| Submit your comments on this article |
| Missed opportunities... |
| 2002-06-10 |
Andrew Olmstead takes issue with my distaste for the Clinton crew's handling of Mullah Khaksar's offer to try and replace Mullah Omar and kick the al-Qaeda thugs out of Afghanland.'Although the world seems to believe the United States exists solely for the purpose of meddling in other nations' affairs, the truth is we don't really have much interest in doing so. We'd rather mind our own business. In the past we have meddled extensively in other countries, and it has generally worked out poorly for us, adding to our reluctance. While it seems clear now that we should have assisted Mullah Mohammed Khaksar, doing so was no guarantee we would have hurt al Qaeda. Khaksar could simply have been trying to use us to put himself in power, using the threat of al Qaeda to bring us in on his side. At that time, getting involved in a regime change in Afghanistan wasn't a viable option, and the Clinton Adminstration was right not to do so.'When our national interest is impinged by the actions of another nation, we have to take a close look at our relations with them. In a limited number of cases, when competing national interests clash egregiously, one country is justified in "meddling" in the affairs of another, whether by war or, if they can swing it, by other means. In the instant case, we had an official of a regime that was not only in fundamental(ist) opposition to the U.S., but which was also harboring a stateless army which had already "declared war" on the U.S. Further, they had already committed acts of war against the U.S., including the World Trade Center bombing and the bombings of the U.S. embassies (embassies are national territory) in Kenya and Tanzania. The Cole Incident was yet to come, but there was probably enough intelligence to indicate that similar acts were in the offing. Clinton had already made his brag: 'The President emphasized that the United States has increased itsMadame Albright had echoed these statements, and Bill had fired off cruise missiles at Binny's camps in Afghanistan. Khaksar presented an opportunity to take action. Afghanistan's not our country — we really don't have any concern who's in charge, even now, as long as they're not stomping our toes. The other side of that coin is that we don't stomp theirs, and despite what the Chomskyites think, we try to be good about that. If the Talibs wanted to beat their wives and chop people's head off, it was their country and we could stay the hell out. But Khaksar was an Afghan and a Talib. A fairly minor change in regime would have been to our advantage, and it could have been supported with a fairly modest expenditure and no direct involvement. An attempted coup would have had a lot more effect than "putting a $2 million missile up a camel's butt." If Khaksar's attempt had flopped? Mullah Omar would have hanged him and as many of his supporters he could find. He'd have hanged them in public, after doing painful things to them. What would that matter to us? We're not Afghans. We could have stood around looking innocent and saying witty things like "Don't try and blame us for internal problems brought on by your own bad government. Wudn't us." If it had succeeded? Binny might be dead by now. A civil war could have occurred in Afghanistan in late 1999 or early 2000. The Northern Alliance may have come in on the Khaksar side. Thousands could have been killed — and not one of them American. If Mullah Khaksar had succeeded all the way in his aim? Binny might have had to move, probably to Somalia or Chechnya, or maybe back to Soddy Arabia. His organization would have been rendered less effective than it was on 9-11 — and 9-11 might not have occurred. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #1 I've updated my observations. And, (minor point), it's Olmsted. |
| Posted by: Andrew Olmsted 2002-06-10 21:52:01 |