In these posts, we will explore different ways to understand conflict and the resolution of conflict, from a logical, moral, ethical, and current events perspective. As always, HumanCafe welcomes all comments, as long as they are respectful of others and non coercive.

- Ivan

"War is, because those who need to change and cannot, do so by force to punish those who have, and become punished themselves, to change. This is true of all violence, until we change."

--PeoplesBook2000-anonymous

Intelligence report:

Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2001 2:56 PM
From: Brjannbrun

not sure if true or not, but worth reading - post from _compx board on clearstation.com:

http://www.clearstation.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=2560614

"Title: Terrorists earn money by shorting insurance companies!!!!!

The German Stock Exchange is investigating massive short selling of insurance company stocks. The massive short selling started on 9th of September, 4days before the desaster of New York, Washington and Pittsburgh. This news was sent today on the german news-channel n-tv. n-tv reported that the short selling especially from stocks of "Münchener Rück" and "Allianz" was very surprising as "Münchener Rück" reported excellent earnings on 8th of September. n-tv also reported from massive long positions in oil and gold. It is obvious that this action at the german and world markets came from the adress of Osama Bin Laden and his organisation of murderes who knew that four days later this cruel act of terrorism in the US would move the world financial markets downwards.

I would appreciate if anybody could investigate if similar action has taken place in the stocks of insurance companies in the US as well. I think they use the financial instruments to refinance the investments for preparing these terrible acts of terrorism and paying the families of the hijackers. It is also clear that they use this money for new terroristic action that will also bring them a lot of money. This will go on and on and they become stronger and stronger."

Is this possibly true?!!!!????

Or are we seeing faceless monsters in the dark???

INTELLIGENCE report regarding criminals responsible for attacks on New York and Washington. These criminals are terrorist "Al-Qaida-Nazis" who have no basis for sympathy for their cause, no more than for any other bandits who prey on the innocent.

"Bin Laden Was In Contact With Iraq Govt Agents- Report.

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Osama bin Laden was in contact with Iraqi government agents from his base in Afghanistan in the days leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S., the Washington Times reported Friday, citing U.S. intelligence officials.

According to the report on the newspaper's Web site, one official said "this is the basis for signs of state sponsorship." The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the intelligence of direct Iraqi government contacts with bin Laden is one of several pieces pointing to Iraq's involvement in the attacks, according to the report. According to the report, the officials said bin Laden's contacts with the Iraqi government were detected before the attacks. The Washington Times said it was told by officials that there are indications that bin Laden is preparing to flee Afghanistan and set up operations in the African nation of Somalia."

(source: DOW JONES NEWS 09-21-01)
.....

Separate intelligence report on the criminal master minds identified with al-Qaida:

"Egyptian Surgeon Said To Be Brains Of Bin Laden's Outfit.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP)--Osama bin Laden has cash, men and the kind of personality around which cults are built. But it is a surgeon from Cairo who is thought to have the experience and ideological commitment to keep the world's most feared terror group operating.

Ayman al-Zawahri, who hails from a middle class family of doctors and scholars, is second only to bin Laden in the hierarchy of an international alliance set up in 1998 with the aim of killing Americans and destroying U.S. interests wherever they may be.

Bin Laden is said by the U.S, to be the prime suspect in last week's horrific suicide attacks on the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. Both he and al-Zawahri are believed to be living in Afghanistan. Al-Zawahri, 50, is the leader of Jihad, a secretive militant group that is blamed for the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during a Cairo military parade. The group takes its name from the Arabic for "holy war." He has been a fixture in Egypt's Muslim militant scene since 1966 when, as a 15-year-old, he was arrested and later freed for his membership in the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab world's oldest fundamentalist Muslim group. "Al-Zawahri's experience is much wider than even bin Laden's," said Dia'a Rashwan, one of Egypt's top experts on militants. "His name came up in virtually every case involving Muslim groups since the 1970s." A 1974 graduate of Cairo University's medical school, al-Zawahri obtained a master's degree in surgery four years later. His father, who died in 1995, was a pharmacology professor at the same school. His grandfather, Rabia'a al-Zawahri, was the grand imam of Cairo's al-Azhar, mainstream Islam's main seat of learning, early in the last century.

Ayman al-Zawahri wrote several books on Islamic movements, the best known of which is "The Bitter Harvest," a critical assessment of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. "He is the chief ideologue in the bin Laden group," said Rashwan. "Both he and bin Laden have combat experience, but it is Ayman who has the intellectual edge." Al-Zawahri is the most senior in a brigade of several hundred Egyptians thought working under bin Laden's leadership in Afghanistan.
.....

"Al-Zawahri now heads only a faction of Jihad following disagreements with other leaders of the group over his February 1998 pact with bin Laden's al-Qaida group, two Pakistani groups and one from Bangladesh to create the International Front for Fighting Jews and Crusades. Targeting Americans and U.S. interests as a declared aim was likely to draw unwelcome interest - and the wrath of a superpower, the Jihad leaders who split with al-Zawahri argued.

Some of these Jihad leaders, like Mustapha Hamza, and members of other Egyptian groups, like the Gamaa Islamiya, continue to be based in Afghanistan outside the front. Of the estimated 3,000 active members of the front in Afghanistan, about1,000 are thought to be Egyptians, according to Salah. Others put the number at dozens or several hundreds at most. Al-Zawahri is not the only senior Egyptian in the international front. Sobhi al-Sitta, also known by the alias Abu Hafas al-Masri, is the commander of the front's military wing, known as the Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Sites, which claimed responsibility for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

One of Sitta's daughters married a son of bin Laden, according to TV footage of the wedding broadcast on an Arab satellite station in January. Sitta succeeded another Egyptian, Ali al-Rashidi, who drowned in Uganda's Lake Victoria in 1995, two years after he was sent to Africa to recruit members for bin al-Qaida. Salah said the cells al-Rashidi set up later bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."

(ibid. 09-19-01)
....

Former king of Afghanistan, Mohammed Zahir Shah, calls on his people to oppose terrorism.

The Taliban have refused to turn over bin Laden calling him a "guest" and to turn him over to non-Muslims would be to betray a tenet of Islam. The king however has a different interpretation of his homeland's religion and traditions:

"Historically our nation has acted in accordance to the guidance and tenets of Islam, embraced moderation and tolerance, opposed terrorism," he said.

The king is 87 years old and now lives in Rome, Italy, in a quiet secluded exhile since his overthrow in 1973.

(ibid)

Dear Friends,

Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean
killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity,
but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked,
"What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV
pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."

And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from
Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost
track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts
with anyone who will listen.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no
doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New
York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished.

But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics
who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in
bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan.
When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think
Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in
the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing
to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators.
They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the
rat's nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee
it.

Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow
the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged,
and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there
are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no
food.

Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.
Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care
of it. Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their
houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate
their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no
infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late.

Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at
least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban
eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide.
(They hae already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those
disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have
wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a
strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would
be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people
they've been raping all this time

So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and
trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground
troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what
needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to
kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms
about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's
actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden.
And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through
Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To
get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they
let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will
other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion
approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West.

And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he
did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. AT
the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims
and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin
Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this
entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the
west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world
into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a
holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to
lose, even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong about
winning, in the end the west would probably overcome--whatever that would
mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would
die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes,
but anyone else?

I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are
the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait
us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We
can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.

Tamim Ansary
Bill B.

HOLDING BACK THE BITTERNESS, we will stand.

In "Habeas Mentem", Chapter 15, there is a quote regarding War:
http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-fifteen.htm

"The constant vigil of the conscious mind against those circumstances that could result in attack are a severe responsibility towards the well being and survival of its society, and steps should be taken far in anticipation of conflict to avoid war. But, if these fail, battle must ensue. Whether the war is then fought through vast military mobilization or through covert activities, it must never be fought halfheartedly but always fought to win. The aggressor will not seek to trespass into where there is material and spiritual strength, and these are the conscious mind's first defense. But if society is attacked, anguish and bitterness must be held back and, as a last resort against the unconscious mind, the aggressor must be destroyed."


When I wrote this years ago, I never expected an extremist suicide attack on the World Trade Center in New York, or anything remotely like it. It was a terrible shock, as was evident by the universal mourning felt around the world. The attack was not only on the US, but on the world, as many people who died were from other countries. I also suspect the success of this terror, the buildings collapsing with human beings inside, was greater than the perpetrators expected. To my thinking, this will be their undoing, since it galvanized resolve worldwide against such acts of terror. No country is safe from this, and all civilized societies are appalled and want it stopped.

This crime against humanity has been initiated by a criminal organization, a group of psychotic fanatics who hide behind a cloak of religious legitimacy, which is totally false. Though the al-Qaeda is ostensibly operating from Afghanistan, the organizers are not primarily Afghanis, but dishonored expatriates from Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq. If so, then the Taliban is only a minor, misguided player within a greater conspiracy of fringe element fanatics which in fact control them. This means that the people of Afghanistan are themselves held hostage by these fanatics. Their claims to religious ideals of Jihad are discredited by all religious leaders worldwide. So the war should not be against Afghanistan's people, nor against Arabs, nor against Islam, but specifically directed against the organizers of this terror. In fact, it really is not a war in the traditional sense, but rather a surgical operation to extricate the psychotic killers' control over a small impoverished country, and thus in the process neutralize their world wide web of terror. The specific individuals responsible must be caught and tried for unconscionable crimes against humanity. The dismantling of this organization must be primary so that misguided new recruits will be discouraged from committing their lives to these suicidal missions. This will be a world war, not of nation against nation, but a war of isolation, of many nations against unconscious fanaticism. Victory will be heralded when again innocent human beings are respected in a spirit of tolerance and freedom, and the world is free from institutionalized terror.


As Father Fred K. Bailey, Corpus Christi Catholic-Christian Community, said :

"We the People of the United States...

Today we stand. Wounded, bleeding, covered in soot and debris, yet we stand.

We do not cower. We do not kneel in subjugation to faceless cowards. We do not plead. We do not bow in reverence to acts which betray the emptiness of coward's causes...

Today, We the People of the United States: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic, lovers of freedom of any persuation, stare at those who have struck at our heel. With God as our witness, we stand and look at those who would strip people of their freedoms and liberties and we say Never!"


We as a people, as a world, will hold back the bitterness, and together we will prevail. We will stand.

In compassion and Peace, God Bless,

Ivan

SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THE EARTH...


"But in a larger sense, the brave men a women, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated (this ground) far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here. But it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so highly advanced. It is rather, for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

--Abraham Lincoln

November 19, 1863, Gettysburg Address.

Reason vs. Tyranny? This message was posted on the Examined Life Journal Discussion Forum, under 'Necessity and Being': http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html

(edited, Sept. 27, 2001)

Hi Folks,

I had been attentive to other issues for past two weeks and had missed all your posts until now. Wow! So much written! What clear and resonant voices, and new voices, had been added to this discussion. The 'Necessity and Being' has passed as if through a 'worm hole' on the tragic day of September 11th., into a new era of philosophical inquiry, where the focus shifted from the philosophical merits of reason to the unconscionable tyranny of terror. So much had taken place, several things come to mind in these past days.

Firstly, we are not alone. Other nations are joining in a coalition to combat a form of wanton barbarism no civilized society wants. I think it is important that we are not alone, because though the target was within our border, many died from other countries too. The shock of this terror went around the world. I had spoken to people from different countries since, who all expressed grief and shock, and a deep sadness. None spoke of revenge, or counter attack, but rather of isolation, of cutting off the mentality of such actions from free participation in the world of other human beings. Some even spoke of compassion and forgiveness, thought I suspect this is still premature. The reason I think this is important is because it shows a new mentality, not one of revenge and war, but rather one of cool resolve, of the use of force to eliminate the disease. In a concerted world effort, where we join forces with all nations, Islamic as well as Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Jain or Baha'i, all will contribute to isolating this criminal act of terror against humanity.

Second, there was a rather quick response to isolate the event as being non-religious. Though the Taliban and bin Laden's gang did their best to convince the world that theirs was a holy war, a Jihad, this did not fly. All predominantly Islamic nations quickly gathered to express condemnation of these acts of terror and distanced themselves from the claims of these as being in the name of their religion. No one wants this. It was wise of Bush's administration to quickly clarify this, that it is not a religious war, not a world war against Islam. In fact, it is a war against terror. I think it is also wise that we did not go in an immediate bombing of the Taliban, even if they are in fact proven guilty, as this would have turned world opinion against us.

Third, was this was an act of war or a crime against humanity? I think this is still being debated. Many called to arms, to wage war. Others more coolly call to catch the perpetrators, to bring them to justice before a world tribunal. I think to call it 'war' is a misnomer. It is not one nation invading another, nor many nations invading another. It is primarily to arrest the terrorist groups to keep them from growing, from gaining acceptance and new recruits, and from spreading their effects to the people of all nations. They are at war with us; we are not at war with them. It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to empower them with a call to war; it is better to follow a policy of cutting them off from the world, to cut off their funding, their weaponry, their ideological support; in effect starve them by failing to empower them with their lies. That is how the battle needs to be fought, not by the United States, but by a world that has turned its sense of civilized justice, its sense of human rights, its love for freedom, and its outrage against such disregard for the lives of innocent human beings. As a show of what? Protest? It is unacceptable. The leaders and members of this suicidally fanatical group must be isolated and captured to be brought to justice. But this raises another problem: Once caught and tried, found guilty, do we invoke the death sentence? Or do we turn them over to the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan, which very likely would also be a death sentence? How do we use the Alliance, do we empower them? These are all difficult questions to which answers have not yet come clear. My opinion is that yes, we empower the Northern Alliance, not only with weapons and humanitarian aid, but also with an agreement from the Alliance that the nation will recognize certain democratic and civilized principles of rights for all human beings, women included. I think this is not an outrageous price for them to pay in exchange for their country. In fact, from what I know of the Alliance, I think that they, and most Afghanis, are a proud and freedom loving people who would embrace this gladly. So, if it is not a war, but a crime against humanity, then let those who liberate the Afghani people from the coercive policies of the Taliban join the world in the condemnation of inhumane and terroristic behavior. Also, we must remember that the other side of any campaign is peace, and as war creates more ill will than goodwill, only right action will pave the way for peace.

Lastly, America is not guiltless. We had committed many errors both at home and in our foreign policy, some naively stupid, others outright criminal. Our history is rife with our errors against the native peoples of America, against African slaves, against the same human rights we professed to champion. We made errors, but we can learn from them. What this attack on our shores had shown us, however, is that we cannot hide in the comfort of our arrogance at home because we are protected by two oceans, and by two benign neighboring countries. Nor can we dictate government policy to others, through overt or covert activity, though we can support government who are legitimate in the eyes of their people. We learned this in Vietnam, we did this in Kosovo and Serbia; we are part of the disarmament of Albanians in Macedonia, though we failed in Somalia. We have to be conscious of the fact that not all nations subscribe to the same values, and yet in this hard fact we must find agreement with them. Provided they do not coerce others, nor themselves through blatant disregard for human rights and life, then their internal social policies, religious or secular, are their own. We may seek policy in how we interact, criticize if needed, repulse trespass with force, and we may influence their people with communicating to them our ideas. But the people of each nation has a sovereign right to be under the government of either their choosing, democratically, or through acceptance otherwise. In the case of Afghanistan, the opinion of the world is that the Taliban is an outside force, Pakistani in origin but Arab in composition, that had come into a country to dominate them, and thus are resented by most of the population though they are subjugated to them. Whether or not this is true will become evident with the outcome of how the Afghani people fight either with the Alliance rebels, jointly with our world forces who want the Taliban out, or against us. If they are content with their conditions, then any attack on Afghani soil by outsiders will likely not succeed in achieving its objective, I would think. I hope that America will have learned from mistakes of the past, and not empower military-industrial bureaucrats at home to run policy abroad, nor empower their corrupt powers, as this had proved disastrous in the past. I think it will be wiser to pursue the course on which the administration seem to have embarked, of necessity, that of empowering the native people to regain their land from the dishonored and disaffected Arab foreigners who had subjugated them to their questionable and odious cause. Off with the veils, and let in the truth. But the terrorist, they are ours.

I have rambled on, it seems, without necessarily addressing what had been discussed thus far. My fault, since I have only glanced at the posts and not yet read them in depth, though I aim to. The point I wanted to make was one that echoes what Dave and Anon, G-man and Graham, and others, had written, that America is not the land of atrocities, but rather a beacon, if faltering at times, even self critically so, of the values of the modern mind as it applies to the social principles of freedom and tolerance. These principles are not universally accepted around the world, and we must accept that at times the rule of law by reason will be rejected off hand. I would think that if we went back to biblical times and introduced our modern ideas of society, of human rights, of the freedom of worship or of thought, of the right to agreement, and equal rights for races and the sexes; that these would be laughed at as impossible, if not rejected offhand, perhaps even at the peril of our lives. But they are possible! No, we are different from our past, we had seen something new, but not all human beings understand this, nor do they want to. There is comfort is staying the same as we had always been. It is difficult to change and take up the challenge of a new world of freedom of ideas and of choice. I believe we are that new world of freedom. And it is for this reason that we can absorb into our society peoples from all parts of the world, even absorb worldwide criticism, and come out the stronger for it. That is the strength of our freedom. And it is also why we will courageously prevail against terror, God willing (Insh'Allah), with peace as our victory.

Now... you were discussing the essence of methodology of knowledge?

Carry on, Gentlemen.

As always, in peace,

Ivan

08 Dec 1999
Comments
WHY WAR?

"War is, because those who need to change and cannot, do so by force to punish those who have, and become punished themselves, to change. This is true of all violence, until we change."

--This was the last entry in the People's Book 2000. It was then closed, having completed its mission of introducing ideas for the new Millennium, in how to make a better world. New entries are accepted into the Forum, so the discussion continues. What is so interesting about this quote is that it is apropos to what may be the first real war of the Millennium. Let us look for that special change that will usher in a new era of Peace.

Ivan

----------------------------------------------

Dear friends and fellow Americans 14 September, 2001

Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it.


This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.


These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing --better said anxious -- to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long?


In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them.


In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only superpower (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent counter-terrorist organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional body snatch, (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens.


Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and is presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear centers of gravity to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.


Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned.


Although we hope that Osama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but also less audacious sand in the gears tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our comfort zone forcing the average American to pay more and play less and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a remarkable trinity of war that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.


Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.


Everyone I've talked to In the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another, "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain.

God Bless America


Dr. Tony Kern, Lt. Col, USAF (Ret)

Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy


----------------------------------------------------

Hey all. Please pass this on to everyone you know. This is not from some company, hoping to get a list of email addresses by having people forward this message throughout the country. This e-mail, written by an Air Force Lt. Col. military history teacher, is right on the money...and probably the most important email I've seen written on the current events, and what the future may hold. PLEASE read this, and think very seriously about it. And, regardless of what your views are on it, PLEASE forward this through to everyone in your address book. People, all Americans, must understand what this message is saying. Thanks for everyone's support. We all need it.

The Institue for Afghan Studies: http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org

The Afghan Institute here has a number of links to various components of what I characterize as the "MATRIX" of the Middle East situation. Pan-Arabism is and underlying concept and seems to date from Nasser in the 50's. It is probably ancient historically and may have been revived in the movement that led to the nationalization of oil production and control resulting in the arrival of OPEC. The Sh'ia/Sunni competition is also at the heart of the matter complicated in the Afghanistan (-istan means "land" viz. Pakistan, Tajikistan etc) matter by the ancient tribal conflicts between the dominant Pashtoons and the Tajiks and Uzbekis and a few others. Its the Muslim in Chetchnea thats giving the Russians continued grief also. I suspect there's a big tribal component also. I think the Taliban as "students of fundamentalist Islam (so they purport)" are really ignorant Sunnis indoctrinated in the "deeni madrassas" in Pakistan and they may be victims of bin Laden's nascent Pan- Arabism in the guise of militant Islam. The establishment of strict Islamic theocracy throughout the region is a major component of the matrix and explains the tensions between the Taliban and the Arab Al-Queda. The Taliban were in large part installed by bin-Laden working through the Pakistani influence and desire to control the region to the North so they could concentrate on the disputed territory of Kashmir, another conponent of the matrix whose particular conflict is, in Kashmir, who controls those lands, Muslims or Hindus who've been at each others throats for many decades maybe centuries. I think a case may be made for the Taliban to be the theorcratic arm of the Al-Queda organization and that the militant Islam they promulgate is supported by Al-Queda so long as it serves the larger concept of a theocratic Pan Arabism. The split your articles allude to is that the Taliban are still Pashtoons, not Arabs, and they realize they'll be included in the proposed "loya jirga." that may ultimately be convened to settle the power vacumn that will be evident as the Taliban lose control. I fear that thousands may have been indoctrinated in the "deeni madrassas" in Pakistan and they may be available for the service of promoting chaos in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia!, Morroco, Turkey! and of course Egypt, not to mention Western countries. This could be a very long struggle indeed. The matrix is Arab/non-arab Muslim, Shi'ia/ Sunni Muslim, Oligararchy/Theocracy, tribal/historical ethnicity vs a virulant faschism that morphs into militant Islam as the circumstance warrants (note the Palestinian version) but which really has as its root an old Pan-Arab vision.

As you see I am struggling to grasp the complexity of the "matrix," and I still feel as though I'm only partway there, but you can see from my analysis what components I am attempting to integrate. I need more history in detail, but I expect ancient Persia lives; the center of Mesopotamia was Baghdad!!! I know my facts are incomplete and much of the above should be considered intellectually "speculative."

Salam, M77

No support for Taliban in Afghan opposition jail
By Elizabeth Piper
Friday October 19, 6:32 AM

KHOJA BAHAWUDDIN, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Kamal's career as a fighter for the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan lasted just one night.
His forced recruitment, brief service with a gun and current status as a prisoner in a filthy cell spell a familiar history to his captors in the opposition Northern Alliance.
The 32-year-old, his face drawn and thin above his ripped, dusty shirt, says he was forced to fight and does not support the hardline Islamic movement and their prolonged fight against the Northern Alliance.
That is a familiar story to the opposition.
"The Taliban forced us to go to the front line, about 70 to 80 men from our village were brought to fight," says Kamal, who comes from Baglan, about 200 km (120 miles) north of the war-torn Afghan capital Kabul.
"I don't support the Taliban... The Taliban says every person must go and help them or pay two million afghanis (about $20) every month. I only fought for one night," Kamal said.
It is a story prison governor Imam Kol says he hears all the time -- but one which does not mean freedom from the prison, a grim warren of corridors and rooms guarded by soldiers with Kalashnikovs.
Both the Taliban and opposition accuse each other of forcing poor villagers to pay up or fight, and international aid groups say both use teenage boys on the front line.
OPEN PRISON
There are few metal bars on the prison windows, fewer doors, and the inmates are free to roam the grounds that lead to the town's central square. But not one has escaped, says Kol.
"We have soldiers guarding them and they will shoot to kill the prisoners if they try to escape," the governor said.
"They are all Taliban. I know they all say the same thing -- that they do not support the Taliban -- but all of them are lying," he said.
"Some of them are Taliban commanders, but here they are told they are nothing more than workers. And they must work," Kol added.
The Taliban militia is hated in Khoja Bahawuddin, a Northern Alliance stronghold where opposition troops are trained and sent to fight in a civil war that has lasted more than five years.
Two men sawed wood, another chopped up a tree with an axe in the courtyard, while a lone face peered through a window. Piles of shoes lay outside rooms.
NO SET SENTENCES
Kol says he does not know how long the captured fighters stay in his prison. Some have been at the jail for a year, others for a month. Formal sentencing does not apply.
"Some of them are dangerous, some of them are killers, so why give them freedom?" he said.
He would not say what their fate would be.
The prisoners, one after the other, repeat that they are treated well, saying the food is good and the rooms meet their needs.
Fayed Naszeem, who wears a bright pink and green silk kaftan with a long green cape, says he wishes the Taliban had never come to his village.
"They forced us all to fight," he says, repeatedly stroking his long, grey-speckled beard. "When will I leave here? I leave that in the hands of Allah."

Dalai Lama Urges U.S. to Talk, Not Bomb

Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:45 AM EST
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Tibet's exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama urged the United States on Wednesday to end air strikes on Afghanistan and open a dialogue with those it holds responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Speaking after an address to the European Parliament, the Buddhist leader said he believed the United States was trying to avoid civilian casualties, but said face-to-face contact was the best way to stop international terrorism.
``In the long run, this kind of human approach, a non-violent approach is more appropriate and effective,'' he told a news conference in the eastern French city of Strasbourg.
The United States has named Afghanistan-based Islamic militant Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the suicide attacks against the United States and has launched air strikes against the country's ruling Taliban for harboring him.
The Dalai Lama, whose exiled government accuses China of brutal repression in Tibet, said he did not believe the stronger ties between Beijing and Washington in the international coalition against terrorism would harm the Tibetan cause.
``China should not be isolated, China should be part of the mainstream of the world,'' he said.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureate had earlier given his first address to a full sitting of the European Parliament, a body which has often supported the Tibetan cause.
Speaking in Tibetan, he called for a ``culture of dialogue'' and appealed for international help to put pressure on Beijing to free the Tibetan people, whose culture and heritage he said faced extinction under Chinese rule.
The Dalai Lama fled from Tibet to India in 1959 along with thousands of followers, nine years after the Chinese army entered Tibet and overthrew the Buddhist theocracy.
He said there had been no progress in his relations with Beijing despite his support for autonomy, which would stop short of outright independence for Tibet, a position he calls a ''middle way.''

Dear Alexandria, thanks for your post.

Indeed, coercion when not used to oppose coercion leads to unhappy results. Remember that it took a civil war to end slavery, for which many died. But at the same time it is also dangerous to interpret God's will as to who will or will not go to heaven, or hell. Which of us can judge? Though the United States had its failings in its short history, this country was built out of more than these failings, abuses against the native peoples, abuses of human rights during times of war, etc., and did achieve greatness in its fight against aggressions of the past, like our war against Nazism. The foundation of our greatness is also the agreement of reason our Founding Fathers harnessed to draft a constitution which is able to protect by law our human rights, equality of oppoturnity, the right to worship, and other human freedoms. These are the same freedoms, and spirit of tolerance, that are now threatened by acts of terrorism, by those who would kill those freedoms, thus which makes our living in an open society so much more difficult. Let us pray that more reasonable minds will prevail in how we resolve this trespass against our nation and peoples, so that we may enjoy those freedoms once again. Better, let us see if these freedoms can spread peacefully to the rest of the globe as well.

Peace.

LESSONS FROM THE WAR ON TERRORISM
(Reprinted by permission)- ed/Humancafe.
***********************************************************
KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT


LESSONS from the

WAR ON TERRORISM


This is today's most pressing topic. We all discuss it. There appears to be significant agreement on how to address it. How do we learn from today's crises about our own zones of influence?


I. War Forever?


History shows not that peace is normal and war abnormal, but quite the opposite. War appears to be the natural state of things, a permanent condition, and peace consists of episodic pockets of temporary but illusory security. Seeing history from this larger perspective makes the war-is-normal-and-peace-the-exception hypothesis defensible. Just look at the numbers; years of peace versus years of war.


Finding peace, so sparse, then becomes even more a high, if not the highest ethical priority.


This is not our ordinary way of thinking. What happens to our obligation to establish a moral world order if we start by taking seriously these ominous analyses?


What will occur if we say, not with the optimists but with the cynics, that the glass is not half full but half empty? Do we dare to explore the value for meaning, health, and ethics of this inversion of a not uncommon form of political correctness?


Do we dare to explore the actionable value of the negative? After all, have we forgotten how Churchill facilitated the eventual victory of democracy in WW II with challenges such as the following?


* "I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."

* "Do not let us speak of darker days; let us speak rather of sterner days. These are not dark days: these are great days -- the greatest days our country has ever lived; and we must all thank God that we have been allowed, each of us according to our stations, to play a part in making these days memorable in the history of our race."

* "Let us...brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand years, men will still say: 'This was their finest hour.'"

* "This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, though it is perhaps the end of the beginning."


Are these ringing words relevant today? Are they from another era? Excessive? Or are they "spot on"?


Might this more severe interpretation and perception not consolidate our will and toughen our resolve to create the kind of deeper society, more ethical community, that our sleepy consciences have chosen in easier times to overlook?


What do YOU think? Are you hard or soft, worldly or spiritual?


II. The New Way of War


Could it be that since 9/11 it has become clear that today's wars are waged differently?


A. Vertical. Warfare had been an activity of vertically segmented systems, nation pitted against nation, faith against faith, ethnicity against ethnicity. Nations have rights that individuals don't. Nations respect individuals by virtue of their citizenship. To be a person without a country is still the equivalent of excommunication.


B. Martyrdom. Terrorists, when captured, have an especially lowly status. The Geneva Convention is a commitment to the reasonably humane treatment of the combatants of a defeated nation, the treatment of captured military personnel. There seems to be a distinction between so-called legitimate and non-legitimate combatants. In the Afghan war, the Taliban have been considered legitimate soldiers of a nation, whereas the Al-Qaeda forces were viewed as illegitimate by both the warriors of Afghanistan's victorious Northern Alliance and the US. The Al-Qaeda forces were "outlaws." The Northern Alliance would not take them prisoners but kill them, and the US would not treat their captured Al-Qaeda combatants as prisoners-of-war but detainees, subject to military tribunals and indefinite sequestration at Guantanamo Bay. The latter were thought to be specially dangerous, for they and they alone were all suspected to be on "martyrdom operations."


C. Terrorism. The expression "war on terrorism" reflects a new vocabulary about history, something appearing the day after 9-11, when Bush announced that the attack on the WTC was "an act of war." He wasted no time and announced immediately that it would be a different kind of belligerence, would last for a long time, and some campaigns would be visible and others

not.


D. Horizontal. Wars, thus redefined, are now among horizontal interests. Nations are internally segmented in Grand-Canyon layers. It is really the world that is thus horizontally segmented, for there is some unity among nations and more unity among terrorists -- and it is the internal segments that are at war with each other. This is a current version of revolutionary movements, for even in the days of Napoleon the French Revolution represented a revolt of the lower classes against the aristocracy, sending shivers of anxiety throughout Europe's royalty -- eventually, under the leadership of England, defeating Napoleon and the French Revolution decisively at Waterloo.


E. Cruelty. The tools of terrorism are no longer ideas, as we today interpret the American, French, and Russian Revolutions, but instruments of mass destruction, delivered through hijackings, bombings, killing maximum numbers of civilians, and suicide missions. There is a growing consensus that bioterrorism is the gravest danger of all.


Terrorism exploits the principles of democracy and technology by operating often unhindered in free and open societies, using the latter's very own inventions to destroy nations so constituted.


III. What Follows?


How must we think to show we are learning from experience?


A. Strategy. We see the significance of seeking for new perspectives on old realities. This is the strategic thinking mind running on all cylinders.


Are YOU a 24/7 360° strategic thinker?


B. New Perceptions. Is the above analysis not the way we understand the world today? We do not pit nation against nation nor religion against religion, which are horizontal struggles, but rather understand that instead segments of all are in vertical confrontation. It thus is radical versus moderate, extremism versus rationality, uncompromising versus accommodating, self-centered versus generous, targeting civilians versus protecting them.


This is not just a political matter, it points to conflicts of worldviews at the seat of each individual soul. It is the leader versus the shadow in us all.


C. Inner Conflicts. For the deeper discords, and they are manageable, are not between you and me but between a part of both of us against another part of both of us. Your reason and mine, which are one, are at war with your unreason and my irrationality, which, in a manner of speaking, are also one. We both may claim that peace, dignity, tolerance, and respect are values we share -- connecting us in reason -- but the irrational in both of us concurrently claims that we are entitled to detest each other, being brothers and sisters not in love but in anger.


Resolving this paradox in my own segmented soul can go a long way towards resolving it in another also. For if I approach you fragmented, you will respond in kind. Yet if I approach you reconciled, will you accept? Would I accept? Aren't these today's big questions?


What do YOU think? How concerned are YOU with the integrity of your own beliefs?


D. Collision. We are witnessing currently a clash of world views: a shift from the value of life to the value of death. Life is no longer to be savored to its most elevated possibilities. This outlook is replaced by a cult of death as the tool for success and meaning. We encounter a collision of metaphysics, from "we are born free" to "the world is divided between the faithful and the heathen, the latter deserving to be destroyed." This is not a confrontation of the great religions, but of how horizontally

segmented populations choose to see ethics. Religions deepen life. We stand today instead before a naked contradiction of moralities.


E. Implications. The transformation of our fundamental views of the world from peace to war and from vertical to horizontal has implications for everything we do. It is useful to reflect on what these general patterns teach you about your own future.


Apply now thinking big to doing small. Whatever you will do in your own life will always be small vis-à-vis these enormous events. The world is a magnifying glass. It shows you in large brush strokes what happens in your own narrow world. But in your daily struggles your world certainly does not appear narrow to you.


How will these perspectives affect YOUR business and YOUR life?


F. Non-Negotiables. It does come down to the bottom line that the values of democracy and liberty are really not negotiable. It is at this point where negotiations cease. When co-creation as a viable alternative has died then one is forced to take a unilateral action. This is the ultimate human tragedy.


It all comes down to the insight that managing polarities and integrating paradoxes is the way to the truth.


What are YOUR non-negotiables? How do YOU defend them?


F. Dignity. There is another non-negotiable. Human beings universally need their self-respect, their self-esteem, the sense of their own worth. Without it, human beings have nothing. With it, can we not argue that they have everything, certainly the essentials?


Here then are our final conundrums:


* Do we accept our own dignity, or do we feel secretly without worth -- and then act accordingly?

* Do we accept the dignity of others?

* How do we manage the degradation of our own dignity, with venom or reason?

* How do we manage the degradation of others, ignoring or defending them?

* And how do we manage those who refuse to respect the dignity of the human in us all? If good will is perceived as weakness and elicits exploitation, then what? Are they the terrorists?


The philosopher in us does not have answers. Wisdom instead, in the formula of the German poet Rilke, is Socratic: "Do not seek answers; live the questions."


January 21, 2002


Copyright © 2002, Peter Koestenbaum. All rights reserved. Protected intellectual property.

http://www.pib.net/bio_peter.htm#peter
*******************************************************************


*** NEW ARTICLES: Click here http://www.fastcompany.com/online/54/aftershock.html to read an interview with Peter entitled "After Shock" in the January 2002 edition of Fast Company magazine. In this article, Peter talks about how "the 'shock of death' can teach us the secrets of leading a successful life -- if we have the courage to learn."


Click here http://www.pib.net/jqpPK.pdf to read "Looking Back and Looking to the Future: The Growing Role of Personal Responsibility and Accountability" an article by Peter Koestenbaum published in the Winter, 2001 Journal for Quality and Participation.


*******************************************************************


*** BOOK AVAILABLE: Freedom and Accountability at Work: Applying Philosophical Insight to the Real World, by Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block -- at the usual PiB.Net discounts (25% for members of the Leadership Zone;10% for nonmembers).


Click here [http://www.pib.net/offerings.htm] to check out the new book, as well as OTHER BOOKS by Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block and a VIDEOTAPE SET of Peter Block interviewing Peter Koestenbaum.


*******************************************************************


*** Log into PiB.Net's Leadership Zone [www.pib.net/login.htm] to read Peter Koestenbaum's Library, including "The Comprehensive Diamond," comprised of four articles: "PiB, The Practitioner and The Diamond Model," "The Structure of the Leadership Mind," "The Diamond II," and "The Knowledge Manager."


An archive of all past Weekly Leadership Thoughts is also available in the Leadership Zone Library.


*******************************************************************
ANNOUNCING PiB CERTIFICATION PROGRAM


Capable and responsible professionals have frequently expressed the need and the desire to become better grounded in the Leadership Diamond® and Philosophy-in-BusinessT. To meet this need, we are offering a certification program, which significantly deepens understanding of this approach to leadership. This program also tackles, directly and forcefully, how to use Philosophy-in-BusinessT to address today's thorniest problems. You are invited to join us.


The certification program is scheduled to begin with a 3-day seminar on April 30 - May 2, 2002. A 3-month practicum period includes up to 4 telephone coaching sessions with Peter Koestenbaum. The program concludes with a 1-day follow-up and certification on August 1, 2002.


An optional continuing education and support package will also be available. Please contact us at info@pib.net for more information. Enrollment is limited.

*****************************************************************