Skip to comments.
Bush backs away from all-out war
Sydney Morning Herald ^
| 9/27/01
| Gay Alcorn, Herald Correspondent in Washington, and agencies
Posted on 09/26/2001 8:28:00 AM PDT by dead
The United States will try to root out terrorists and help the Afghan people overthrow the Taliban in a radical switch of strategy from a massive military campaign to destroy the regime.
Despite US moves to surround Afghanistan with a force capable of invasion, the US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, said there would be no "D-Day".
Instead, the campaign would be a mixture of visible and invisible operations which would be long-term, dangerous and involve casualties.
President George Bush, retreating from his warning last week that the Taliban would "share the fate" of terrorists if they did not hand over Osama bin Laden, said he was not interested in "nation building" - long-term troop deployments to help rebuild a shattered country.
The best way to fight the "flat evil" of terrorism would be to "ask for the co-operation of citizens within Afghanistan who may be tired of having the Taliban in place or tired of having Osama bin Laden" in their country.
The White House spokesman, Mr Ari Fleischer, said the policy was "not designed to replace one regime with another regime".
The shift towards an "Afghan solution" instead of a US-imposed regime appears to be in response to fears among Arab and Muslim nations, especially Pakistan, that toppling the Taliban would cause uprisings in their countries and push the region into long-term instability.
US reports also said the Administration was worried about the impact of a humanitarian and political crisis if the Taliban fell.
Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Mr Abdul Sattar, cautioned Washington against military assistance to the Northern Alliance, a coalition of forces in Afghanistan which has stepped up attacks on the Taliban and which Russia has agreed to support.
"We fear that any decision on the part of any foreign power to give assistance to one side or another in Afghanistan is a recipe for great suffering for the people of Afghanistan," he said.
Pakistan has strong links with the Taliban and bitterly opposes the Northern Alliance because of its ties with its arch-enemy, India.
Pakistan also fears a new tide of refugees from Afghanistan amid warnings by aid agencies of a humanitarian catastrophe.
The White House is sensitive to Pakistan's position, because its air space, intelligence and military facilities are essential for any incursion into Afghanistan against bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Military planning appears centred on the elite US Special Forces. Commandos are in the region and may have begun operations if intelligence has been able to pinpoint the location of bin Laden, named by the Administration as mastermind of the attacks in the US.
Ground operations are likely to be backed by air strikes on Taliban military targets.
The increasingly isolated regime continued to defy demands to hand over bin Laden and other suspected terrorists.
The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, delivered a message to the US people that the terrorist attacks were the result of their Government's policies. "Your Government is perpetrating all sorts of atrocities in Muslim countries."
Bin Laden's al-Qaeda warned that it would retaliate if the US attacked its group or Afghanistan. "Wherever there are Americans and Jews, they will be targeted," it said in a statement.
In Kabul, thousands demonstrated at the abandoned US Embassy, torching vehicles and burning an effigy of Mr Bush.
In Tehran, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Iran would not help the US and its allies to attack Afghanistan.
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-150 next last
1
posted on
09/26/2001 8:28:00 AM PDT
by
dead
To: dead
That's it. Bush has lost my vote and my campaign contributions. He has allowed Arab states to dictate what we can and cannot do to protect ourselves from further atrocities. I cannot support an administration that doesn't base foreign policy solely on what is in the best interest of the United States.
To: dead
Peace in our Time!
3
posted on
09/26/2001 8:32:34 AM PDT
by
okie_tech
To: Heisenburger
Same here, I will NOT vote for Bush.
4
posted on
09/26/2001 8:33:16 AM PDT
by
okie_tech
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: okie_tech, Heisenburger, all
6
posted on
09/26/2001 8:38:11 AM PDT
by
dighton
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: dead
Sold out again. Wouldn't it be nice if once again, or at some point in life, people said what they meant and meant what they said!! I hope this is not a true article. I will really be ticked if it is. Why don't we have a national holiday where we all face the west...stick out our tongues, put our thumbs in our ears, wiggle our fingers and our butts and BLOW SPIT!! That'll show'em by golly. I do believe that would be politically correct revenge.
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: dead
WE'RE WORTHLESS AND WEAK!
10
posted on
09/26/2001 8:44:46 AM PDT
by
COURAGE
To: innocentbystander
And if one has to believe eveything one reads, at least consider the source. Believe me, it pays to know something about which media is owned and run by whom...
11
posted on
09/26/2001 8:45:46 AM PDT
by
mewzilla
To: dighton
I wouldn't except that she's far from the only one saying this. Actually, the Administration is saying it.
12
posted on
09/26/2001 8:46:37 AM PDT
by
Loopy
To: dead
Yea...Vote for Hillary...thatll get us where we wanna be. Shut up.
13
posted on
09/26/2001 8:48:07 AM PDT
by
smith288
To: Heisenburger
That's it. Bush has lost my vote and my campaign contributions. He has allowed Arab states to dictate what we can and cannot do to protect ourselves from further atrocities. I cannot support an administration that doesn't base foreign policy solely on what is in the best interest of the United States. I will agree with you if in a year or six months this pans out to be true. Right now it's just too soon to tell. The Bush Administration is keeping the Washington Press and all of us confused and off balance...just think what they're doing to the Taliban's head. And Saddam's and Bin Laden's and all the rest of those our enemies
I've been quick to go negative the last couple of weeks...I'm just so damned anxious to see something done and I'm frustrated that nothing is being done (that I can see) and there's really nothing I can do from home except rant on FR, so I know where you're coming from. But please hang in there. We supported George Bush, fought for him and prayed for him because we saw something in him that we hadn't seen in an Anmerican president since Ronald Reagan. President Bush is still the same man we believed in so strongly a year ago...maybe even more so.
14
posted on
09/26/2001 8:48:20 AM PDT
by
pgkdan
To: COURAGE
I saw the entire Rumsfeld interview. Yes, he said there would be no D-Day type operation. He has said that all along. Why would there be an operation like that, since many of these places have no beaches and are expecting an assault like that?
You people didn't believe the press about Bill Clinton, but now, in time of war, when there is disinformation from both sides floating all over the world, you decide to take the press interpretation of things as gospel.
Either you are actively disrupting, or you are just plain foolish.
To: dead
While I don't have a great fear that Bush won't engage in some war-like action against some of these terrorist organizations and states - I do fear that Colin Powell is WAY too moderate to help Bush understand what really needs to be done and that we need to have all-out, unfettered, wall-to-wall WAR with this evil. To attack this beast in a manner similar to the "War Against Drugs" would be the most stupid thing we could do.
16
posted on
09/26/2001 8:50:17 AM PDT
by
Spiff
To: dead
It only took two weeks for the Administration's tirade against terrorism to evolve into a charade against terrorism.
17
posted on
09/26/2001 8:50:27 AM PDT
by
Woodkirk
To: justin49
Is this what you mean?
14:41 2001-09-26 WORLD'S MOST FOOLISH LAWS: U.S.A. WHY YOU MAY NOT SHOOT BUFFALOES FROM YOUR HOTEL'S SECOND FLOOR
The USA is believed to be the focal point of apparently absurd laws. Several dozens of public organizations are fighting to have those laws (which are called dump laws there) repealed.
Law in the State of Texas are considered especially severe. In particular, it is forbidden here to take more than 3 sips of beer while standing and shoot buffaloes from the second floors of the hotels. Railway trains, when meeting at the crossroads should stop and wait until the other train drives past. Walking barefooted is only allowed on a special permission costing $5.
The above law are really old. Quite recently, Governor George Bush (the incumbent US president) pushed through a law under which a criminal should warn his victim, orally or in writing, of a planned crime no shorter than 24h before the crime was committed. Besides, the warning should contain a description of the panned crime. This rules violation shall be considered by court to be an aggravating circumstance.
In the states individual cities, there are their own severe prohibitions. In Clarendon, for example, you may not wipe dust from public building using brooms made of feathers. In Houston, you may not trade beer after midnight on Sundays (while it is absolutely allowed on Mondays all round oclock). In Port Arthur, emitting unpleasant odours in elevators is forbidden.
18
posted on
09/26/2001 8:50:34 AM PDT
by
ch.man
To: mewzilla
Perhaps, but most media is reporting a softening in Bush's position on states that harbor and protect terrorists. Also the name of the operation (if there really is one) was changed to a PC name, don't want to offend the people mudering us.
It is becomming more an more apparent that the "War On Terrorists" will be a replay of "The War on Drugs". In which case the big loser will be the Constitutional rights of US citizens.
19
posted on
09/26/2001 8:51:15 AM PDT
by
jpsb
To: okie_tech
Same here, I will NOT vote for Bush. How would that be different from the last election, Brigadier?
20
posted on
09/26/2001 8:51:36 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-150 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson