are killed at a rate that they would have been even if directly targeted, then I'd agree there's no difference. I don't think you'd find the latter true though so again I think the merit to your point is limited. But it isn't non-existant that's for sure. And I'm still jealous over that previous great line you had.

SCOTTINDALLAS wrote:

"What is not a matter of choice, what you missed in my arguments is our subversion of their democracy for Western aligned puppets."

Well firstly I have to say that, as I suspect is true of all "just war" theories, the arab/muslim one as you have described it over the course of this thread is an amorphous one. First it's a "just cause" if one "comes onto their lands and subverts their way of life," and then it's "subverting their democracy for puppets."

Moreover I'd question what you mean by "their democracy" since my sense is that the arab/muslim ME states don't exactly have a strong tradition of democracy as we understand it at least. But indeed if you insist that they do have their own form of democracy, isn't the simple answer to ... "democratically" depose the subverted for non-"puppets"?

I find it tough to get a handle on this though given its generality so maybe you can spell out more specifically what you mean and give some examples

Anyway though while the subversion of arab/muslim leaders/governments certainly is a "just cause" for war in bin Laden's mind, it just doesn't seem to me that this is the case "in the arab street" generally speaking. Yeah, I know there's always grumbling and rumbling in certain quarters in certain arab/muslim states about the "subversion" you talk of, but where is the mass agreement with this? In what countries are there great mass demonstrations to depose the "subverted"? Who are the great leaders/spokespersons who one would expect to spring up to lead the cry to depose the subverted, and where are they?

Well for sure there's one wannabe: bin Laden. But as opposed to being hoisted on the shoulders of crowds anywhere, he's running from cave to cave. And neither does one see any other signs of significant acceptance of him generally in that "street." While certainly there's some sympathy for him in the arab street, his ability to attract adherents—particularly those willing to put their feet where their beliefs lead, meaning in bin Laden's camps and actively working in al Queda—can seem quite quite limited, doesn't it?

"So, by our lights, or theirs they have the right."

Well I don't doubt for a moment that bin Laden feels he so had that right. But of course probably *everyone* who has *ever* started a war felt they had the right to do, true? So I just don't understand the difference you are driving at here that's makes this important.