Yes Charles

I am serious.

The chosen approach was to attack 1 country who had nothing to do with it and 1 country that was a basket case.
If we had confined ourselves to Afghanistan and maintained (proper) sanctions against Iraq we would be in a much better place now.

I would not have been against seizing individuals who where identified as involved but I am against bombing the average citizen in their own country with "surgical airstrikes".


>>9/11 should have been dealt with as a crime. The US had a lot of support afterwards and its been used up rather recklessly. The war on terror has been about as successful as the war on drugs.
>
>Yes, Bill Clinton thought that about every attack prior to 9/11 - WTC1, Khobar, Cole, Kenya .... Bin Laden has actually said he found that approach quite encouraging, so it did indeed have some positive effect on foreign opinion.
>
>Perhaps, after a thorough investigation, we should have gone to the Hague and sought justice? I am sure both the Taliban and al-Queda would have been quite distressed to be chastised or sanctioned, or, even worse, score badly in public opinion polls.
>
>Those in Afghanistan would probably be safe from extradition, and we all know "extraordinary rendition" is evil.
>
>And had we apprehended any of them they would certainly be entitled to proof beyond reasonable doubt and - well, they didn't actually *do* it, did they? The *doers* perished while committing the crime. Perhaps their families would be entitled to redress for unsafe conditions aboard the airplanes or at the WTC?
>
>Are you entirely serious?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>But my point is exactly that whatever the "public opinion" that does not settle the issue of whether or not a particular policy - either in proposition or hindsight - is or was the right thing to do. On 9/9/01 public opinion would have been against most of the things that might have prevented 9/11. On 9/12 "Should we nuke Mecca?" would probably have won.
>>>
>>>Walter and many Americans often site our popularity or standing in European opinion poles as the mark of our success or failure, as if that were the goal of American policy. Granted it is an indicator of success in certain areas, but I would shudder to think policy makers considered it the determining factor in setting national security policy.
>>>
>>>It is often very difficult to evaluate policies - either before or after the fact - because of incomplete information. Getting the view of the "man on the street" hardly adds to the wisdom.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Now with all the technology (including headology, the science of social engineering), imagine if Bushies organized a referendum about anything. Would you bet a beer that they'd lose?
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't be willing to bet anything. They'd get a part of the population agreeing, but the majority would be dead against anything they proposed.