Attacks Bringing About

Some Strange Coalitions

 

By Allan Saxe, WBAP Political Analyst

Tell me it ain't so! As of this writing I have a strange feeling that our war on terrorism is going to be a strange war. As of September 15, the news wires talk about Iran considering joining the coalition against terrorism. Did we ask them to join? Or do they simply wish to make up to the United States for all the havoc they have caused in the past two decades?

The Iranian Revolution in 1979 lit the spark on modern day terrorism and the establishment of theocratic government. They have been implicated in a series of terrorist acts in Saudi Arabia against American troops. Is the United States in such a hurry to get at more Iranian oil that we wish to enlist them now in the War Against Terrorism? What kind of war is this?

As of this date we are trying to enlist Pakistan in our coalition. The Indian government has for years considered Pakistan a training ground for terrorist acts in the Kashmir. Pakistan is one of the few governments in the world with formal ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It seems at this moment that the war against terrorism is to be directed primarily against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the terrorist groups harbored there. This is a good start, but perhaps a side- show to the many other terrorist threats worldwide. If we are really serious, about waging
"all-out war" as our political rhetoric cries out, we should go after Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran. All of these have long histories of aiding and harboring terrorist groups. In Damascus, a myriad of terrorist groups openly operate. Or will we try and enlist all these groups in our coalition as
well?

Why does the United States even need a coalition to strike out against terrorism? During the Gulf War in 1991, the coalition constructed and the United Nations endorsement of it was, largely symbolic. It was our war and we won it!

The coalition "partners" we seem to be enlisting may all have their reasons to join us. But at the conclusion we will have to deal with their terrorists as well. They may join the coalition for their own reasons, but their partnership will be short lived. And if we really believe that they will join in a sustained and real fight against terrorism we are deceiving ourselves.

Pakistan wants our support against India and needs financial assistance. Iran is at odds with Afghanistan, and almost went to war with the Taliban over religious and territorial reasons. Libya was one of the first nations to condemn the terrorist acts in our country. Could it be that they remember our attack on them for terrorist acts against us during the Reagan Administration and wish to avoid any further strikes? We can do without this motley crew of coalition partners in the fight against terrorism.

Why do we need any further support outside of NATO? This should be enough moral support to sustain us. We will fight the war with our men and our armaments. Others may be in the cheering section with the exception of the British who may fly with us as they do over Iraq today.

If we are really to match action to our war rhetoric we will forego support from corrupt terrorist states. As Iran and Libya lined up to condemn the terrorist acts here we should have scorned their support. If President Bush is the strong leader I believe him to be we will be proud to stand alone,
united and unafraid. The world will respect us and understand how serious we intend to be. Then, perhaps, some of the rogue states and corrupt leaders of the world who cynically condemn terrorism will act on their own to rid themselves of terrorist scourges which plague the world.


Allan Saxe serves as political analyst for WBAP News/Talk 820 and writes an opinion column for the Star-Telegram.

 

Listener Comments

My response to Allan Saxe's column is simply: 30 or so years ago when the American public was appalled at the fact that we had and supported our own espionage network (CIA) throughout the world, the silent majority remained so while the loud minority managed to have our politicians to remove most of our human resources for listening ..seeing .. and protecting ourselves. So, even though this coalition of governments against terrorists (while some have their own weird off the wall groups) is late in coming, and the World needs to remember that these terrorists are vicious, unscrupulous animals.

Had our intelligence been intact from years before, we MAY have been able to avert such outrageous events as we are seeing unfold .. remember someone's quote "MINE ENEMY, YOUR ENEMY, MY FRIEND" -- NOT EXACT, but you get the idea. America was stormed on our own land -- the attack against all nations who believe in the free society we love and promote .. Yesterday was the 222nd Anniversary of the composition of our beloved 'BILL OF RIGHTS", the first 10 amendments to the US CONSTITUTION. Let's get on with this, and in order to not have to give our free society - AMERICA - and other countries, we need to do whatever is necessary to sustain a united front. I am a person who would rather hug, say how're you doing today, and walk away from those who would create havoc...We need to include all nations in our "coalition" because "WE ARE THE WORLD", NATO countries are not the whole world..

I appreciate the opportunity to send my opinion as another PROUD AMERICAN..but let's not forget there were other persons from other countries in our World Trade Center, and we need all peoples of the World to respect each other.... help each other .. America is the greatest country in the world, but we are not the only one!!

All the brave persons that have been working so hard to find anyone alive do not deserve to have us analyze all of this now, but to have a resolution so strong that no one in the free world will have to go thru this again(of course, that would be a perfect world). GOD BLESS AMERICA

Theresa Averett - Santa Rosa, California

Okay, so the prospect of allying with Iran and Libya IS a grim one. A grimmer prospect would the loss of American lives, because we scorned their overtures and did not have the benefit of any intelligence coming through their circles only.

Fly-over permission is a valid reason, even if the aforementioned two countries don't appear to be likely fly-over candidates. Similar to this, however, is the notion of inserting elite forces into Afghanistan from adjoining countries. Iran doesn't NECESSARILY have to allow anyone to do that. Let's face it, any mission undertaken by these forces will be greatly facilitated if they need only dodge detection by Afghanistan, instead of dodging detection by Iran AND Afghanistan.

This war will likely be one fought by small, elite groups of infantry and commandos. We haven't the luxury of expecting a flying war, where pilots and bombardiers work to bomb the enemy into oblivion. It would be nice, therefore, to have friendly staging areas all about the enemy.

If we must anticipate that our present-day allies will be our future adversaries, then our involvement with them now allows us an opportunity to infiltrate, assess, and characterize THEIR intelligence circles. This gives us a major advantage in coping with countries which may be our enemies tomorrow or even a decade from now.

No, we don't HAVE to allow Iran nor Libya into our circle of allies. The downside of not doing so could be profound, immediately felt, and prolonged in terms of its effects on our relations with these countries and the rest of the world.

Scott Stewart - Dallas

 

As a Desert Storm Vet. I am very disappointed by the Clinton admin. handling of our nations greatest asset, our intelligence community. Why has he now shown his face when he is one of the major causes? I think he would be as scarce as Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, or Cher at the tribute to our heroes, not even showing his face in New York City.

D.C. Stanford - Waxahachie

 

I think Cathy is a little off base. I am inclined to agree more with Stephen. We do need to be more careful with whom we do business with, at the same time we need to infiltrate those who have walked in those desert sandals.

When it comes down to the actual fighting, we have got to trust our allies. In a personal situation all of us would have a hard time placing our complete trust in someone that just a mere decade ago was basically doing the same thing that we are accusing bin Laden of now. All of those countries in the middles east are afraid of our might. None of them want a nuke coming their way. It makes sense for them to "buddy up" to us right now.

I have placed my utmost confidence in President George W. Bush. With people aiding him such as Colin Powell I do not think we can go wrong. We are a United Nation now and that is one thing for sure. Once we eradicate these terrorists groups others will see just how mighty we are. It would not surprise me if middle easterners were standing in line for change in religion. The world will certainly be a safer place to live once terrorism subsides.

Jim Gilliand - Lancaster

I do not think this is the time to express this kind of sentiment, whether right or wrong, when the President of the United States is going on television tonight to unite our country. This kind of rhetoric only causes disunity, which we do not need at this time.

Cathy Ivy - Farmers Branch

Coalitions are very shaky at best, but as you said about the coalition formed during the Gulf War, this coalition is probably more symbolism than substance. Mostly it will be American troops that are in "harms way". What we do get is:

1) Intelligence information - That is, the bit that other intelligence agencies are willing to provide. And how much of it can we believe anyway?

2) Flyover Permission - OK, this is something worth while. Even though we shouldn't let lack of permission stop us, this keeps us from "stepping on any toes" in our quest for righteous justice, and opens up more approaches that the defenders will have to protect.

3) Justification for action - If the "New Sheriff in Town" is supported by the people (in this case, the world with emphasis on the Mid East) then he looks like a Sheriff and his deputies, not a bully and his gang. (Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of the coming action, even if the US is a lone lawman (think Gary Cooper) that has to step out to take on the outlaws while the townsfolk (the rest of the world) cower.

4) Others in the coalition, especially Middle Eastern allies, can help us understand what the enemy is thinking. They've "walked a mile" in the other guy's shoes.

5) A chance to organize, arm, and train our future enemies, just like we did the Taliban and bin Laden during their war with Russia (And Russia is on our side in this).


Dirk Kovar - Ennis

We should start with the rogue state of Syria and move east. Iran should be on our list. Toppling the current gov'ts in each of these states should be our goal.

Stephen Wesstrom - Arlington


 

You can express your opinions to this column by CLICKING HERE. Be sure to include your name and city of residence. This information may be included with any published opinions.

Return To The Allan Saxe Opinion Page

Return to WBAP Home Page