Jim, I know that the goal of action in Afghanistan wasn’t to help one side in a civil war. But that is certainly what they did. The fighting that lead to the fall of the Taliban was done by the Northern Alliance with western air cover. No war was ever declared.

I certainly agree that the reasons to intervene in Afghanistan are far better than the reasons to invade Iraq. However at this point I’m still not sure that we have seen any significant benefits from the Afghani venture (except the greater supply of illegal drugs).

I agree that the US should have pursued AQ, even if that includes not respecting the soveignty of dodgy countries.

http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-paul-is-sanjaya-candidate-of.html

Emotions are an entirely private matter, John! This has nothing to do with government or values.

The war on terror is probably in its overall concept, sloganary (there I’ve invented a new word), but it has to be called something, and that seemed to catch the imagination at the time.

The point I am making is that the war in Afghanistan was legitimate. I think you are misreading it as entering into a civil war on one side, as you seem to infer. Terrorists attacked the US. This was a crime not an act of war, however when the Taliban, who were the effective government of most of the country refused to hand over the criminals, and instead extended protection to them, war was inevitable.

No country on earth that could respond would not do so.

I agree with your reference to ‘two nutty extreme Islamic groups’, however the Northern Alliance only was seen as an ally in that it was able to provide support and a base for operations against the Taliban who made themselves an enemy of the US by protecting Al Qaeda.

John, the point I was making was strictly in relation to the war in Afghanistan/Hicks combination. The use of the terrorist attack to justify other things, especially assaults on our liberty by the state is something I oppose as much as you do.

It is true that governments try to increase their power under any scenario… but it is also true that they are much more successful if they can scare people or talk about war. War and big government go together. And given the extraordinarily small risk from terrorism (more risk of pesticide poisoning) and the minute costs from terrorism, the fear encouraged by “War Inc.” it totally out of proportion with reality and is useful only to increase the power of government. Sad.

The idea that “this government program would have been excellent if only the government had done it properly” is the fallacy of youthful idealistic socialism. Cost over-runs, mistakes, unintended consequences, mission creep, political compromises etc are not a possibility. They are inevitable. Ignoring these issues is unforgivable.

The consequence of the war frenzy of recent years is going to be huge costs (& tax), lost liberties, increased hatred, lost credibility and no fewer terrorists. It is perhaps the greatest attack on freedom that we have faced since the New Deal.

The US never declared war against the Taliban. Niether did Australia. There was an ongoing civil war in Afghanistan between two nutty extreme islamic groups (taliban v northern alliance) before the US got involved. The fact that David Hicks was supporting one side in this civil war is not very interesting. Luckily for him, America supported the last nutty islamists Hicks fought for (Kosovo Liberation Army)… but unluckily America picked the other side this time around. Opps.

The point I was making was that the war on terror/read Al Qaeda, is a legitimate war, it in itself is not a semantic war, the use of it for involved governments to grab greater powers is.

A far better result could have been achieved in Iraq, had the US encouraged a saner person to pop Hussein and take over, after which in return for constitutional guarantees of human rights, regional autonomy, repudiation of WMDs etc, support would be given for the removal of sanctions.

I am not aware of much democratic tradition in Arab culture, and any insistence on it in Iraq was a silly idea. Democracy is only the tyranny of the majority, unless there are strong constitutional safeguards against this. A ‘benevolent’ despot would probably work out better for them in the long run.

A war on terrorism is like a war on murder. It seems like a semantic war to justify an attack on all manner of things. Which is pretty much how they used it.