Where do we go from here....

bonkey

First off - excuse me for starting a new thread on an already popular subject. I guess I initially wanted to maybe take this in a different direction to the threads already out there - the issue of proof. However, having written my piece below, I find myself wandering back into familiar terrority - what to do next, what will happen next, and so on...

Anyway...I'm interested in comments, but I am not getting into another useless "lets bomb them / you cant do that" argument. Take that one to the threads its already in please.

I've been thinking a bit about this whole "where's the proof" thing regarding Bin Laden which several people (including myself) have mentioned in posts recently.

The following are some thoughts, and I will try and keep (for now) my personal opinions of the right and wrong of things out of this for now...but I'm interested in some feedback.

We tend to think in terms of judicial law, where solid proof is needed for conviction. However, in military situations, this is not always the case. By declaring a "war on terrorism", the US are giving themselves a degree of leeway in not actually requiring "stand up in court" proof before going after Bin Laden in a military capacity.

The evidence which is emerging is showing that it is almost beyond doubt that Al Qaeda were behind this attack, but what is that saying?

Al Qaeda ("The Base") is a conglomeration of terrorist groups, believed to spread across 28+ nations. Now, not being a business, I do nto believe we can definitively say how tight a conglomeration this is.

Bin Laden is the recognised leader (and founder?) of Al Qaeda. Again, this is pretty much beyond doubt. However, it is again not proven that he is the deciding force behind all actions of the respective groups.

The assurances from the Taliban that Bin Laden has no communication methods available to him are almost certainly false, as there are far too many cases of interviews with him, and statements issued by him for this to hold water.

So, we have a leader of an international terrorist conglomeration. We have strong evidence to say that this congolmeration (or some part of it) were behind the attacks - evidence I believe will grow stronger with time.

Does this implicate Bin Laden? Not necessarily. The US President - supreme commander of the US armed forces - is not directly responsible for every action taken by the military. It is conceivable that Bin Laden did not have a hand in the organisation of this.

However, much as the President of the US would be consulted before any large-scale military operation, it is highly probably that Bin Laden was at least aware of the attacks before they occurred, and probably sanctioned them - even if he had no hand in the planning and/or execution.

So - in the absence of direct proof linking Bin Laden to the attacks we have :

1) Direct proof that some faction withing Al Qaeda were resonsible (not concrete yet, but should be soon)
2) Accepted proof that Bin Laden is the long-time leader of Al Qaeda
3) Enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that it is highly improbable that Bin Laden was not at least aware of these attacks before the event.
4) No evidence at all that Bin Laden conceived of, planned, organised, or executed any part of this attack.

This is probably even enough for a judicial court to hold Bin Laden accountable in some capacity for the attacks, even if they cannot prove that he was directly involved.

Now - what about the possible link to Iraq. Well - one of the suspects is believed to have been seen with an Iraqi intelligence agent about a month ago.

Does this implicate Iraq? No. It implies that the agent in question should be investigated - this could be an AL Qaeda agent in the Iraqi service, rather than the Iraqi's dealing with Al Qaeda. It is interesting, but not damning. It could also have been completely unrelated. It bears investigation, but no-one should be even talking out loud along the lines of "Iraq may have done this". Not yet.

So - we now get to the point where it is justifiable to ask for Bin Laden (or will be soon, once more evidence is gathered). However, it would be a mistake for the American/world public to believe that capturing him is all that matters.

If you were to capture the US President, this would not really inconvenience the US military. Mostly, I reckon, it would spark off a massive rescue operation, and renewed aggression towards those who held him. Why would Bin Laden be any different? Even allowing the possibility that Bin Laden is the mastermind planner behind all Al Qaeda activities, it is still inconceivable that all of his associates will prove incapable of carrying on without him.

So - yes - the US probably have the right to request Bin Laden now (or soon, but they wanted to be seen to be decisive), but this will solve nothing.

Even if he is guilty, and is handed over and is successfully prosecuted, this will achieve very little, other than letting the US government stand tall and tell the world how quickly and decisively they acted. It will not stop Al Qaeda. It will not bring terrorist attacks from The Base to an end. One man will be given his justice, but his organisation will in all likelihood become more active and more violent as a result.

Therefore, this begs the question....is Bin Laden the right target for the US "justice/revenge" feelings. Is he really worth the trouble to go after today. I am not saying that he should be let run around without paying for his crimes, but as they say in comedy : timing is everything.

Even were the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, the terrorism will not stop. The world cannot feel safe just because one monster has been securely removed from our midst. If anything, I expect it to grow worse. Surely the US are aware of this.

Is one man worth risking an international war, massive further civilian casualties, and a potential destabilisation of the entire middle-eastern region?

The US have the right to seek him, but are they right to seek him in the manner they do so at present?

President Bush has warned that in this war against terrorism, there will be more casualties. I notice that most commentators have taken this to mean that there will be military action, and soldiers will die as a result. However, the opposite is also true. There will be further civilian casualties, possibly in the US, possibly elsewhere in the world, as Al Qaeda embark on further terrorist runs.

Part of me believes that Bush wants a fight with Afghanistan. He wants to show terrorist-supporting nations what will happen to them. Part of me believes that this is ultimately the best way to fight terrorism - frighten the world into realising that it cannot support this activity any more.

The other part of me says that we cannot allow ourselves to descend to the level of these monsters. We cannot destroy nations because of the actions of individuals. The consequences of going to war would far outweigh the consequences of not going to war, and ultimately it is the common man who suffers most. But, at present, this approach appears to offer nothing more than a continuation of the current situation.

These two sides are both valid points of view. In either case, the innocent will suffer. In either case, nothing may ultimately be achieved. Is it time for compromise. Do we need to recognise the validity of these terrorists' complaints, and seek a way to redress them? Can we find some acceptable middle ground, where nations are free to govern themselves, without foreign intervention? Is this a Utopian ideal beyond practicality?

We are on the brink of a new cold war. A cold war where peace is maintained at gunpoint.
We are on the brink of war, where the civilian is more at risk than perhaps ever before.
We are on the brink of worldwide unrest - a world living in the fear which is commonplace in those areas well acquainted with terrorism.
Could we possibly be on the brink of something good as well?

An ancient chinese curse says "may you live in interesting times". I finally understand exactly what this means.

jc

Magwitch

As to where we go from here, I have to say I think it will be some where good. Short term, trouble strife and death - But America has had pause for thought and when this is over an American public will have a much greater interest in its foreign policy, producing (lets hope) a fairer America.

Short Term though, it is not going to be a world war. America will fight this war (as it has so many others) with a fraction of its resources. Third world countries where apathy allows (through fear) the violent to dictate and influence government can now look to the west for the support that has for so long been lacking. Their internal problems are now problems for the wests (who has for so long studiously ignored them).

I see a major rethink in western policies. This will lead to the reinventing of half-ass junta states (like the Taliban and Sudan). If they do not represent or care about their own people then maybe the west should (through its arab allies).