(With apologies for reposted material.)

Peace and hate should be held separate. It saddens me when people can't tell the difference.

I don't condone hatred or the interfering with emergency efforts.

Which is precisely why I am reluctant to give my unconditional support to the slaughter of Afghans who hate their ruling junta even more than we do. Many Afghans have been fighting for two decades in the name of a better Afghanistan free of Taliban dominion. And a very many of them have died for this noble cause. Not least of them, Massoud himself.

Shall American hatred be vented upon these people in the name of vengence? Shall American vengence interfere with emergency efforts to aid those who have suffered from that civil war, in the name of hatred?

Please don't mistake this for liberal whining or pacifistic nonsense. For me, at least, it's an issue of justice.

We should try to remember, difficult though it must be at a time like this, that America created this problem. Reagan backed the Mujahadeen 'freedom fighters' against the Soviets, and one of those turned out to be bin Laden, while many of the rest found places in the Taliban. America's support for the Taliban was not cut off until very recently. In fact, in May Bush signed off on a $48 million aid package to the Taliban because they promised to take a stand against drug use.

I'm not trying to single out Reagan and Bush either, lest this be taken as some sort of 'unfair attack against the right.' While Clinton was President and while the GOP ran Congress, this aid to the Taliban was continued. It's not something just to be laid at the feet of a single political party. The United States itself bears the blame here.

'Massoud's demise is likely to make the United States' task all the more difficult in the region, where Washington has failed to form a coherent policy since the Soviet pullout in 1989....

'In many respects, Washington has itself contributed to the rise of Islamic radicals in Afghanistan through its willingness to allow Pakistan to develop and sustain the Taliban as an extremist religious movement. The United States openly supported the Taliban during the late 1990s in a bid to help the U.S. oil group, UNOCAL, obtain pipeline rights in Afghanistan. It was only when protests by U.S. feminist groups grew too vehement that UNOCAL pulled out and American support withered....'

There is a time for the rule of law. When the rule of law fails, or at least falters, diplomacy still remains an option. When diplomacy has been shown not to work, we must take a page from Clauswitz and recognize that war is 'diplomacy by other means.'

Before spending the lives of Afghan citizens and American soldiers. I would hope diplomatic options would be maximized. If a way can be found to have bin Laden handed over without a shot being fired, why not at least try it? Spare some needless bloodshed.

Once the bin Laden issue has been resolved, then - in my opinion - is the time to tackle the global scourge of terrorism. Take out the terrorists, and only the terrorists. And try to remember who created them.

I am by nature a lover of peace, but I understand when it is time to use force. And force must clearly be used against terrorism. I am only hoping that the effort to administer justice to bin Laden (and, I also hope, the man who almost certainly backed him: Saddam Hussein) and to cripple terrorism is pursued the way a freedom-loving civilized people should pursue it. Intelligently, and in as just a manner as possible.

A more dangerous Afghanistan