Replies

I agree with the neoconservatives that "getting" Bin Laden and toppling the Taliban is not enough. More must be done. However, I also agree with Buchanan that a wide ranging war between the U.S. and the majority of Arab states is precisely what Bin Laden wants and could quickly turn into something we would have trouble handling.

The major thing Powell and Bush Sr. goofed on with the Iraq war was leaving Hussein in power.

First, Bin Laden should be eliminated and the Taliban unseated. Next, I think that Bush should assess his coalition cards and, if possible, pick the most guilty target of those mentioned by the neoconservatives and "let-um have it", in spades. Whatever target Bush picks should be rendered totally and completely powerless at the completion of the campaign. Taking out the Taliban will not impress anybody. They are not a military presence. We shouldn't leave the area until we have made a distinct impression.

Prior behavior should certainly be a factor in the selection of this target, because the purpose is deterrence. Every government and society in the region should recognize that any future harboring of terrorists could result in their destruction. This operation should bear no resemblance to Clinton's ineffectual "message" to Bin Laden; i.e., the missiles which did not hit anything significant. When we walk away, this adversary should not be left standing in the field. That is the message to be sent to those remaining. Once we leave, no one should look forward to our return.

My father used to tell me that the way to handle a bunch of bullies was to pick the leader, or the largest one, and sucker punch them. If you take out the strongest member, then rest will fold. If not, then at least you have taken care of the the largest adversary before the rest of the fight begins.

YOU WROTE: I agree with the neoconservatives that "getting" Bin Laden and toppling the Taliban is not enough. More must be done. However, I also agree with Buchanan that a wide ranging war between the U.S. and the majority of Arab states is precisely what Bin Laden wants and could quickly turn into something we would have trouble handling.

I WRITE: I would sign on to that. Bin Laden is a minor player in all of this - evidence seems to strongly suggest Saddam's hand, at least indirectly, behind the terrorist attacks. And he also has the capability, and motive, to unleash a crippling biological destruction on the U.S. But we must take care not to let this whole endeavor disintegrate into a gigantic war fought against the entire Middle East, sans Israel.

YOU WROTE: The major thing Powell and Bush Sr. goofed on with the Iraq war was leaving Hussein in power.

I WRITE: Agreed.

YOU WROTE: First, Bin Laden should be eliminated and the Taliban unseated. Next, I think that Bush should assess his coalition cards and, if possible, pick the most guilty target of those mentioned by the neoconservatives and "let-um have it", in spades. Whatever target Bush picks should be rendered totally and completely powerless at the completion of the campaign. Taking out the Taliban will not impress anybody. They are not a military presence. We shouldn't leave the area until we have made a distinct impression.

I WRITE: Agreed.

YOU WROTE: Prior behavior should certainly be a factor in the selection of this target, because the purpose is deterrence. Every government and society in the region should recognize that any future harboring of terrorists could result in their destruction. This operation should bear no resemblance to Clinton's ineffectual "message" to Bin Laden; i.e., the missiles which did not hit anything significant. When we walk away, this adversary should not be left standing in the field. That is the message to be sent to those remaining. Once we leave, no one should look forward to our return.

I WRITE: Well, I'm all for serving notice to those who have caused us injury, but with reports of Sudan arresting 30 terrorists they've nabbed in their country suggests to me that some in the Middle East are already getting the message: clean up your backyards, or we'll do it for you -- and you're not gonna like how we do it, because if we have to clean it, there's a good chance it'll remain "clean" for about 150 years, or however long the half-life is for the plutonium in one of our low-grade nukes. To my mind, we should limit our response in this situation to those whom we know to have had a hand in the Sept. 11 tragedy. And we should also, at the same time, serve notice to anyone that Uncle Sam is on guard again, our intelligence is back up, and we will keep watch on your countries -- if we sniff out potential terrorist threats in your lands, you can bet damned sure that we will be coming in a hurry, with or without your permission. I think that should serve as a deterrent to the Middle East to keep their houses in order and not mess with the U.S.