Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpda!hpisoa2!hpitg!umich!torek@umich
From: torek@umich
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Re: Air raid on Libya
Message-ID: <593@umich>
Date: Tue, 29-Apr-86 02:16:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.593
Posted: Tue Apr 29 02:16:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 16:21:36 EDT
References: <720@ark>
Lines: 30

In article <629@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes:
>We *could* declare war on Libya, but
>it would be stupid and disproportionate.  For the same reason I
>think that the bombing raid on Libya was a mistake.  Certainly the
>intention was not to kill civilians, but only the most foolish optimist
>would have expected an attempted bombing of the security apparatus
>headquarters in a residential neighborhood to spare civilian lives.

I agree that the bombing raid was a mistake for this reason.  But how about
a raid directed only at targets in non-residential areas?  The main goal of
the raid, "sending a signal", would be preserved, even if some tactical goals
(knocking out terrorist training centers?) were not.

>What can we do?  Clearly diplomatic efforts were being pursued before
>the bombing with no visible results.  I would think that a proportionate
>and reasonable mode of retaliation would have been a campaign of
>assasinations aimed at the groups promoting terrorism, including
>Quadaffi.

Would his successor be any better?  (A non-rhetorical question -- if so, I
agree.)

>Well, it's not the only one.  The other response is to do nothing at all.

It may be the best; at least if we deny the terrorists their goals:  changes
of policy on our part in the direction they desire.  Those who recommend
doing this in the name of "addressing the root causes of terrorism" certainly
have a strange notion of how to discourage an activity:  reward it.

--Paul Torek							torek@umich