No one has much clarity, as yet, about today's events. In coming days we will have both coverage and analysis. We know a little, only, at this time.

We know, for example, that according to the CIA Fact Book the population of Afghanistan, a few months back, was just under 27 million people. Life expectancy at birth was 47 years. More than two thirds of Afghanistan's citizens were not only unlikely to reach 50 years of age, but were also illiterate. Telephone service and use was sporadic. There were about 100,000 TVs, or less than one for every 200 citizens. In the whole country, there were 24 kilometers of

railroad-yes, that's what the CIA site I consulted said-and under 3,000 kilometers of paved road, or roughly the same as a single highway across the U.S. If that's off, the point is still evident. There were ten airports with paved runways.

Even worse than the stark poverty of the country, Afghanistan had undergone nearly ten years of war with the Soviet Union and the aftermath of that had been ruinous. Thus, weeks back UN and other international AID agencies announced that without a substantial effort at relief this winter could see up to 7 million deaths from starvation.

Into this already woeful context the U.S. first infused panic that in turn aggravated hunger by demanding that Pakistan close its borders and curtailing food for nearly four weeks. The threat of bombing provoked mass migrations of fearful civilians seeking solace. Not satisfied with that contribution to this desperate country, the U.S. has now added to the mix B1 and B52 bombers, stealth missiles, and who knows what other deadly ordnance. And having

put the population into hysteria and flight, having disrupted meager paths of travel and what little electrification and other services the country had, having closed borders, having curtailed food deliveries, having induced an exodus of AID workers, all at a time of possible calamitous starvation, we have begun dropping along with the bombs enough food to feed about 30,000 people a day, assuming it continues. Asked whether food was dropped in Taliban regions its been reported that the answer offered was no, so, supposing that was accurate, we are dropping the food in regions covering about 10% of the country.

The current strategy of all this is not complex. First throw the nation into turmoil. Aggravate conditions of life and death desperation in the population. Undermine, in that way, support for the Taliban. Collapse the Taliban, and presumably, in time, find and kill bin Laden. Leave to acclaim. Turn the journalistic cameras in another direction. Hope the innocent deaths go unnoticed, obscured by the hoopla proclaiming our largesse.

Of course, international law has been violated. Worse, the

mechanism for attaining illegal vigilante prosecution has been a policy which knowingly and predictably will kill many, perhaps even huge numbers of innocent civilians. We take access to food away from millions and then give food back to tens of thousands while bombing the society into panic and dissolution. This is terrorism, attacks on civilians to gain political ends, with a patina of public

relations. It is utmost injustice, masked by utmost obfuscation.

Why? The answer is not to reduce the prospects of terror attacks. Everyone says their likelihood will increase, in fact, both out of short term desire to retaliate, and, over the longer haul, due to producing new reservoirs of hate and resentment. The answer is not to get justice. Vigilantism is not justice but the opposite, undermining

international norms of law. The answer is not to reduce actual terror endured by innocent people. Our actions are themselves hurting civilians, perhaps in multitudinous numbers.

No, all the rhetoric aside, the answer is that the U.S. wishes to send a message and to establish a process. The message, as usual, is don't mess with us. We have no compunction about wreaking havoc on the weak and desperate. The process, also not particularly original since Ronald Regan and George Bush senior had similar aspirations, is to legitimate a "war on terrorism" as a lynchpin rationale for both domestic and international policy-making.

This "war on terrorism" is meant to serve like the Cold War did. We fight it with few if any military losses. We use it to induce fear in our own population and via that fear to justify all kinds of elite policies from reducing civil liberties, to enlarging the profit margins of military industrial firms, to legitimating all manner of international polices aimed at enhancing U.S. power and profit, whether in the MidEast or elsewhere.

The coming days are not going to be easy. The attacks of Sept 11 produced immediate fear and reflex nationalism devoid of attention to evidence and logic. But progressive voices were heard, and were making great progress, opening ever wider constituencies to consider broader issues of international policy and prospects. There will be a reversal in that momentum in the next few days, but if

progressive voices persist, lost ground will quickly be regained. Questions as to the morality and rationality of answering huge and awful Sept 11 terror with even greater terror, of answering barbaric calamity with barbaric catastrophe, of answering ignorant fanaticism with highly educated jingoism will surface, and such questions will

begin to turn back the tide of this militarism.

Michael Albert

Z Magazine / ZNet

sysop@zmag.org

First off, we kept the border open to humanitarian aid.

Unfortunately, according to the UN, the Taliban confiscated the incoming humitarian aid.

Second, according to initial reports posted on this page, only 20 people died in the first night's bombing, no indication as to the civilian/military ratio.

He' right about one thing. The message that it being sent is clear. Don't mess with the US.

And that's a good message. I don't want anyone "messing" with us.

is this idea of applying criminal justice standards to acts of terrorism.

The militant, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who have declared war on the United States do not obey international law.

Well knowing that direct confrontation with the United States is useless, nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan instead participate in activities designed to frustrate every aspect of international law. Ie., instead of using uniformed troops to declare war on the United States, which would be conducted under the Geneva Convention. . . they send unidentified suicide bombers in to specifically target civilians, and then deny all responsibility.

Do you wish them to get away with this?

What do you think as they smuggly claim: "Oh, there's no paper trail of evidence linking the Taliban to these bombers. . . so you can't touch us."

Its almost like if Hitler claimed that his arrest was improper because he wasn't read his Miranda rights.

Would you let the man who murdered more than 12 million go free simply because he successfully suppressed evidence needed to get a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why would you do the same for these butchers?

and clearly bombing people wil prove to them once and for all that we deplore bombing, that bombing is wrong . . . and clearly once we assasinate bin Laden terrorism will end ONCE & FOR ALL!! as long as we continue to narrowly define terrorism

Killing bin Laden won't end terrorism.

To do that you must destroy the movement of militant fundamentalist Islam.

"What I find ludicrous," writes kimmcdaniel, "is this idea of applying criminal justice standards to acts of terrorism."

But this is *PRECISELY* what the international community of nations has decided to do. International decisions taken over the course of decades certainly deserve SOME consideration. Say, that you become familiar with the rationale behind them before you ignorantly spout off? At least if you want to be taken seriously outside of corporate media propagandaland. Which is where you are here.

What reason does kimmcdaniel give? "The militant, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists who have declared war on the United States do not obey international law."

By the same logic, it's ludicrous to apply criminal justice standards to ANYONE, since criminals of all stripes do not obey the law--that's what makes them criminals! (DOH!)

kimmcdaniel goes on to argue specifics, which are offered without context--or evidence. The claim that "Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan" have sent "unidentified suicide bombers in to specifically target civilians, and then deny all responsibility" has not been made by even the most hawkish members of the Bush Administration.

It's hardly surprising to find such wild, unsubstantiated allegations coming from someone denouncing the rule of law. I'm sure that the suicide bombers were urged on by people who thought and argued in much the same way.

but there's a world of difference between one who robs a liquor store and one who commits a war crime.

The guy who robs a liquor store does not, typically, have the support of a government behind him.

If you doubt that the terrorists who have been attacking the US have governments supporting them, then you are the one who is buying into propaganda!

The difference in state support justifies the difference in response.

Just because YOU find it ludicrous to apply international law to terrorism doesn't negate the fact that the United States IS BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The United States has consistently pushed for prosecutions of leaders worldwide for their supposed acts against humanity. Yet this country has been one of the worst violators of human rights in history of humanity.

The United States supported Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan when it was commiting atrocities because it was favorable to our economy. Now that Afghanistan won't let oil and gas pipelines through their country the U.S. goes in and bombs people it has actually not shown to have commited the act on the 11th. (And even if it was Bin Laden, the Taliban was ready to hand him over to Pakistan for trial)

You're being brainwashed my friend.

P.S. If we're going to be so fair and just I do hope that we hand over Henry Kissinger to the Belgian Criminal court and stop supporting that terrorist Ariel Sharon, who's also wanted for commiting crimes against humanity.

What I don't understand, apart from the international law debate (and we should be clear that there has been exactly zero evidence about who committed the acts on 9/11 presented to us) is why anyone would support this war when it is extremely clear that civilians are being killed. How does the US commit mass murder and then say that that mass murder is to show that mass murder is wrong and we won't stand for it. Regardless of whether you support international law, and I am definitely sad to hear Steveo and Kimcdaniels say they don't, this murder is unjustifiable. Especially coming from the state (the U.S.) which has been responsible for more death and destruction than any other in the history of this planet. Addressing the comment about destroying islamic fundamentalism. The only way that I can see this being an unhipocritical thing to do is if we destroy the rabid fundamentalist christians in this country and the rabid fundamentalist zionists in Israel. Has there been any talk of this? Has there been any questioning of the way Bush has used God to manipulate people in the same breath as he denounces Bin Laden for the same exact thing?

"Especially coming from the state (the U.S.) which has been responsible for more death and destruction than any other in the history of this planet."

That says it all.

Love the way you blithely ignore the millions killed by the Japanese and Germans. The millions destroyed by the Soviets. The millions killed by the Chinese, Cambodians, North Vietnamese, Armenians.

No, they're all okay in your book. We're the bad guys.

Don't pretend that you're the "loyal opposition" -- you are un-American and you hate America.

The ironic thing is, almost anywhere other country in the world would put you in jail for saying that. Here, young men and women will fight and die for your right to say that, and you don't have any respect for that whatsoever.

I'm American enough to not have to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of being un-American. That is a piss-poor accusation not worthy of response. Who the heck are you to question my patriotism? Just because you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag?

Re: international law. I think it is funny to hear other Americans argue for or against appealing to international law. Why? Because in the end it doesn't matter a wit what we think. We are only 6% of the world's population. Our national arrogance aside, we may not be able to convince the vast majority of people in the world that we are not the bad guys here. No trivial amount of symbolic 'food aid' dropped in Afghanistan is going to salvage our unsavory reputation. Regardless of how righteous we may feel about our actions they are simply not seen as justifiable in the eyes of the world's vast majority. We are the wealthiest nation on the planet and we have more cruise missiles than anyone else. Guess what? We appear the steroid poisoned bully. I would argue that it is precisely because of our position of strength that we are obligated to find other ways of mediating international concerns. To refuse to do so is to risk appearing arrogant.

I tend to side with all those people who believe that dropping bombs and killing people to prove that bombing and killing people is wrong is an absurd concept. And just because I am critical of US actions in this regard does not mean that I automatically support other folks who employ equally despicable strategies. The logic of that sentiment is so obviously false I am embarrassed to have to point it out. When I state that there is no excuse for harming a single innocent Afghani life I mean what I say and exactly that. Don't try and read into my statement support for the Taliban or a justification of terrorism.

It strikes me that as the US becomes increasingly isolated at the end of it's time of Empire, that the screechy demagogues of imperialism will lash out with all manner of ill-logical insults: you are either with us or against us, war is peace, violence is justice, everyone is in love with us because we have the biggest missiles, etc. Take heart kind citizens, such sentiments are but the voice of a nation in its death throes.

kimmcdaniel writes: "but there's a world of difference between one who robs a liquor store and one who commits a war crime. The guy who robs a liquor store does not, typically, have the support of a government behind him."

True enough. As a result, many war criminals think of themselves as "heroes." But this has NOTHING to do with logical structure of your argument. This sort of argument is what's known as a "red herring."

kimmcdaniel continues: "If you doubt that the terrorists who have been attacking the US have governments supporting them, then you are the one who is buying into propaganda!"

I don't doubt that in general states support terrorists, both passively and actively. The US does this and the Taliban do, too.

But, kim, you went much farther and blamed "nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan" of "send[ing] unidentified suicide bombers in to specifically target civilians, and then deny all responsibility." That is, you accused the Taliban of not just passively harboring terrorists who plotted the suicide attacks, but of ACTIVELY sending them out. AND you accused Iraq, Iran, and Sudan of doing the same. This SPECIFICALLY is what I was pointing to, and you have tried to muddy the water by switching the subject to a general question of state sponsorship, which I never discussed.

Finally, kimmcdaniel writes: "The difference in state support justifies the difference in response." So, then, any country in the world where the CIA has used terror tactics would be justified in bombing the US back to the Stone Age? The only thing stopping them is the fear of retaliation?

Once again, it seems that you are utterly opposed to the rule of law. "Might makes right" is all you seem to know.

probably no one is even reading this so I'm going to be brief. Your allegations against me are very reminiscent of McCarthyism. First off just because I say that the U.S. is the worst perpetrator of state violence does not mean I don't acknowledge that there have been horrible things in other places as well. As you point out Germany and the Soviet Union are the only two that even come close to the US. China and Cambodia also pertinent examples. You ignore Indonesia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Israel, South Africa, etc. The list goes on and on though I'm not aware of what you are referring to in terms of Armenians and North Vietnamese unless your talking about the genocide that has been committed against these two peoples. But I may just not be informed on these issues. I definitely don't think that the north vietnamese by any measure killed 2,000,000 people which is what the US did in Vietnam. My analysis has always lead me to the belief that the state as it exists equals violence and repression. In the worst of cases genocide and crimes against humanity. I do hate this country. I hate it for the terror it has spread and continues to spread. That doesn't mean I hate the people, I don't. I hate those who perpetrate state terror and racist imperial control of the darker skinned peoples of this planet in the name of those people.