There is much discussion of how the U.S. should respond to the attacks we suffered last week. And rightly so, of course. I, as much as anyone, want to see those responsible punished. Preferrably deceased. I, personally, am glad to see that we have not gone of half-cocked. YMMV.

But there is one action that we could mobilize immediately, target at those we intend to target, and which would confuse the hell out of everybody involved:

I propose that our first military action be a massive humanitarian action to aid the citizens of Afghanistan.

It has been rightly noted that the Afghan people are as much victims of the Taliban regime as we are. And there are disturbing reports that the refugee situation in Afghanistan is starting to turn ugly. Can you imagine the stunned surprise around the world if we showed up in force with food and shelter for those affected? Well, actually, I can't imagine it either, but I think it would be funny as hell.

Imagine further that this food and shelter were to be provided by the great generosity of the American people, perhaps in an extension of the outpouring of support for the people of New York...

I think it's at least *possible* that actions like this would markedly increase worldwide support for whatever we do next. And if not... what the heck?

Yer neighborhood silly-ass optimist,

RC

PS - What *should* we do next? My vote is to flatly state that we intend to take bin Laden and every associate down, that we intend to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, and that we intend to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

And then I'd do it.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), September 18, 2001

Answers

Love-bomb them, interesting idea Randy. Might be worth a try but somehow I think the effort would be corrupted or co-opted by bin Laden and friends.

Yer neighborhood silly-ass pessimist.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 18, 2001.

Lars,

Well, yeah, if you try to rout the aid through channels - I'm suggesting that we *invade* with humanitarian aid. That we put the Taliban in the position of trying to shoot down planes carrying food destined for their own citizens.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), September 18, 2001.

Excellent idea, Randy. We did it for plenty of other countries, already.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), September 18, 2001.

I don't know if it would work either, but its certainly the type of "out-of-the-box" thinking that this situation warrants.

-- (@ .), September 18, 2001.

Really Godd idea...even if it fails there is no harm....

-- Will (righthere@home.now), September 18, 2001.

-- George S Patton (JustKickin@ss.mil), September 18, 2001.

Very good idea, as long as we have the firepower floating in the gulf to support our people going in. You don't want to strand them in any way.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), September 18, 2001.

The lesson then is: slash throats of unarmed flight attendants, and we will give you cookies.

I guess it can be argued that the vast majority of Germans were innocent victims of the Nazis, and that therefore we should not have firestormed Dresden et al. I guess it can even be said that the Iraqi armies are innocent victims. So are they all innocent victims of this or that.

We don't want anything from the Aghans, we just want to be left alone, and that's all we ever wanted. I can't discriminate about who they support, and who they don't, and who they wished would go away. Rather, all I need is to know a guarantee that my kids will be left alone.

HOw will giving cookies to them guarantee that my kids will be left alone? How can them even giving up one individual guarantee that?

I'm not prepared for my kids or grandkids to take the risk. And I'm afraid it's hard for me to feel sympathy for them, under those circumstances.

-- TooBadWouldntBenefit (WouldBeNice@But.Comeon), September 18, 2001.

-- photoshop rulz (photo@shop.com), September 18, 2001.

shut up uncle boob

-- (na nu@ na .nu), September 18, 2001.

LOL

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 19, 2001.

Too bad...,

You want guarantees? It would be nice, but come on... Wiping everyone of Arab descent off the face of the earth won't guarantee your kids will be left alone.

I'm not suggesting that sending aid to the Afghan refugees is going to buy us *anything* in the way of safety. It's not a "cookie". If anything, it's kind of a propaganda weapon. We would be pointing out to the world the state of the Afghan populace under the Taliban regime, and as I said earlier, we'd be daring the Taliban to mount military resistance to a humanitarian effort. And as I also said earlier, this would be done in the context that we still have every intention of taking down bin Laden's organization AND the Taliban.

I do think our military response, whatever it may be, should avoid hitting civilian targets *as much as possible*. The killing of innocents is an unavoidable side effect of war, but it's also the primary weapon of terrorism... and irony doesn't play as well in the post-WTC world of today as it did in the good old days (a couple of weeks ago).

Will,

This would not be a risk-free operation, I don't think. I'd say the odds would be pretty good that the Taliban would offer resistance. Aid planes would almost certainly require full air cover. The potential for harm is there.

I have to admit that, when I had this thought and started this thread a couple 'o days ago, it was just kind of a lark. But the idea just keeps growin' on me...

Here's some french fries for ya, now stand aside while we crush your crappy-ass government. You'll thank us in the morning...

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), September 20, 2001.