This weekend I spent a great deal of time watching the news. Before I was a history/anthropology major, I was poli-sci (went thru a few of em' before I found my niche in college) so beyond the tragedy of the WTC attack I'm highly interested in foreign policy decisions and international politics in the aftermath.

What I've heard from the US administration since this incident seems at times very conflicting with what the US masses believe.

It seems most folks I spoke to, listened to, or watched on the news had the idea that Afghanistan was to blame for the attack. There was a belief that Osama bin Laden actually worked for the Afghans, and this was an attack on America by that country.

But anyone who knows the region or pays attention to what US administration officials are saying can easily see this is erroneous. Any attack upon Afghanistan would be done for "harboring" terrorists like Osama bin Laden, not because of a belief that they purposefully orchestrated this act.

In fact, if you pay close attention to Bush's speeches, he makes a point of saying the US will go after those who "harbor" terrorists. This is a departure from normal terrorist policy which went after terrorists and governments who may have orchestrated it. The US thus far is NOT blaming Afghanistan for orchestrating the attack.

I think what many regular Americans are missing in the emotion and jingoistic fervor, is that terrorists don't have nation states. They don't have tanks to attack or buildings to bomb. This isn't going to be like the Gulf War or Vietnam or Pearl Harbor (which has been so referenced). This war is going to have to be something else entirely: something unique.

There was this sense among the masses that America should just go in and bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age. Most are unaware that Afghanistan is practically already in the stone age, the Soviets took care of that with an 11 yr. war.

It is near humorous to watch newscasters talk about bombing Afghanistan, only to simultaneously show an old man riding his donkey drawn cart past a pile of rubble in the capital of Kabul. One had to ask, just WHAT would America bomb!?!?

This is my opinion on what scenario may take place. Its not a prediction, just a guess.

If the Taliban won't give the US Osama bin Laden, it is they who will be taken out more so than Afghanistan the country. I think America would like to find an excuse to get rid of the Taliban, and they'll try to put the anti-Taliban group in power. The smartest thing the Taliban could have done was immediately set out to search and hunt for bin Laden and close his camps in the region. That would have have at least made it look as if they had nothing to do with him. They are playing right into US hands with their present defiance.

I don't know if America plans on committing a massive ground force effort. In fact I find that unlikely. An all out invasion of Afghanistan would mean a massive ground force and I don't think Pakistan (or especially major players like China) is going to allow a large American troop build up in Asia. Furthermore, Afghanistan has been a nightmare for the British and the Russians. I don't know if if America wants to face that nightmare---not with some grand force.

If anything its going to be small commandos, sent out to destroy terrorist cells and capture/kill bin Laden. And I think this is going to be repeated throughout the world in this, "war against terrorism." The closest parallel I can think of was America's "War on Drugs" where US troops worked in conjunction with Columbians to go after drug lords and their operations.

And this brings up an important point many ordinary people don't understand. This is going to be an international effort. As big and bad as the US is, its still bound by international law. You can't just run up in foreign countries at will and all on your own. You're going to need that country's cooperation, and possibly even the use of is intelligence and military, to accomplish your goal.

What I envision are American forces globally working with foreign countries and multi-national UN anti-terrorism tasks force to hunt down terrorists as well as make it difficult for them to set up a base of operations anywhere.

What I see developing is a scenario where the US through the UN states that a terrorist faction is operating in say---Syria. Syria will then come under strong international pressure (a type of ultimatum) to do something about those terrorists within its borders. If Syria does not, it could come under UN/US economic sanctions/pressure and eventual military action. Its going to be a type of, "either you're with us or you're against us" type of thing.

Eerily enough, while I'm no conspiracy theorist, I must admit that this is the closest thing to a "one-world" government, that I've heard many such theorists warn about.

Question is, how long is this going to continue?

This basically amounts to a global police force against terrorism. Despite current patriotism, Americans have generally been against US efforts to police the globe. Folks just don't like sending their kids off to some far flung country to keep watch of things. It'll be interesting to see when US citizens get exhausted by this new "war".

Financial Considerations: With this most likely growing into a multinational effort, it'll be bankrolled in part by other nation states and the UN. But, the US is heading this and will most likely pick up the tab---which will be trickled down to the masses. When Bush talked about "sacrifices" (in that vague manner the administration has been speaking in) I wonder if folks really realize what he's talking about---financially. The idea that wars help nation-states is only partially true. Sometimes they bankrupt them, i.e. The Soviets.

Civil Liberties: These "sacrifices" are also going to be felt in civil liberties. How far will the US govt try to go in providing security and balancing with privacy? Right now the masses and Congress have given pretty much a blank check. But how long does that last? In a few months, how will Americans feel if the govt. gets near blanket wire-tap powers?

Global support: Right now the US has unprecedented global support. Even Iran is being a type of ally. But in these 'agreements' I've noticed reserved language from key players like China and Russia. Even US allies like Britain and France have slightly backed away, cautioning that whatever happens next must be well thought out before implementation.

How long is global support for this war on terrorism going to last? How long will China and Russia allow it to? I'm certain ideas of US troops running willy-nilly into whatever borders they feel like isn't something Beijing and Moscow are stomaching very well. Could we possibly see later flare ups over this? What if some small nation refuses to cooperate with the US entering its borders to hunt down terrorists? What if the US begins abusing that power, using claims of "terrorists" to affect political outcomes in a given country?

At what point will nations like China or Russia say, okay...America u had your retaliation...but that's enough... American war planes so close to Beijing are making us nervous”. The US is going to be walking a tight rope on this issue: a type of constant diplomacy.

MORPHEUS- Exposin Fake Shyt

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com.