Re: Bertrand Russell on class war

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hear you, Justin, and I agree with the need for due process. IMHO,
however, the attack had more of a military, or para-military, character
than it did a criminal character. From what we know, they attacked an
economic hub and a military base, and tried to attack a political
headquarters. Taken together, those are military targets. Although no
invasion of the US mainland is remotely credible, the opening salvo in
some kind of war has been fired, I would argue.

Remember that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor without any intention of
invading the US mainland.

Would it be overwhelmingly wrong for me to suggest that the attacks be
termed "The Battle of September 11th"? A term "battle" implies shots
fired in both both directions. I'd like to suggest that the last shot
in this battle was fired by the civilian Americans who re-took United
Airlines Flight 93 from the hijackers after they learned of the WTC and
Pentagon attacks via cell phone and air phone communications. They lost
their life in protecting the security of the country, and probably one
of the White House or the Capitol.

The laws may be applied with due process in civil and criminal matters.
Military operations are of course not limited by due process. Military
operations are limited only minimally by the law of war.

It may be strategic to go and get OBL at this point to pursue the
military objective of preventing further attacks. If OBL was the
sponsor, it will be good to capture him. If OBL was not the sponsor of
Sept 11, he was still the sponsor of the attacks on the USS Cole and
the African embassies. Capturing him will shorten the long list of
suspects for Sept 11.

My real concern is the possibility of a wider war. Bush keeps saying
that we need to get OBL. That's a relatively short and easy mission if
you throw enough military firepower at it. Even if the Taliban
government must be deposed, that can be accomplished swiftly. The
Taliban have little popular support. But then Bush keeps stressing the
long nature of the conflict. One leak said it could go on for 10 years.
There's an incongruity here.

Maybe he intends to depose the Taliban, and then re-stabilize the
region somehow with the application of military force. That would
indeed take many years, if it would be feasible at all.

This long-term view may be a strategic bluff by American military
planners. If they convince al-Qaida that we will be persistent, they
might give up or cease operations. On the other hand, this rhetoric
could justify a much wider conflict than that presaged by the
apprehension of terrorists.

Best,

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:41:15 +0000, Justin Schwartz wrote:

>
>I hate to sound like the wimpy bourgeois liberal I am, but what's wrong with
>the usual rule that when a crime, even a very terrible crime, has been
>committed, the government has to gatherevidence, make a showing of probable
>cause that they have the right guy, then make a  serious effort to have him
>brought to trial, tried fairly,and punished, if guilty, according to law? I
>mean, rather than shouldering in with muscle and trying to kill someone that
>we know is a generally bad guy, but for all we know, has nothingto dow ith
>this, meanwhile violating the sovereignty of, and indeed, in your dismissive
>aside, verhrowing,a  government that merely insists that the legalities like
>due process and reasonable evidence be respected? Would we give up a
>foreigner whom the Afghans accused without proof of having committed a crime
>in Afghanistan? Why should they? I'm as patriotic as the next fella, and a
>lot more than many on this list, but what makes me proud insofar as I am is
>that we respect due process, not that we think we can jsut kill whoever
>regardless of proof.
>
>--jks
>?
>>
>>For the record, I support the limited military intervention that George
>>W. Bush has proposed. My understanding is that we will attack
>>Afghanistan with the purpose of extracting Bin Laden & Co. That sounds
>>like a relatively clear mission. If we have to depose the Taliban
>>government to complete the mission, so be it.
>>
>>I'm an American citizen. I feel that we have to do something. My
>>support for intervention is contingent on its limited nature, however.
>>We cannot let the war devolve into the conflict Russell foresaw.
>>
>>Does anyone here believe that an international class war will spring up
>>as an inevitable result of US military action?
>>
>>Andrew Hagen
>>xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>