"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

Even if they *are* hosting lunatic terrorists, that's not really a good
reason to kill all their fellow countrymen who couldn't give a damn about
terrorism but are powerless to stop their terrorist brothers. We wouldn't
have been justified in declaring martial law on any states that McVeigh
lived in (had he not been stupid enough to get caught quickly). We're not
justified in taking on an entire country just because they, like us, can't
control their terrorist criminals.

First, McVeigh wasn't being harbored by any state governments, so the
analogy is rather shaky right there. Second, the Taliban wasn't helpless to
control Al-Qaeda, they were working hand in glove with Al-Qaeda, especially
after AQ showed how useful they could be by assassinating the Taliban's main
surviving opposition leader. AQ also provided the Taliban with training and
funding, they were on very good terms even if the Taliban originally weren't
thrilled about BL turning up in Afghanistan. This isn't a case of some
rogue band out in the hills that a weak government can't handle, the Taliban
were in control of most of the country and they were allied with AQ. The
Taliban made themselves a target by refusing to turn over BL, they didn't
think the U.S. would really come after him. Neither did BL based on his
apology to his own fighters when he was trapped at Tora Bora, they thought
they were in a death-trap. Pity the pleas of the CIA team leader to have
Army Rangers dropped in to block the escape route to Pakistan were ignored.

None of that means I think we should stay in Afghanistan, but I think there
was justification for going in. But diverting resources to Iraq has
probably made it unlikely that Afghanistan is going to be salvaged at this
late date.