November 22, 2001 WebToday --After the World Trade Center attack, we vowed we would catch bin Laden and make him pay for his attack.  We are going to root out terrorism from every country that shelters it.  Fine.  But now we are paying some one else to do our dirty work, to the tune of $25 million dollars for his capture, dead or alive.  Is that the same as doing it ourselves?  Is that just an outgrowth of Dollar Diplomacy?  There is no doubt that our bombing attacks have weakened the Taliban to the point that the anti-Taliban forces have been able to take large parts of Afghanistan out of their control.  Is that the same as doing it ourselves?  Or is it another outgrowth of Dollar Diplomacy?

Many of us still cling to dreams of honor and principle, and we cannot help being somewhat confused by this new way of wiping out the enemy.  We remember when General Eisenhower told us how the war was going, not the Secretary of Defense.  We remember General Schwartzkopf told the new media how we were doing in Kuwait, not some political appointee.  Now 'General' Rumsgeld tells the press every day that we are winning, and rather quickly.  In truth, he seems to be correct.

Some troubling questions unsettle the euphoria that accompanies victory.  The Arabian soldiers who volunteered to support the Taliban are surrounded in Kunduz, along with regular Taliban troops from Pakistan and some tribes of Afghanistan.  The Northern Alliance, which has laid siege to the city, has stated that the foreign (Arabian) soldiers will not be allowed to surrender. Instead they will be executed "as common criminals".  The Arabs know this, and, consequently do not want the non-Arab Taliban to surrender, thus weakening their position.  The non-Arab Taliban would be allowed to surrender without harm.  The city has three days to surrender, and then the blood bath will commence.  How do you deal with people who think this way?  This is drilled into them with their mother' milk.  They are also taught male superiority and domination and how to kill the neighboring population, who may owe allegiance to a different chief of king.  Most of all, they are taught to kill Jews.

If there is a massacre at Kunduz of the foreign troops (non-Afghan), aren't we partially responsible for the human rights violations?  After all, we did enable the Northern Alliance to surround the city by our day and night bombing raids.

So, Monday all of the tribes of Afghanistan are supposed to meet in Berlin to hash out a government that will please everyone.  The United Nations is going to oversee this meeting and we will all live in peace and harmony ever after.  The chances of any thing positive coming out of this meeting are astronomical.  We still don't have bin Laden, and the al Quiada is still not destroyed.  Do we bomb?  Do we invade? If we invade, what country would we invade?  Maybe we should flip a coin.  But we already know that a coin would only land on its' edge.

http://www.888webtoday
 

Permission granted to publish or broadcast this column in whole or part with attribution to  WebToday.

4.9¢ long distance from WebToday: Online sign-up takes 30 seconds