Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Lee Haslup <biglee AT haslups.com>]

A few observations...

>  pre-emptive war

If you drop the context, any use of force is unjustified and, at best, 
preemptive.  The attack on the World Trade Center was carried out by a 
diffuse network that is not directly tied to any government but receives 
carefully covert support from several of them.  Al Qaeda receives this 
support in two ways: first, there is financial support flowing from 
wealthy "private" individuals in the countries and, second, the Pan-Arab 
nationalist propaganda of the state-run media in those countries tends 
to portray al Qaeda (Hamas, etc., etc.) in a very favorable light (which 
clearly helps with their recruiting.)  In a fascist regime (and most 
Middle-Eastern countries qualify) individual wealth flows from close 
ties to the government so, while the governments can deny financial 
support for the organizations the denial is based on a technicality.

Al Qaeda (and their supporters) count on the diffuse nature of their 
network to allow them to do damage disproportionate to the ability of 
their opponents to retaliate.  In their second attack on the World Trade 
Center al Qaeda killed thousands of people.  If we could find everyone 
directly and provably responsible for the attack we would net, what, 
maybe couple of dozen people?  There are lots of disaffected Arabs where 
they came from and, as long as the money and the propaganda keep flowing...

It's rather like being attacked by mosquitoes during simultaneous 
epidemics of Yellow Fever, Encephalitis and West Nile Virus.  They don't 
come from anywhere in particular but they do a lot of damage.  You can 
swat a few, but it's not that satisfying and it does very little to 
discourage the other mosquitoes.  What you can do is to drain a few swamps.

Afghanistan was the obvious place to start.  They were the most clearly 
linked supporters of al Qaeda and, the Russian experience 
notwithstanding, a fairly easy target.  The Afghan campaign went well, 
for the most part.  A few al Qaeda leaders we would have liked to catch 
eluded us but Afghanistan is no longer a major al Qaeda resource.  A few 
mosquitoes got away but the water table is down in the area.  
Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not that centrally located and some more 
work needed to be done.

Arguably the most important supporter of al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia -- 
tons of oh-so-discrete covert cash flows from wealthy Wahabist zealots 
in Saudi.  Unfortunately, the Saud family has excellent deniability and 
Saudi Arabia is currently our 'friend'.  Most of the holy places of 
Islam are in Saudi Arabia and direct action against them would be 
madness.  Which leads us to Iraq.

We had a long-standing beef with the government of Iraq and *nobody* 
liked Saddam.  Iraq is centrally located in the Islamic world and has 
both oil and water.  This makes it a good candidate to become a 
pluralistic, more modern state.  The oil will help bring in outside 
money to build up their economy and the abundance of water makes myriad 
other industries feasible.  The presence of a successful, democratic 
Iraq will do a lot to deflate the Pan-Arabic nationalism in the 
surrounding countries.

> WMD was the nail that Bush hung his hat on

Y'know, I almost gotta give you one there.  There are other, better 
reasons for the war -- reasons on which too little emphasis was placed.

> What kind of message did we send to the world?  

That remains to be seen.  I don't see it as a coincidence, for instance, 
that Muammar Gaddafi has admitted to, and scrapped, Libya's WMD program 
and is seeking better relations with the US.

> Look at Israel following our lead.

They were out ahead, surely.  They've been shooting at cars from 
helicopters since long before the Iraq war. 

> And look at the message Bush is sending to us here at home ... Three 
> years ago he told us that he would be our president whether we liked 
> it or not.

Isn't there some sort of organization that tries to cap the discussion 
of divisive political issues so we can get on with the business of the 
country in a less rancorous atmosphere?  What was it? ... Something like...

  "Here now.  Here now.  What's all this, then? Let's just move along 
now."

... no, come to think of it that is the British organization.  What was 
it?  Oh yes, "Move On."  Maybe they should look into helping people get 
over the 2000 elections.

BigLee