so what are you saying? Alqueda and its leaders were not responsible? are you saying the 9/11 bombers acted unilaterally? that Bin Laden had nothing to do with it? what point are you trying to make? are you saying we should only go after the lower echelons once they are in place and conspiring to murder? and leave the rest of the organisation intact? you are also aware Al-Qaeda not only enjoyed the Taliban's protection but enjoyed a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense.
Can't speak for Alceste, but I'd say the following in response:
Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers, but there was exactly zero connection between the Al-Qaeda cells responsible and the Taliban. The Taliban did not know about the attacks and most likely would not have supported it if they had known. The Taliban is radically concerned with the behavior of Muslims in Muslim lands; they quite generally don't give a fig out the infidels live, much less the Great Satan. Hence a ground war in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban is misguided.
Second, it's unclear to me that a Taliban win in Afghanistan means a win for Al-Qaeda. The Taliban offered sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and permitted them some operations in Afghanistan out of gratitude for their help in
removing the Soviets. Would a new generation of Taliban leadership show the same gratitude for
bringing foreign troops to their soil? What evidence is there for that?
Third, democracy works when there is already a culture of rule of law. That is simply not the case in Afghanistan. There is little rule of law there now, and it's simply not in their political DNA. Instead, we have tribalism and rule by decree. Whatever state apparatus holds sway in Kabul makes a show of rule of law, but the ineffectiveness of that apparatus over the years shows how subject it is to those tribalistic tendencies. So no matter how many troops we put in there or for how long, there is little to no prospect of establishing a democracy there that anyone would consider legitimate. So there's not much in it for us (or for the world) in that respect either.
Fourth, although there were people with Al-Qaeda connections in the Defense ministry, it is not at all clear to me that Al-Qaeda itself played much role in the Taliban ministry of defense. What's your evidence for their involvement? Besides, even if it were so, that was then and this is now. The Taliban offered sanctuary for Al-Qaeda as an honour debt. That debt has been paid, and arguably Al-Qaeda is a liability for the Taliban (both domestically and internationally). So there's little to motivate close cooperation.
Fifth, if the United States top brass really wanted Bin Laden, they would have had him by now. Despite the fact that he was primarily responsible for financing the attacks (not planning), the government has actually done little to apprehend him. The man's on dialysis for crying out loud! How hard can it be? Besides, if the US wants BL, they have international means to get him. They can find out where he is and then take a police action to get him. They don't have to career around the countryside of Afghanistan or Pakistan wasting civilian lives (not to mention those of their own soldiers).
Sixth, if the United States wants long-term protection from Al-Qaeda, a ground war won't do it. It's too broadly and sparsely sprinkled over the world, and it's an idea more than an institution. So what's an army to do about it? If you remove BL, the next guy will take his place. And the new guy may be more radical and more of a headache than BL. No, to tackle Al-Qaeda, the US needs to strengthen ties with the countries where Al-Qaeda has bases: countries like Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, not to mention certain middle eastern and northern African jurisdiction. It means political contact and interface with regimes the US has traditionally considered unsavory. But that's the price to pay if you really want to get Al-Qaeda.
Last, even if you get rid of Al-Qaeda, you won't get rid of the idea that spawned them. That's the business of Muslims. It's up to them to marginalize and make impotent those groups, domestic or foreign, that are inspired by this particularly virulent form of radical Islam and insist on doing the sort of thing Al-Qaeda does. Our safety, like it or not, rests partly in the hands of others (insofar as Muslims are "others", although I don't think that's the right way of speaking). But then, that's always the way it has been. 9/11 merely brought that lesson home.
