Jump to content

An Interesting Perspective


pkzip
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm passing this along on the microscopically slim chance that it will provide some perspective for a very small handful of short-sighted people here (based on some comments I have read). I really doubt it will, but I have to try nonetheless.

---------------------

---------------------

The following was sent to me by my friend Tamim Ansary. Tamim is an Afghani-American writer [who writes, among other things, children's stories that are part of many American schools' curricula]. He is also one of the most brilliant people I know in this life. When he writes, I read. When he talks, I listen. Here is his take on Afghanistan and the whole mess we are in.

-Gary T.

------------------

Dear Gary and whoever else is on this email thread: I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done." And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing. I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that. New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Tamim Ansary

--------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm speechless. That's actually the best argument I've heard about what's at stake.

Sadly, the United States appears to be bracing itself, it's allies, and it's citizens for a war which may have been wanted by Bin Ladin in the first place.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the United States would be victorious, and I believe that now is the time that we must act as our enemies are not yet able to truly challenge us.

Still many American lives will be lost, and none of us can truly forsee the loss of American lives and domestic freedoms that will no doubt occur.

It started out as an US and THEM policy, now has become a United States vs Terrorists. But what will happen when we begin to settle into a war where MILLIONS of Islamic fundamentalists declare a jihad on America and begin mass suicide bombings and lobbing Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Well, whatever comes, I believe that we are on the right side, and God willing will have the resolve to finish what is necessary to see it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your friend is absolutely correct, this war is NOT against the people of Afghanistan, it is against Ossama Bin Ladan, and the Taliban.

We are going to go after them, not the people, Ossama wants us to go after the people, but we will not walk into that trap. Special forces will be used, and other Muslim countries are going to help us. Yes, in the beginning there was much talk of total destruction of Afghanistan, but that was anger, emotions, not sense. Sense is now prevailing, and it's gonna toss bin ladin a big old curve ball, and be a relief to the afghan people who thought that we were going to blindly strike out at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I NEVER said that, And the fact is, all I said is that all options should and will remain open. If a tactical nuclear strike is needed, then it should be used. That's all I ever said, if anyone looked deeper then that, then they read way too much into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this.

Doubtful. He wouldn't be trying to distance himselves from it...

At any rate, it IS much the fault of the Afghanis. The government of ANY nation is the responsibility of the people. Without the people's support, NO government can exist, even at gunpoint. Sometimes citizens have to die for what is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aramike,

I think the point that was being made is that the Taliban do NOT have the support of the people. The people are too weak, and hungry to be able to rise up against the government.

I think Bush should offer food and aid to the people of Afghanistan in exchange for Ben Laden and his organization. You'd be amazed at how quickly they will turn him over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they find this Laden guys in the middle of the desert or one of his training camps, hell yeah, educate them with some nice Tritium (H-Bomb). No lingering radiation, just a nice, hot fireball.

If not, then use a proven method of keeping peace: HELP them. By "them" I mean the afghani people. Go in with NATO and UN forces, overthrow the animals running the gov. , and set up a program similar to the one that helped Europe after WW2. Give them 50 years of liberty and self expression, lets see how they see "the evil west" after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off the UN did not exist right after WWII, 2nd: every time the UN gets involved it turns bloodier. Nato, yes, it is a military organization, but the UN is not and should not be involved, PERIOD. Everything the UN touches turns to S##$.

The US will have to do this by ourselves, or with some tactical help from NATO and the moderate muslim countries. The Afghani people, if they want to remain safe, will A: overthrow or help the Northern alliance overthrow the Taliban, or B: sit back and let us do our thing without raising arms against us. This will not become a Vietnam, if the Afghan people go to arms, they become targets, if they sit back and let us take out Bin Ladin and the Taliban, we will help them in the aftermath, but NOT as we did in WWII, the country is already destroyed, they will have to rebuild themselves, and the only way to do that is to embrace western economic values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we talk about the innocent life loss of the citizens of other countries be in Afghan or any other that the US will go after, think about the innocent life lost in the US. All those people that live in the country that harbors terrorists, not only Osam are responsible, every one of them has a choice to fight his government or not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Kush:

Aramike,

I think the point that was being made is that the Taliban do NOT have the support of the people. The people are too weak, and hungry to be able to rise up against the government.

I think Bush should offer food and aid to the people of Afghanistan in exchange for Ben Laden and his organization. You'd be amazed at how quickly they will turn him over.


But how to you get food and supplies to people when the military won't let those things in?

The oppressed still possess the ability to fight.

At any rate, Jaguar is right. Just everyone remember to keep it civil or I'll shut it down. Opinions are welcome no matter what, just no needless bickering.

So far so good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

we'll get these guys all worked up and the thread will get pulled again!!

I don't mean to have an itchy finger, but the profanity was over the line.

First, there are reports that the Taliban leaders fled to the mountains after the attack. They say that that is what they did when the Soviets went in. Then they said that they'd attack any nation that supports the USA. I'm wondering how they're going to do that from their mountain hideouts. Now they say that they are massing at the borders.

If there are enough of them to hide in the mountains, amass at the border, and attack all their neighbors, then they are the people of Afghanistan. If they are really frightened old men hiding in the mountains, then the people should stand up to them like the passengers from United 93 did, knowing that they would die but doing the right thing anyway.

Afghanistan is the size of Texas. How many people does it take to make a country, and how many people can you exclude from "country" and still have a country?

Also, Ronn Owens of liberal KGO is from the San Francisco Bay Area. This is the area where Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) was the only NO vote in both houses on the resolution to give the president the power to take "all means necessary."

This area is also home to teens who expressed this interest from the Alameda Times Star. Unfortunately, this is also the same area where the school-children who were taken on a field trip to see the Spielberg movie Shindler's List starting cheering as the Nazi's were slaughtering the Jews. The teachers were horrified, and they quickly followed up with some more education. Spielberg even came out to talk to the kids during an assembly.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I will raise my ugly head, without screwing it up this time, I hope.

That is probably the most succint, honest appraisal of the Afghan situation I have heard. There are 25 million people in Afghanistan, with a annual pro capita income in the region of £500. There is little infrastructure, woman aren't allowed to work, be educated or even drive. On top of that they are currently suffering a drought. Where will they get the means to overcome the Taliban, with no food and no access to weapons? I see the assassination of Massoud (the leader of the loose Northern Alliance) the weekend before too much of a coincidence. This was a man who brought together disparate tribes to resist the Taliban, and was seen as a figurehead for them all. Without him, it is possible the Northern Alliance could collapse and with it any hope of a Western ally on Afghan soil. The Afghan people are not responsible for their leaders and should not be made to suffer because of them.

I think the lack of any immediate response is exactly the right thing. Let people calm down and let the investigators do their work. Lets pinpoint those responsible and slowly whittle away at their resources and personnel till they no longer possess the ability to do this again. It will take some time and may go largely unseen, but it is the only way while still retaining the moral high-ground. Their is a lot antipathy towards the West in the Middle-east and beyond, you have to tread a very fine line to avoid that antipathy turning into malicious hatred. Remember, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait the UAE are important western allies. How long will they remain so if a massive action is taken against Afghanistan?

There, hope I haven't pissed any one off this time and Jag, I hope you got my email.

Peace

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I think this will be a very interesting thread!

Now, Aramike, it's obvious you've never had to live in a country where you are hungry and powerless every day of the year. And this is a good thing! A very good thing. None of us have really. (If you've got enough money for a computer and games and an internet connection, and you're starving, you need to take a serious look at your financial priorities) If ever I was in a situation where I was living in a country and I was hungry and powerless, I would want you on my side! I'm not being facetious. Your stance on personal freedom and what you're willing to do to protect it is admirable and would be welcome. And you may not believe this, but I'm sure there are a few "Aramike's" in Afghanistan, as we speak, working towards that very goal.

The problem is, in these situations, it takes time. South Africa was not liberated in a day. Nor was the United States of America! Until that day, it would probably be in America's interest to Aid, and not Kill those who want to rise up against the Taliban.

And the other problem is that the Taliban is well placed and has been since 1997. They were the major source of resistance against the Russians and were well supported by the United States for many years during the cold war. As a matter of fact, Ben Laden gained his training at camps funded by the CIA when George Bush senior was head of that organization. The CIA, and the military are well aquianted with Bin Laden and the Taliban. Just as they are aquanted with Saddam Hussein, first a hero in the war against Iran, then a despot who tried to annex Kuwait.

This problem, what to do with former allies who turn against you when your enemies become your friends is an ancient, ANCIENT problem. Take a quick look at world politics in the Elizabethan era, and you'll see what I mean. And there are no hard and fast rules or solutions. This new war, isn't really a war. And the method of attack looks nothing like the "good old days" with cruise missiles and stealth bombers.

Ask any member of the British military or secret service, and they'll tell you, terrorism is damn near impossible to wipe out using conventional means. First off, there is no one nation you can attack (The IRA gathers support, money and training from Canada AND the USA, two very friendly nations) often times, the terrorist live in your own country. And they work in Cells.

The advent of Cells revolutionized terrorism. A cell is a small group of terrorists who recieve training and money from a larger organization, but only general instructions on what to do. They allow for an organization to carry out very complex attacks without the head of the organization knowing how or when or who was involved. It worked with great success in South Africa, where the ANC now form the governement. Even though Bin Laden is responsible for the attack, chances are he barely knows anything about who did it, or how it was carried out, or who else might be planning the next attack.

And the US government, knows this. They know it all. And it looks to me like they are taking a very judicous route of fact gathering, finding out exactly who was involved, what cells are active and where, and they are going to hopefully stamp them out. There will be no nuclear strike. The only nuclear strike against Afghanistan would come from Pakistan, and I don't think even Pakistan would want to waste time bombing something worth less than the nuclear device itself.

If the Taliban turns over Bin to a third country, it will be a good thing. If they keep him, and challenge the US to do something about it, it doesn't matter. Whether you have Bin Laden or not, you need to wipe out the cells or else it happens all over again.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Kush ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pkzip, very interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

As a sociological experiment, it's interesting to note how a little nice speech with the appropriate wording is all it takes to change people's mind from a clearly beligerant position into a more compassionate one (and probably viceversa). This is what makes government propaganda so effective.

Aramike, I disagree with your view that governments are people's responsibility. A government can be sustained in the power by means of opression, if they can overpower the civil population with their military, and also by propaganda, misinforming and distorting the reality. Sadly, history is full of such examples.

However, I'm glad that you can still keep this opinion, because that means you live in a country that has rarely had to deal with these issues along its history. If only we could all share that blessing the world would be a better place.

And finally, I'm not sure what's the best way to get to Osama Bin Laden (or whoever did this), but I trust that the world leaders and their teams of experts will have all the necessary information and good judgement to make the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Aramike, I disagree with your view that governments are people's responsibility. A government can be sustained in the power by means of opression, if they can overpower the civil population with their military, and also by propaganda, misinforming and distorting the reality. Sadly, history is full of such examples.

That's where I disagree. Let's say the Afgahnis rose up against the government. The government would either then have to submit to the people or they'd have to employ military rule involving the slaughter of civilians. If they were to do that, the west would get involved so fast it would be incredible. In either case, the government is displaced.

Without people to govern, there can be no government. And if people submit to a government, it is then just as much their responsibility.

Life is the most valuable part of this world, however, sometimes some must be lost in order to protect the greater good. Should those lives be Americans who endorse a free government or Afghanis who allow a totalitarian government which kills for religious purposes? Without sacrifice there is ALWAYS proliferation of death and tyranny.

quote:


However, I'm glad that you can still keep this opinion, because that means you live in a country that has rarely had to deal with these issues along its history. If only we could all share that blessing the world would be a better place.

I've also served this country in many oppressed nations. I put on a uniform knowning that I had the responsibility to DIE for our freedoms if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's sad is that Americans put on the uniform knowing that they possibly will be asked to die for OTHER people's freedom, and not just defending their own.

With the lack of respect that we Americans are shown by these third world nations who's leaders like to blame every problem on us, instead of their misguided stewardship of their own country.

Aramike I agree with you, and just because America has been better off than most parts of the world isn't due to the fact that we have not had corrupt leaders. It is that the people here have a voice and use it to keep leaders like Sadaam and the Taliban from gaining power - or using such power negatively.

Government is based on the consent of the governed, if the people are too afraid to put their life on the line for freedom, I suppose that it makes them no different than 70% of colonial Americans. Only a few were prepared to fight and die for the freedoms we enjoy today.

Governments like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, as well as The People's Republic of China were, like it or not, approved of by a majority of the people. They cannot as Mao said gain power solely by threat of force. They fed the people's need for something, then behind their back achieved their true agenda.

Most dictators throughout history were installed with the blessing of the people.

It is only afterwards that they begin to abuse such power.

Hence a Republic such as ours cannot easily be manipulated as a massive slow acting bureacracy is in place to prevent this thing from happening here.

If someone is not willing to stand up and fight for their freedoms, quite frankly they will get whatever their leaders want to give them and do not deserve anything better as they haven't earned it.

Most Americans are lax in this duty and most are willing to sacrifice some freedoms.

It's kind of sad really that patriots have to keep on our toes to keep up with fanatical leaders who sometimes get elected even here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...