Should Captured al Qaida Be Allowed To Live?

According to an article on www.msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.com) , hundreds of al Qaida troops and almost all of the remaining top Taliban leaders have slipped out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. Also, hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban troops captured at Mazar-e-sharif have bought safe pasasage into Iran. As Rumsfeld pointed out, they can regroup, and attack us again as they have promised.


When many prisoners in Mazar-e-sharif were found dead with their hands tied behind their backs after the recent prison uprising was quelled, Amnesty International declared there would be an investigation.


All of this brings up an interesting point which Mason alluded to in a recent post: the question of how far to press a victory. As Mason mentioned, historically speaking, we often in hindsight wish we had been more thorough in victory (notably at the end of WWII and in Iraq). Yet the question of the taking of life is always a troubling issue, and rightly so.


So it appears likely that after the huge and deadly prison uprising in Mazar-e-sharif, a great many prisoners were simply executed by the Northern Alliance. Was this a necessary thing? Well I honestly don't know and probably cannot know. However there is a hypothetical example I would like to raise, which in some ways mirrors the current situation with the fanatical al Qaida warriors and leaders who have escaped, or who might be captured or surrendered.


Let's say it is the colonial days of this country or the Wild West. Someone, or a few people, are obsessed with killing you for whatever reason that might be. They've killed others and have let you know that you are next on their list. I don't know, maybe they are New World Colonial Druids and you are going to be their next sacrifice. Anyway, as fortune would have it, one day when they are coming to get you with their axes and ropes, you manage to trick them and lead them over a patch of ground which conceals a huge net which snatches them up into the trees a la Swiss Family Robinson style, and now it is up to you. They are captured. You know they are not going to change their minds about trying to kill you, period, ever. Which of the following options do you take:


1) Lock them in the barn until you can turn them over to the Sheriff so they can be kept in the town jail


2) Build a bear-proof hog pen and keep them in there because you aren't sure the Sheriff's jail will be secure enough


3) Run away and hope they never find you


4) Kill them now before they have a chance to try again to kill you


It is far from a perfect analogy, but in this situation, which involves fanatical warriors bent on our destruction, I think they simply have to be killed, not surrendered or captured.


If Doc Holliday went permanently loco from too much bad moonshine, and decided I was next on his hit list, I would have to shoot him in the back rather than trust a jail to hold him. Especially if he announced he was going to shoot my family on sight too.

Perhaps some of those who surrender should be allowed to live; otherwise there would be no incentive for surrender, and more American/Allied lives would be lost in the ensuing battles. However allowing all who are captured to live almost guarantees that some of these fanatics will eventually manage to orchestrate another attack on US soil. I'm sorry for how it sounds, and I'm sorry for what it seems to mean for the human race, but I don't think those terrorists who are truly and deeply committed to killing us and are in the process of fighting to this end should be allowed to have any further chances at it.

I think we have to give people some incentive to surrender, but the ones that run away aren't surrendering. But the incentive to surrender should be American level prisons for terrorists or execution by humane methods for the worst. I think the Taliban are a bit different because they were the government in Afghanistan. The run of the mill Taliban soldier broke no laws of his country, although he most assuredly acted like a barbarian and would be punished for doing the same stuff elsewhere.


What happened in the prison was a continuation of the war. It should be looked at in terms of war, not in terms of jail conditions. I don't know all the details of what happened in the "uprising" and I'm sure some ugly things went on, but once that kind of thing starts it is a fight to the death - your guys or their guys. Their guys lost.

supposedly the us has signed the geneva convention.


also there is a difference between leadership and common soldiers.


i suppose we could recant our so called 'war', label them all criminals, and then sentence and execute them.


brad


p.s. include me out of the 'we' used above

I don't know what the fuck the United States administration is after right now, and neither I believe do they. It has all become a matter of TV reality and soundbites.


After the wholesale massacre of Pashtun tribesemen (that's what it comes down to) in Mashar i-Sharif, there is now talk about summary executions of all captured Northern Alliance opponents - that's how "al Qaeda membership" will be established, believe you me.


My take on this 'game' : Since Afghanistan is a country so riddled with warring tribes & factions it makes Bosnia look as homogenous as Amish, the U.S. is gojng to distance itself from the country's affairs soones than you think. Too much unseemly blood and guts in the offing.


"As Mason mentioned, historically speaking, we often in hindsight wish we had been more thorough in victory (notably at the end of WWII and in Iraq)."


I can understand Iraq - although I doubt we all mean the same thing when we say "more thorough". But I cannot understand what you, or Mason Malmuth, mean when you talk about World War 2!


Stalin had suggested at a Allied Powers Conference that the whole of the German military officer corps from lieutenant upwards be summarily shot - and Germany be turned into an agricultural country, with all her heavy industries destroyed or shipped out West and East. That was certainly one way of going about it "thoroughly".


On the other hand, a lot of 'patriotic voices' in the United States, and some in Britain, were pressing for the continutation of the war until the total defeat of bolshevism and the Soviet Union. This, at a time when the Soviet Union was immensely popular (and most rightly so!) for the colossal sacrifices in its effort to defeat the Nazis. And when leftist political parties, including the communists, were finding themselves at an all-time peak of popularity, in both West and East Europe. (Not to mention the highest ever numbers that the CPUSA membership had in 1945.)


What exactly, under these circumstances, do you, or Mason Malmuth, are suggesting that the Western Allies should have done "more thoroughly" ? This is gonna be interesting.


--Cyrus

What I meant, as far as more thoroughly clinching victory in Europe at the end of WWII, was along the lines of not giving the Soviets half of Europe. I was not intending to suggest that Germany should have been further punished, or that Germans should have been lined up and shot. I just think that the Allies may have acted in haste and somewhat unwisely in their eagerness to end the wartime period--brokering a deal which gave up more than necessary, and helped lead, in part, to the Soviets having as much power as they did during the Cold War. If necessary the Allies might have forced the Soviets out of Eastern Europe rather than allowing them to stay, and in fact ceding much control to them. The Soviets didn't own or control these countries before WWII and as far as I know there is no completely compelling reason why they should have gained them after the war. Even Germany was sliced in half...the Soviets always were formidable bargainers and negotiators, even later during nuclear arms talks.

There are some huge differences between this and other wars, and our adversaries are different too. For one thing, al Qaida soldiers are not conscripts. Most of them would be delighted to die if they could only take a few of us with them...you and me, that is. For another, even if they are surrendered and bin Laden is caught, etc....as far as they are concerned the war will still not be over. If bin Laden surrendered they would still burn to fight and die all around the world. When Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII, it was over. Their soldiers did not still plot, with a fanatical desire, to blow themselves up and kill as many American civilians as possible in the process. But this is what will happen with captured or surrendered al Qaida, and it will happen even if their leader gives up (unlikely as that may be). Thus we are up against an enemy who will not give up in its quest to kill or destroy us. The only way to stop it is to kill it and/or render it powerless (and hopefully to also address some of the causes which gave birth to it in the first place).


It is also different in that even the Japanese kamikazes were targeting aircraft carriers, not civilians in cities.

....with an anti-semitic, pro-Arab terrorist supporter. It's a waste of time.


Obviously all al Qaida should be summarily executed, all Palestinian Hamas and Jihad supporters, alopng with Saddam and his crew.

I have found Cyrus to be especially worthy of discussion and debate...while his stance on the Israeli/Palestinian issue surprises me somewhat, it doesn't take away from the fact that over the couple of years that I've been here he has provided many valuable insights and information on a host of topics ranging from mathematics to physics to just about anything else that has come up for discussion on this board. He's a real contributor with an interersting perspective on many topics. So even if he holds a few warped views he's still worth talking with;-)

....thank you. You're much more tolerant of anti-American flamers than I. "warped views" is apropos.

i think youre making a logical error in assuming that every man under arms in afganistan is a terrorist.


brad

havent read the other replies, but


1) many (millions) of german soldiers died in the food shortages after wwII.


2) the us army didnt advance as quickly as it could have eastward, in order to let the soviets gain more ground.


brad

Argument and dialogue is good. Intolerance and arrogance is bad. You're on the right track, M.


(I'm writing this as simply as I can, so that even know-it-alls like Wogga can understand. Wogga is the opposite number of the suicide bomber who detonates himself along with the "enemy" : Both know everything, are fanatics, and wish a horrible death to all their adversaries. They deserve each other.)

"1) Many (millions) of German soldiers died in the food shortages after wwII."


So? I don't understand what's that got to do with anything. The issue is, as you may remember, whether the Americans should have done a more "thorough" job at the end of WW2.


"2) The US army didnt advance as quickly as it could have eastward, in order to let the soviets gain more ground."


This is utterly false.


The American forces along with the rest of the western Allies were actually been allowed to advance more quickly in the West. The Germans were fighting tooth and nail in the East against the advancing "Red barbarians", while, after the Ardennes attack, they were putting up mostly a token resistance in the West. German troops were actually trying to reach the Allied lines to surrender in the West, while in the East the Sovits had to win every inch of the ground they were gaining. (The reasons were not ideological : The Soveites were exacting harsh revenge on the German population everywhere for what they have suffered by the Nazis.)


Hitler kept trying to the bitter end to delay the Soviets from reaching Berlin hoping that he would strike a deal with the Western allies saving Germany from "the bolsheviks" and avoiding unconditional surrender.


..I'm sorry but to even suggest that the Americans were idling while the Soviets had it easy and were "allowed" to rush to Berlin is a historical absurdity.


--Cyrus

"What I meant, as far as more thoroughly clinching victory in Europe at the end of WWII, was along the lines of not giving the Soviets half of Europe.'


Clinching victory the Allies most certainly did. But you meant that the Americans conceded too much after the end of the War. This is not the same as saying they should have done "a more thorough job" in the War.


"I just think that the Allies may have acted in haste and somewhat unwisely in their eagerness to end the wartime period--brokering a deal which gave up more than necessary.'


I remind you that the Allies held steady to their demand that Nazi Germany surrenders UNCONDITIONALLY. If the West had started separate peace talks with Hitler, then yes, they could have gone on to start a war against the Soviets. But do you really think that this was possible ?


"If necessary the Allies might have forced the Soviets out of Eastern Europe rather than allowing them to stay, and in fact ceding much control to them. The Soviets didn't own or control these countries before WWII and as far as I know there is no completely compelling reason why they should have gained them after the war."


1. The Americans could NOT start a new war against the Soviets right after the end of WW2. All the European people were tired, eager for peace and very sympathetic towards the Soviets for their anti-Nazi struggle. The Americans would have to deal with world opinion, a strong domestic reaction condemning the back-stabbing of "Uncle Joe" and a very hostile European population.


2. The Western Powers, at the Potsdam, Yalta and Tehran conference could not have gained much more than what they did. They agreed that the Soviets would have the upper hand in the countries they had already occupied (aka "liberated") by their troops, and that included East Germany. The Soviets gained not one inch at areas which they had not occupied. You must understand that occupation by one's troops after a war ends is THE "compelling reason" in such matters!


3. The American government at the time, as the record shows, were actually asking the Soviets to enter the war against Japan as soon as possible. The war against Japan was hardly a foregone affair. (The decision to use atomic weapons was still not taken.) That's hardly the setting for "pressing" the Soviets to "concede" anything!


--Cyrus

1) i thought you implied we took good care of german pows. we didnt.


2) i could be wrong, but at the end of the european war, gaining ground was not an objective (when it could have been)


brad

I think you may be making a critical reading error in assuming that's what I meant. I specified "al Qaida," not "Taliban."


All members of al Qaida who are under arms in Afghanistan are indeed terrorists; it's a terrorist organization with avowed terrorist goals, and they are the volunteer warriors for the cause.

ok, how do you know if a soldier is al-qaida or taliban?


it seems to me most terrorists would *not* be soldiers.


what i mean i guess is that your argument (which is probably not your intention) can be used for mass slaughter. you know how people are.


brad

I agree that the Soviets were going to get something out of this, but I don't think they had to get as much as they did. Yes it was probably not feasible to force them entirely out of Eastern Europe; you are probably correct on this and I am probably wrong. However I strongly suspect a little stronger negotiation and backbone could have resulted in them getting somewhat less, and especially not East Germany.


On another note, when the U.S. had clear nuclear superiority well after the war but well before the Cuban missile crisis, I think that may have been the ideal time to force the Soviets to leave Eastern Europe. The free world spent decades worrying about growing Soviet military might and influence, when it could possibly have been prevented with a sufficiently aggressive stance. In other words the US and Western Europe held almost all the cards for a while and we allowed the Soviets to catch up which brought a host of long-term problems and endangered the entire world for quite a period. I'm not saying we should have necessarily bombed the USSR, but that an approach of requiring them to reduce their acquired territory outside their own homeland and to restrain their nuclear development and eventual buildup might have succeeded. We knew for a long time that their designs were nothing short of world domination under a totalitarian regime yet we allowed them to expand and buildup a great deal. We may not have had to. We carried the big stick at the time and I think it could well have been a mistake to let things just take their course as they worked to catch up. We would not have taken them over but we could have made it crystal clear that their expansionist aims had no future, and we could have maintained complete military superiority over them at all times to ensure this.


Would this have been a good idea? I don't know for sure but it might have been.

That is an important caveat.


I wouldn't know if a soldier is Taliban or al Qaida, but I'd bet the Northern or Eastern Alliance would.


Yes, the al Qaida in Afghanistan are both terrorists and soldiers.

"I agree that the Soviets were going to get something out of this, but I don't think they had to get as much as they did. Yes it was probably not feasible to force them entirely out of Eastern Europe. A little stronger negotiation and backbone could have resulted in them getting somewhat less, ."


These issues are not about "backbone". They are about the cold assessment of the power balances and the geopolitical environment of the time. Although a dictator like Stalin appears to be having more "backbone" in this type of situations (Yalta, etc), in reality it's the democracies who have a better position. Let me explain a sec:


Given certain asumptions (power balances, conditions, etc) there iks a specific "correct" approach and a specific set of "feasible" objectives in a negotation. The democracy with its multiple input of opinion and information is more likely to arive at the correct "solutions" than a dictator who is impatient with unfavorable news and bad advice. Giving bad advice is a democracy usually results in having it refuted after a discussion. It may mean instant banishment from the corridors of power (at best!) in a Stalinist regime.


An advantage held by dictators in such negotiations can be the fear they may install on their democratic adversaries by appearing to be irrational. Dictators can afford to appear (or trully be) irresponsible and unpredictable, forcing their antagonistes to behave more "conervatively" and be less tough. However, in Yalta and the other conferences that particular card did not and could have not been played by either side : As I said, the whole world was totally exhausted by war. Any side that dared talk more war, would have to fight the whole world. This is no exaggeration.


"When the U.S. had clear nuclear superiority well after the war but well before the Cuban missile crisis, I think that may have been the ideal time to force the Soviets to leave Eastern Europe ... and especially East Germany."


The Soviet Union exploded its first atomic weapon in 1948. Some time later it exploded its first thermonuclear weapon, 1000 times more destructive than the atomic weapon. By 1948 we were alrady in full Cold War mode and whatever had been decided in the after-War conferences was pretty much unassailable.


One more thing : East Germany would have been the last place the Soviets would withdraw from after the war. After all, this was the very country of their arch-enemy , to defeat which their blood was shed. There is no way on earth that the western powers could have forced the Soviets out of Germany - short of war. But about "more war", I've already explained.


The best thing that could have happened post-WWII would have been Stalin dying in 1945, instead of 1953. The fate of the world would have been totally different. you cannot say that for many protagonistes of WWII, not even Churchill or Hitler.


--Cyrus

So Stalin should have been assassinated;-) (seriously).


If the Allies could have foreseen the future results of allowing the USSR to control Eastern Europe would have been, do you think they still would have allowed the USSR to take half of Europe (as war-weary as they were--and Russia was probably at least as war-weary)?


Wasn't there also a window of time when the nuclear capability of the US far outstripped that of the USSR? I'm speculating on what this leverage could have meant had the US decided to employ it to rein in Soviet expansionism and restrain their further nuclear development. We know Kennedy backed Krushchev down in Cuba--I suspect this approach just might have been feasible at a few other times, before the USSR had a large nuclear arsenal. In the most extreme form it could have been an ultimatum for the Soviets to withdraw from Europe, before the Cuban missile crisis. In other words the US and Allies could have jointly told the Soviets they were out and get packing, we're abrogating the agreement, get out or get bombed, and stop developing these weapons or we will bomb your development sites. Shortly after the USSR developed their first nuclear weapon they were still WAY behind for a while weren't they? I'm not saying this would have necessarily been workable, but perhaps it might have been. I think just maybe we should have done something along these lines since we already knew what a monster Stalin was and of the clear expansionist totalitarian designs of the Soviet communist party. In other words I think there is a good chance we should have taken action before the USSR grew so mighty and threatening to us and the rest of the world. Perhaps the Cold War could have existed without danger of doomsday if we had reined them in before they could seriously threaten us with nuclear annihilation. In the earlier part of the nuclear age when we had many bombs and they were really just getting going with a few might have been the ideal time for something like this. I'm not saying it would necessarily have been a good idea or that it would have been easy to pull off, but the alternative which existed for decades was perhaps bad enough that just maybe it should have been done.

"So Stalin should have been assassinated."


Get in line.


"In the most extreme form it could have been an ultimatum for the Soviets to withdraw from Europe, before the Cuban missile crisis.'


I posted a link in my orevious post to the book containing the transcription of the White House tapes during the Cuban crisis. It's great as a lesson in leadership under crisis.


But for all the posturing and what even those tapes contain, the truth of the matter is that World Powers have a correct and enormous respect for …power. Manoeuvring and outwitting is the name of the game, rather than all-out war. All-out war in the nuclear age is an all-out loser.


So, once a superpower has made a move the other one does not think "war" just like that. This is not a children's playground! Bloody noses means millions of dead.


The superpower that over-stepped its bounds immediately tries to find a way out for both itself and its adversary! That's right. Only in this light will you understand


>>> Why the Soviet Union raised hell in int'l forums, rattled the cages and screamed bloody murder but ..did nothing when the U.S. invaded Guatemala, San Domingo, Grenada, Panama and other such places. It was the American sphere of influence.


>>> Why the U.S. did the same when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Germany to quash anti-communist insurgency. It was the Soviet sphere of influence.


The Cuban crisis was resolved when the Soviets themselves suggested that they were willing to withdraw their missiles if the Americans would withdraw their missiles from East Turkey. That’s exactly what happened, without any fanfare.


--Cyrus


PS That window of opportunity in nuclear weaponry was a myth. Mutual Destruction was assured if war would break out. And remember that the American military was constantly complaining that the "missile gap" was in the Soviets' favor!..

Are you saying that shortly after WWII we did not have a huge lead without the threat of MAD? Didn't we have the bomb first? Didn't we have more bombs first? The USSR played catch-up for a while, didn't they? Whenever this was, this is the period I am speculating about.

"Are you saying that shortly after WWII [America] did not have a huge lead without the threat of MAD? Didn't [the U.S.] have the bomb first? USSR played catch-up for a while, didn't they? Whenever this was, this is the period I am speculating about."


Yes, right up until 1948 when the Soviets became an atomic power in their turn, the U.S. enjoyed an atomic monopoly. But I repeat, for one more and last time : the world was just coming out of a war that cost around 40 million dead.


40 million dead!.. No one but no one was in any mood to see any more war, not even for the highest ideals.


Everybody was glad to see the Nazis defeated. Their atrocities had come out. The colossal sacrifices of the Soviet people were becoming out. The USSR was quite admied and liked among he Europeans and the Americans. It may be difficult for you to understand this, but that's how it was.


Even if someone could foresee the Cold War, a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USSR was utterly, totally, absolutely unthinkable - at any time. Even that old warhorse, Chusrchill, did not go that far. Not even when he gave his "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton.


And by the way : the worst of the Soviet tyranny was already behind us by that time. Yes, the plight of Eastern Europe was really bad, and the gulags and the secret police and the invasions of socialist countries continued - but we never saw again what Stalin did in the 20s or in the 30s to his country's citizens. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Eastern Europe had tyranny alright but that was certainly not enough to start a war - right after a World War too...


--Cyrus

I'm speculating not so much about starting a full-blown war as about forcing the Soviets to capitulate on a few matters, with the threat or limited use of nuclear weapons as a backup. It might have worked, or it might have started a full-blown war. It also might have taken just one bomb (and it wouldn't have had to be on a city) to convince them that they did not want to suffer the fate of Hiroshima many times over, and they really might have removed their military forces from Eastern Europe and ceased their expansionist activities in other theatres as well.


Also, I am under the strong impression that Kennedy did indeed issue an ultimatum to the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, and that the removal of missiles from Turkey was more of a face-saving device for the USSR...as well as appealing to their bargaining instincts. However, although I am no history buff, I do believe that it was primarily Kennedy's ultimatum that caused the Soviets to back down.

"I'm speculating ... about forcing the Soviets to capitulate on a few matters, with the threat or limited use of nuclear weapons as a backup. It might have worked, or it might have started a full-blown war. It also might have taken just one bomb (and it wouldn't have had to be on a city) to convince them."


I put it to you that even one (1) nuclear bomb detonated after World War II was over, and before the 50s, when the Cold War started in earnest, at which time both sides had nukes, would turn the whole European people against the United States. America would completely lose the moral imperative they had and which sustained their effort to later on contain the Left in Western Europe, through (mostly) peaceful means. NATO would not have happened. The Marshall Plan aid would have been refused. The leftist parties would have scored big victories in the West. It would be disaastrous.


Believe me, or believe the record : Europeans, politicians and citizens, were in no mood for one more war, one more bomb, or even one more bully in the neighborhood.


Eventually the United States did right. Use of atomic weapons was avoided. The hard way was followed. Which was also the correct way: The possession of nukes by both sides makes the short cut you so much crave an impossibility - or, worse, a fatal stupidity.


"[...Then the Soviets] really might have removed their military forces from Eastern Europe and ceased their expansionist activities in other theatres as well."


After WWII, the Soviet Empire did not expand in any one (1) nation. Not one! Try to find one country that turned communist beyond the Yalta areas and you will come up with nothing. Any country that turned communist, like Vietnam or Cuba, owed it to American stupidity only.


By American stupidity I'm referring to the consistent support offered by the United States to the tinpot tyrants in Latin America, Asia and Africa against domestic, nationalist insurrection. This has in turn forced the hand of those insurgents to turn completely leftwards. Nicaragua; San Dominguo; Haiti; Honduras; Chile; Panama; Colombia; Argentina; Congo; Mozambique; Vietnam; Laos; Indonesia; the list goes on. (Castro's rebels started as nationalists. Check it out. However, the Yanks wanted Batista. You've seen Godfather, Pt 2.)


--Cyrus

I find it hard to believe that all those countries turned communist due solely to American actions.


The Cold War would have been much better (and safer) if only the US and NATO had the nukes. We were just lucky a major nuclear conflagration never occurred...and we wouldn't have had to be lucky if we were the only ones with a sizable quantity of them. Whether we could have reined in the Soviet nuclear development program by force is just speculation (as is much else in this thread). I really don't think MAD was the right way...it may have been the ONLY way, but the right way IMO would be to have NO danger of MAD because only we owned the nukes;-)

....along with the Palestinian scum and the other terrorists Cyrus aligns himself with.


God bless freedom. God bless the USA.

That's excellent news.


You see, I intend to keep hitting it till it's so numb you can't open your mouth.


--Cyrus