Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

What Happens After Afghanistan?

Frances Farmer

04:34 / 06.12.01

What if another attack occured -- after Al-Qu'aida presence has been removed from Afghanistan?

Where would the U.S. administration go with such a thing?

Obviously, there's been some overt mention of Iraq and chemical weapons -- letting U.N. inspectors in and so on. But could the U.S. consider Iraq a viable target? In terms of hunting down the responsible terrorists? In terms of world opinion?

How would the citizenry react to another attack? Further isolationist leanings? Suspicion that the chosen course of action has been unwise? All-out thirst for blood?

Let's not forget that polls do seem to indicate some serious U.S. support for the current military endeavours. A lot of people are perfectly satisfied with the state of things.

What if there was no attack?

Would support remain steadfast for assaults on Iraq? Within NATO? Within the infant coalition? Would the administration go for it?

How will the recent escalation in violence between Isrealis and Palestinians influence unfolding events? Will the general escalation in violence in that region sway potential agendas involving Iraq?

Lots of questions, I guess.

I do have a creeping feeling of discomfort, though.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Frances' Fragile Optimism ]

07:29 / 06.12.01

On a human level, they'd no doubt be appalled. Politically, however, it would be just perfect for them. The US intention as stated is to pursue this outside Afghanistan, and Bush would loooove to go into Iraq.

Another attack would give the administration a strong card to play with a coalition which would prefer to go back to business as usual after Afghanistan.

Need I add that the Arab states would be entirely not happy with the idea of the US gleefully attacking a second muslem nation in a row?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

07:40 / 06.12.01

Although even according to Straw, Iraq IS next on the agenda (leaving aside the matter of official declarations of war, Geneva Covention- what the fuck happened to THAT, then- and all that malarkey), and from what I can gather, (get this for just plain fucking mad) then Somalia...
Somehow, I think they've already torn up the rulebook...
I think all bets are off. And that's a bad thing.

08:48 / 06.12.01

if they do start hitting other countries, expect US popular support overseas to shrink faster than a hard-on in Antarctica.

Even though I'm opposed to the current action I'm aware of the fact that there's a serious quality of moral ambivalence to the whole thing- ultimately the end of the Taleban is a good thing, and if they have destroyed Al-Q'aida in that country, bully for them. History will weigh up all the civilian deaths, the US sponsorship of the fledgeling Taleban, etc, etc. but for now they're getting away with maintaining their image as bold warriors against terror, oxymoronic tho it may be.

This ambivalence tends to undermine opposition to the war. What I'm expecting to see if they do go into Iraq is a redoubling of pacifist argument- after all, we've been bombing and starving Iraq for 10 years now, and now we're gonna invade? Fuck me.

Even then, a chunk of popular opinion is going to favour the action because of the tabloid image of Saddam Hussein. Even then, this perception is by no means universal: it's just the one stock image of Iraq that the first-world press relies on. With Somalia, they can't rely on that factor...

Clearly Bush and others want to push this as far as they can... I'm rather hoping the US discovers the limits of its power. If ever an administration needed a reality check, that's it.

(edit- for the record, I don't think there will be another attack, certainly not on the scale of 9/11. I think if they had any aces left we'd have seen 'em by now.)

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Flame On ]

Edited again cos ubbcode is hard.

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Flame On ]

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:48 / 06.12.01

Yeah... go with you on pretty much all of that. That's just stuff that is (unpleasantly) the way the world works right now. Last week's putting down of the prison uprising, on the other hand, whatever the rights and wrongs, is against The Rules. (Not saying they're good/bad rules, you understand, just that they are the only ones our glorious leaders have to follow). Also Blumsfeld's comments along the lines of "dead, rather than alive" kind of break them too. Either they need to be followed, or changed, or the Convention ain't worth shit.
(Personally, I've always thought that- take Iraq for example- if a war isn't against the people, but against the leader, as is always said is the case, then not killing him- which isn't allowed- but killing them instead, seems counterproductive...)

10:57 / 06.12.01

It's been mentioned several times in the press that Somalia is the next target on the agenda for the US. Which really makes perfect sense. Like Afghanistan, its broken up around "tribal" lines, with warlords involved in shifting coalitions. AL Qaeada has a major presence there. And the US suffered a greivous defeat there during the Clinton Administration, soon to be dramatized and released to theaters as the movie "Black Hawk Down." If the action in Afghanistan winds down within the next month, there can be some great synergy opportunities between Hollywood and Washington...

19:50 / 06.12.01

ah, of course- disaster movies are out of the question and every possible WW2 and Vietnam movie has already been made. Where else can Hollywood turn for its obligatory percentage of macho bullshit output?

if you think i'm being ironic/sarcastic here btw... you're wrong.

21:58 / 06.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Clever Clogs Todd:
It's been mentioned several times in the press that Somalia is the next target on the agenda for the US. Which really makes perfect sense. Like Afghanistan, its broken up around "tribal" lines, with warlords involved in shifting coalitions. AL Qaeada has a major presence there.

And, crucially, it's a poor, already fucked up country in the middle of nowhere that no one on the international scene really gives a shit about.

You can just imagine them going through the list of 'places with terrorists in them'; "Eygpt? we can't do that one! It's a proper place for goodness sake!"

10:35 / 07.12.01

and Somilia is another country to give the American military a bloody nose when it attempted intivention there in the 90s...

12:24 / 07.12.01

Doubt they'll go into somalia, not enough oil there. Iraq's a good bet, gotta make sure that oil keeps flowing.

The Talibans real mistake was to stop the negotiations with US companies to build a pipe through afganistan. They could have butchered their own population all they liked as long as the oil came through.

Also nice to see at least some peeople in the US and the UK feeling nostalgic for rule of law in government and proper democratic oversight. Who knows this may even start a trend.

22:49 / 09.12.01

quoteoubt they'll go into somalia, not enough oil there. Iraq's a good bet, gotta make sure that oil keeps flowing.

the oil must flow have eney of you ever read Dune instead of spice read it as oil and that is about the most of it. you are right thow this has been about oil and will allway's be about oil. to the victors go the spoils and a hole lot of black sluge is the prize.but you all know this allready

The Packard Goose

23:18 / 09.12.01

Unfortunately, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia are just the tip of the iceberg.

In today's Los Angeles Times, a "U.S. official familiar with the planning" is quoted:

"The main front after Afghanistan will be going after Al Qaeda cells hither and yon."

Hither and yon, according to the Times, probably means the Aceh region of northern Indonesia, Yemen, and Somalia.

That's in addition to non-Al Qaeda targets Iraq and the Phillipines, and not mentioning Bosnia-Herzegovina, where "Green Berets already have launched little-noticed raids" and "arrested more than a dozen suspects."

Oh, and we've still got lots of domestic terrorism to take care of here in the U.S., too, let's not forget. House-to-house searches may be necessary to find and eliminate potential anthrax-mailers and other subversives with American citizenship. And who knows what other forms of terror such searches might uncover?

Let's call it what it is: Operation World Takeover.

And it's working smashingly.

Harold Washington died for you

01:17 / 10.12.01

Something to ponder, would we even be bombing the hell out of Afghanistan if Taliban had said 'Oh that twat Osama killed all those people? Here take him.'

As for Iraq, would anyone really miss Saddam? He is mainly the one responsible for starving his people because he dosen't want the UN going in inspecting his NBC plants. This guy launched Scuds into Tel Aviv in the last war. If one of those things had a servicable weapon in it Israel would make the US look downright restrained. Lets not even get into all the Kurdish people that got to live because NATO planes have been flying over half of Iraq for the last ten years.

I dunno. I don't like war, but speaking as a US citizen I feel threatened when my country is attacked, or when a loony like Saddam can potentially start WWIII. I hope it is over as soon as possible, and we exhaust every diplomatic channel. But til then...

01:51 / 10.12.01

What was it that Winston Churchill said? The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter? So long as the U.S. can get by without any casualties inflicted by its enemies (friendly fire being another story entirely), popular support will remain strong for bombing whatever country Bush wants to bomb. Especially if it's somewhere like Iraq, which we've already proven we can beat in three days. And that was back when they had an army!

I wouldn't underestimate the International Community, though. I don't think the US would have much support, outside of the UK, for going into Iraq, given that the evidence tying Saddam to 9/11 is roundly viewed as much more tenuous than that connecting dear, fuzzy Osama bin Laden.

Another attack, say some ineffectual but terrifying detonation of a dirty nuclear device, which is one thing I've been hearing about a lot lately, would probably reduce the population even further into a mass of foaming isolationist insanity, happily acquiescing to national ID cards or, say, forehead tattoos, and the suspension of all sorts of those liberties which so confuse the pursuit of justice, like freedom of speech or the due process of law. Ah, dear old Constitution, we hardly knew ye!

But I suspect that there will be no such attack, and that the Justice Department will eventually reluctantly reveal that all this anthrax going 'round was manufactured by decidedly un-Islamic right wing nutcases.

So, I think eventually the war-tide will recede, but probably not until after W. has stomped a few more small countries. The sooner, the better--then we here in the US can go back to realizing he's a half-wit, a particularly slow dawn which was in progress when the terrorists attacked. As Papa Bush proved, you can look good while killing massive numbers of middle-Eastern folks and still be a one term president.

Of course, I'll probably have been tried by a military tribunal and stuck in some deep dark hole for sedition by that point.

Hm. Had no idea I was so upset about all this until just now.

03:05 / 11.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Morocco Mole:

I dunno. I don't like war, but speaking as a US citizen I feel threatened when my country is attacked, or when a loony like Saddam can potentially start WWIII.

what about when a loony like G. Bush Junior starts it?

Harold Washington died for you

14:02 / 11.12.01

Dubya isn't my first (or second) choice to be 'Leader of the Free World', but he's no Saddam. Or Saddam is no Dubya. Hmm. My point is that Saddam is a dictator and would love to actually use a WMD. I don't think Dubya would.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:13 / 11.12.01

I want to kill Saddam, so he never does this again. I want to kill his children, so they never do this again.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:15 / 11.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Morocco Mole:
My point is that Saddam... would love to actually use a WMD. I don't think Dubya would.

And you know either of these how?

14:47 / 11.12.01

If you include chemical weapons within the defenition of WMD (a definition I reject, BTW, but no one else seems to), the fact that he's done so before?

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: MJ-12 ]

15:14 / 11.12.01

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Pancakes:
I want to kill Saddam, so he never does this again. I want to kill his children, so they never do this again.
You forgot to use irony marks. I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out whether you were a new poster with a familiar name or whether you'd just gone insane.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

15:18 / 11.12.01

Wubbah Wubbah....

Nah, jsut quoting something which I believe Morocco Mole said about the Afghanistanians. Well, the bad ones.

15:50 / 11.12.01

If you're not with Haus, you're against Haus

19:54 / 11.12.01

My news diet this week has consisted of tabloid headlines, but today there seems to be something going on. Lots about endgame in Afghanistan, and lots about the three-month anniversary of 9/11, and specifically stuff about a build-up of American forces in the Gulf.

They can hit a few places from there, can't they? Oooo, Somalia, Sudan, and Iraq. Iran even. You never know. But it does look rather as if there's really going to be a lot more of this.

Can we start calling it WWIII yet? or do we need a catchier title? Not that I'm calling it WWIII, y'understand. Not my call.

Ultimately, if they do more of this, they'll definitely hit Iraq. If it's Somalia or Sudan next, then you know that it'll be Iraq afterwards. I mean, if you were Dubya, you wouldn't invade the Middle East and not do Iraq, y'know? it'd be like going to Vegas without waking up drunk, married and handcuffed to a stranger in an Elvis outfit.

What am I bid on the conspiracy theory that malnourished depleted uranium contamination victims will be publicised as 'the pathetic victims of Saddam's demonic weaponry?'

Also noticed some posturing from Powell and Blair that leads me to speculate that the U.S might be readying to drop us off to do all that tedious nation building stuff they're 'not in the business of' doing. Which in some ways would be a relief, but in other ways could land us in even more shit.

And you're right, it's about the oil.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

01:21 / 12.12.01

quote:Originally posted by MJ-12:
If you're not with Haus, you're against Haus

Not only that, but John Ashcroft said that even questioning himn as giving aid and comfort to the Waffle House.

Harold Washington died for you

01:59 / 12.12.01

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Pancakes:
I want to kill Saddam, so he never does this again. I want to kill his children, so they never do this again.

Exactly. This man has used poison gas on his own people numerous times. His actions have led to starving his own people so he can keep this gas and who knows what else.

You think Saddam is not getting enough to eat? He dosen't give a fuck about the Iraqi people. It was stupid to leave him in power after the Gulf War when he showed how crazy he could be. He wants to 'negotiate peace' but keep all these dangerous weapons for which he obviously has no respect.

Oh yeah, he kills his own children.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

02:15 / 12.12.01

So, we have to wait until he kills all his own children, then kill him? Too early, and the spawn of Saddam may yet live? It's like a shooting script for "the Fly 3".

I don't think many people here are going to argue that Saddam is a thoroughly top bloke and should be in charge of the free world. And I think a fair few people might agree that the failure of Bush to make sure of the expected collapse of his regime was fuckwitted in the extreme. What I think might be suggested is that the USA launching attacks on a series of Islamic nations, destabilising the balance of power between Israel and the Arab world, demonstrating a readiness to remove any regime that does not follow orders (suddenly sharing intelligence with the US becomes a very bad idea), and giving more ambition to claims that the US is an imperial power with no respect for the UN or international law, migth be quite a bad thing to do in terms of the "Alliance Against Terror".

19:56 / 13.12.01

quote:Originally posted by Morocco Mole:
You think Saddam is not getting enough to eat? He dosen't give a fuck about the Iraqi people. It was stupid to leave him in power after the Gulf War when he showed how crazy he could be. He wants to 'negotiate peace' but keep all these dangerous weapons for which he obviously has no respect.

I dunno, man, "stupid to leave him in power" just doesn't cut it. At best, his presence in Iraq indicates a stunning shortsightedness on the part of the world's superpower. At worst, well, you can find ideas on that all over the web.

So why would anyone put any trust into a series of governments who prove time and again the disastrous consequences of such myopia?

Harold Washington died for you

13:18 / 15.12.01

quote:Originally posted by solid_state:
So why would anyone put any trust into a series of governments who prove time and again the disastrous consequences of such myopia?

That's an excellent question. I think this is the time to start fixing some of these mistakes the US has made, since we already have all the bombs and shit out.

Some of the other potential targets of the war I will reserve judgement on, as I know next to nothing about them. But I think the people of Iraq have suffered enough.