"Something had to be done" is the way that people doing terrible things always justify them. And the other thing they do is to point at the people they are against, saying "Look at them, don't look at me."

That's true whether they are terrorists in a cave or generals or politicians in offices or press conferences.

Another point though. People are focusing on whether the bombing of Afghanistan is just it is unjust and so forth. That matters of course, and things like using terrorist weaons like fragmentation bombs matter.

But there's another way of talking about right and wrong that isn't primarily about morality, it's about effectiveness. And it seems to me that many people, on bity sides in this argument, appear to be ignoring whether the bombing is a mistake or not.

There's a quote that fits here. It was a comment made at the time when Napoleon executed one of his opponents (the Duc D'Enghien as it happened)- "It is worse than a crime, it is a blunder.

And the two people I gave links to earlier, Sir Michael Howard, a well respected military historian, and Abdul Haq the recently executed enemy of the Taliban, both think that it is a bad mistake, and is going to make things far worse. They deserve to be read by anyone who thinks that the bombing is likely to achieve its objectives.

I suppose I could have posted the articles directly in this thread, but I assume that anyone who is seriously interested in these issues will be up to pushing the blue clicky. (And the Guardian archives are kept available longterm, unlike some other publications.)