September 14, 2001
7:43 AM   Subscribe

Afghanistan has proven to be a "graveyard for the interests of great powers." One thing I haven't heard yet: What do Americans young enough to be drafted think about the U.S. going to war there as part of the president's pledge of "ending states who sponsor terrorism"?
posted by rcade (26 comments total)
 
Everyone I've talked to is rather happy with the prospect of "defending their country". Some have already enlisted.
posted by revbrian at 7:49 AM on September 14, 2001


I'm one of the people who believes the U.S. has to strike militarily against states that harbor, support and train terrorists. As long as countries are allowed to be a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, new attacks on the U.S. are certain. It's only a matter of time before they try to detonate a nuke here.

However, I'm 34 and my sons are 5, 2, and 3 months old, so it's easier for me to be a hawk. Since there are numerous people on MetaFilter who are in the draftable age, I'd like to hear what you think about fighting a war there (or Iraq, Libya, or another country).
posted by rcade at 7:50 AM on September 14, 2001


My father (an Air Force reservist) was called, told to put his affairs in order, prepare for a mideast deployment and pack his bags.
posted by revbrian at 7:57 AM on September 14, 2001


Enlistment had skyrocketed in the last few days, just as it did in the days after Pearl Harbor. Do you think that just because we may have to die to defend our country that we will shrink from the duty? Clearly, many more of us will die before this long struggle against madness is over.
posted by lenticular at 8:02 AM on September 14, 2001


BULLSHIT

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

We're going to bomb a bunch of pathetic, already starving civilians in Afghanistan?

Remember Vietnam? Cambodia?

Bad idea, folks.
posted by preguicoso at 8:06 AM on September 14, 2001


My brother turns 18 on tuesday. He said if war was declared, he'd walk right in to the enlistment office and sign up. I'm also of draftable age, and I think a war is a terrible, terrible idea.
posted by jeb at 8:14 AM on September 14, 2001


I have to disagree with you, preguicoso. This is going to be a War like we have never seen. It's not just a matter of bombing Afghanistan. It is going to be a long, drawn out war, fought on more than just a military front. There will be diplomatic and economic battles as well. If the current administration is serious about ending terrorism, we are in for a long, difficult, and unprecedented struggle. I just hope Bush is up to it.
posted by JeffK at 8:17 AM on September 14, 2001


i hate to be a filthy hippy, but let the dust settle, take a deep breath and approach this with clinical precision.

america, please don't go in guns-a-blazin' (if you know where to go)

this is not a movie.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2001


"Cambodia?" i am remembering the 2 million dead, dead because of short-sighted american politics. All must remember that things have changed. I cannot listen to peace talk anymore. I hear 95% tin ear, jerk bound comments that sound like something my children would ask. This will be differnet because for the first time a nuclear power could be invaded. A few your liberties are but a prop now."this is not a movie." watch "The Seige", chilling to say the least.
posted by newnameintown at 8:31 AM on September 14, 2001


It is going to be a long, drawn out war, fought on more than just a military front.

Gee, JeffK - sounds JUST LIKE WHAT DUBYA SAID.

You know what I think? I think you should take a second and think. War against who? The poorest people in the world? You think bombing these people is going to make them LESS PISSED at the US?

This attack could very well be a response to the last time we bombed the Sudan with NO WARNING.

Come on, brothers and sisters, don't believe the hype.
posted by preguicoso at 8:31 AM on September 14, 2001


This is quickly becoming a NATO thing, than just a US thing, so the citizens of many other nations are involved, such as those in my country, the UK.

I'm not interested in fighting in this war what-so-ever, and would do anything to get out of being drafted. However, I don't think conscription is going to become necessary. Wars are fought with far less men nowadays, and conscription wasn't required even in the Gulf War.

Hundreds of people have been killed in the US-funded Northern Ireland struggle but all of the factions involved are finally starting to get along, and we may have a resolution within the next few years. The British have never had to resort to bombing Ireland because 'they "harbour" the IRA'.. as we are aware the Irish are not to blame.

While I can see why the US needs to demonstrate that it is a country not to be messed with, I think that planning a war within a week of such a catastrophe is extremely unwise.
posted by wackybrit at 8:34 AM on September 14, 2001


While I can see why the US needs to demonstrate that it is a country not to be messed with, I think that planning a war within a week of such a catastrophe is extremely unwise.

Amen. Indiscriminately bombing the Third World also strikes me as extremely unwise.

As for the draft - well, we've already called in the reserves....
posted by preguicoso at 8:37 AM on September 14, 2001


mind over matter.

intelligence is the greatest weapon in the fight against terrorism.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:39 AM on September 14, 2001


As a Muslim-American I tend to agree with JeffK. Times have changed instantly. If the govt. is thinking that it can bomb afghanistan and that is going to be the end of it then its foolish.

I bet, a new alliance scene will emerge from all this.

Lots of lives will be lost not only in Afghanistan and neighboring countries but also in our America. The people who lost their lives in WTC were not all Christian Americans. They were Christians, Jews, Muslims, people of other believes. The were also Americans, people of different nationalities. 300-500 Pakistanis alone are feared dead.

The people who die in Palestine are not only Muslims, they are Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims.

A lot of people are going to die. A long hard time is ahead. With the economy down and US at war, there are bound to be opportunists around. What we can do is to fight a "Jehad" against these opportunists. The one's who have raised gas prices. The one's who are attacking Mosques and killing/injuring Muslim men, women and kids.

Lets just hope we stick together and on of us is named Sanity.

PS: Jehad does not mean Holy War. Jehad means effort, striving. So, a student who makes an effort towards getting a degree is Jehad. Also, suicide is "haram- A Big sin" according to Islamic Faith. Islam does not allow killing of civilians. The Prophet himself condemned the killings of innocent Jews and Christians. Islamic wars were fought only in case of transgression by other nations.

God Bless Us All
posted by adnanbwp at 8:42 AM on September 14, 2001


Indiscriminately bombing the Third World also strikes me as extremely unwise.

I completely agree. The U.S. should, but won't, take the money set aside for military retribution, and use it to build schools and hospitals in the Middle East... show that you're kinder and more civilized than those who use violence to make their statements. As for the draft, as a Canadian the question doesn't really apply to me, but I should hope that we would once again open our borders to young American men who don't want to die.
posted by jess at 9:01 AM on September 14, 2001


This may be a bit tangential, but something I've been thinking about: Could the kind of "remote control" warfare we fought in the Gulf War and in "peacekeeping" actions in the Balkans have helped to encourage terrorists? I don't want American soldiers to die any more than any other reasonable American. But consider the extreme measures we've taken to distance ourselves from combat, and to keep our troops far away from harm. Could those measures have convinced our enemies that we are so desparate to risk any American casualties, that they believe they can manipulate us through acts of mass murder like we've just seen?
posted by harmful at 9:19 AM on September 14, 2001


Hmm. Make that "so desparate to avoid any American casualties" and it might make sense. Or not.
posted by harmful at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2001


I'm an American man still young enough to be drafted, and let me tell you: if this crazy knee-jerk whiplash war all the hawks are spoiling for actually gets started, I will be keeping a close eye on the border.

I fail to see how it makes sense to force people, against their will, to go risk their lives trying to kill people they've never met and know nothing about in order to make the point that killing lots of people is Bad.

This war, if it happens, will be worse than a bad idea: it'll be a stupid, cruel idea, because after the end of the slaughter, attacks of Tuesday's sort will be no less likely to happen.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:33 AM on September 14, 2001


We're going to bomb a bunch of pathetic, already starving civilians in Afghanistan?

No, but maybe the Taliban, who keep their citizens pathetic and starving in the first place, and who are already saying that Osama couldn't do it because he can't train pilots, neither can the Taliban (despite the fact that it is well-established that they got their training here. They didn't need to train the pilots). Maybe the Taliban doesn't watch CNN *smirk*.

I pray for the least possible destructive way to end terrorist threats. I believe that the hijackers and their aides deserve retribution aimed at prevention of future occurrences.
posted by adampsyche at 9:41 AM on September 14, 2001


while i sympathize with all of the people who don't want war, and who don't want a part of it -- who would rather not be drafted -- if i were drafted, i'd go. i don't want to fight in a war, but i also don't want to dodge the draft should it be enacted (i sincerely doubt that it will), because they'll simply take someone besides me. it's a horrible feeling, to me, to think that someone went to fight in a war, and perhaps died, because of my decision; that a family is grieving because of my decision.

perhaps, if i had to fight in a war, i might die. perhaps, in that light, it may seem no different to suggest that my family should grieve over my passing rather than another family grieving over the passing of their son or their daughter. given the choice of someone else or me dying, though, i'd rather it be me. i know i haven't got much to lose, all things considered, but i could never know about the next guy.
posted by moz at 10:07 AM on September 14, 2001


We're going to bomb a bunch of pathetic, already starving civilians in Afghanistan?

I think it's probably inevitable that we are going to do exactly this.

Which brings up an interesting point. I think we've gotten beyond the "nuke 'em all" mentality of Wednesday, and can discuss this rationally. Assuming that (a) bin Laden is indeed guilt, and (b) the government of Afghanistan knew of his plans and aided him in them, what is the proper, best response? You're BUSH - what do you do? How do you retaliate in such a way that your destroy the capabilities of terrorists and punish them for their actions yet address the underlying causes and avoid killing innocent civilians?

The best case, min-max scenario, imo, would entail this:

First Phase: no declaration of war; airstrikes against legitimate military targets (that means industrial and military sites ONLY) in Afghanistan, and Pakistan is it is found that they as a state are culpable (I can't see how they aren't); deployment of special forces into Afghanistan for surgical strikes against bin Laden himself and his forces; economic and physical embargo backed by military cordon. Maximum penalties domestically for reprisals against Arab Americans.

Second Phase: intelligence gathering and deployment of special forces into any other country harboring members of bin Laden's organization. the same for members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any other known terrorist organization, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

Third Phase: economic and physical embargo against all countries who refuse(d) to aid us - with intelligence and operational discretion - backed initially by military cordon and, after, by severe legal penalities for transgressors. Humanitarian aid exempted.

Fourth Phase: Formation of a multinational paramilitary anti-terrorist intelligence and preemption force, created under the auspices of the UN Security Council. This group would continually monitor terrorist activity, conduct intelligence gathering operations and would have a license from UN countries to cross international borders on missions to eliminate terrorist cells as they see fit (although with limited prior warning to the country in question to avoid military response). This group would contain military and intelligence personnel from many countries, but would be itself independant in both direction and scope of activity from any government and answer only to the Security Council.

Fifth Phase: A renewed emphasis on the part of the west to meet and understand the needs and philosophical basis of the world Muslim community; renewed, comprehensive efforts to promote peace between Israel and it's neighbors; and perhaps most inportantly, the active governmental support of western Muslim communities to reach out to their mid-eastern counterparts.

Nuts?
posted by UncleFes at 10:13 AM on September 14, 2001


I read this, it's from an Afghan-American writer. I thought it was extraordinary so I'm reposting it here.


I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters.

But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country.

Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Don. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time

So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that folks.

Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West.

And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?

Tamim Ansary
posted by dydecker at 11:21 AM on September 14, 2001


Mr. Ansary is completely correct. great post.
Ground troops to extricate bin-Laden is just the first step of a thousand.
Peace is not possible until the repressive dictatorships in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. are deposed and the people control their own destiny. Only in the current climate of repression and no hope can a young terrorist ARMY be nurtured.
Unfortunately, this can't be done by Christmas.
Indeed, we're seeing the glimmers of the history of the 21st century.
A conservative estimate is 200 million people dead as a result of wars in the 20th century.
I see no reason to believe an equal or greater number will not perish in the 21st.
Not helpful is the probable fact that less than 10% of Americans could locate Afghanistan on a map. America must gain awareness.
Ignoring the suffering in the world is a luxury we can no longer afford. Distributing the wealth is now in our direct self-interest. Let the skies rain love.
posted by quercus at 12:04 PM on September 14, 2001


"Unfortunately, this can't be done by Christmas" a rapid deployment force of 3 divisions( one heavy), the 6th fleet(?)((Indian ocean-mediterrian forces)) with grouped air support could be in place to secure all major military targets within Afghan in two and one half weeks.(my silly numbers guess from obviuos sources) If that force is suckerpunched, then the loss is tragic yet minimul 30, 000 troops as as opposed to a desert storm of 100-500k. They would be easier to extract and heavy equipment is already in the middle east...so lets drop the long drawn, scenerio as the only option.(a kin to a modern posse. a different type of war, more rapid and vapid.) This would depend on her help from our allies, but they must bare with the reality that we will control overall placement, deployment and occupational zones. Im not sure if most of our allies would agree to U.S. being overlord in command of this posse. If one(or many) would (a counter strike on allied possee) suckerpunch a multi- national possethe thought of that gigantic mistake might protect this force from a tragic occurence like bio-chem strike. At that point i see the acts akin to vlad dracul arise...."This is going to get out of control" Fred Thomson, "Hunt for Red Oktober".
posted by newnameintown at 11:02 AM on September 15, 2001


and who cares if they dont even have a map to point it out, the point is THE POSSE led by BIG SAM knows. (as does the shadow)half a million stock brokers brokering flights and conducting weapons training... ah ehmm, saber rattling is an evil i abhore but wholey participate in anger. More then half my familiy is or was military with an(ex) brother in law whos got his full bird. If my quaker ancestor can allow Washingtons army to use his land for shelter then i will support my familiy in rattling that saber. I have a 1864 U.S. officers sword, pitted, found in log in the virgina mountains, i will rattle and prattle that if need be. This group hate turns to resolve when action is taken. And peace talk is our only reminder that we fight for that voice.
posted by newnameintown at 11:15 AM on September 15, 2001


I'm thinking that our leaders would be insane if they attacked Afghanistan as a whole with tensions between the Arab world and the West the way they have been.

That's why I don't think that they'll do it, despite what the newspapers (who are paid for their product) might say.

There's a "great whittling" of public perception here by the media. Someone pointed that out to me last night, and it's true. If they wanted to find stories (of which I'm sure the majority are made up of) of peace and kindness towards Arab-Americans, they could. If they wanted to show more Americans on television urging restraint, they could. etc etc etc

NOTE: You all DO know that the gov't of Pakistan has pledged to bend over backwards to help us in our actions...
posted by fooljay at 11:42 AM on September 15, 2001


« Older Is this Gary Condit's   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments