I know very little about Common Lisp and would like some help. I have
a list of Lisp commands that I can execute to analyze sentences (From
an input (text) I receive a linguistic analysis). The problem is how I
direct the output (the result of analysis) to a file instead of
viewing it only on the screen.
The Command is (tag-analysis:tag-file “copy.txt”)
Would love that someone could give tell me how to resolve this
problem.
Thanks
··········@cogmedia.com
Houda Araj wrote:
>
> I know very little about Common Lisp and would like some help. I have
> a list of Lisp commands that I can execute to analyze sentences (From
> an input (text) I receive a linguistic analysis). The problem is how I
> direct the output (the result of analysis) to a file instead of
> viewing it only on the screen.
>
> The Command is (tag-analysis:tag-file “copy.txt”)
>
> Would love that someone could give tell me how to resolve this
> problem.
Here are two methods that should work:
(with-open-file (stream "your-file.txt" :direction :output)
(let ((*standard-output* stream))
(tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
(unwind-protect
(progn (dribble "/tmp/foo.txt")
(tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt"))
(dribble))
"Christopher J. Vogt" wrote:
>
> Here are two methods that should work:
>
> (with-open-file (stream "your-file.txt" :direction :output)
> (let ((*standard-output* stream))
> (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
>
> (unwind-protect
> (progn (dribble "/tmp/foo.txt")
> (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt"))
> (dribble))
You should use dribble carefully, because the Spec said clarely that :
dribble is intended primarily for interactive debugging; its effect cannot
be relied upon when used in a program.
So, I guess your first solution is preferable.
Iban.
Iban HATCHONDO <········@yahoo.fr> writes:
> "Christopher J. Vogt" wrote:
>
> >
> > Here are two methods that should work:
> >
> > (with-open-file (stream "your-file.txt" :direction :output)
> > (let ((*standard-output* stream))
> > (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
> >
> > (unwind-protect
> > (progn (dribble "/tmp/foo.txt")
> > (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt"))
> > (dribble))
>
> You should use dribble carefully, because the Spec said clarely that :
> dribble is intended primarily for interactive debugging; its effect cannot
> be relied upon when used in a program.
> So, I guess your first solution is preferable.
Right. In some implementations, DRIBBLE works by creating a recursive
read-eval-print loop *within* the call to DRIBBLE and terminating dribbling
returns from that loop. If you think about that implementation, you'll
see why the second example above won't work.
"Christopher J. Vogt" <····@computer.org> wrote in message news:<·················@computer.org>...
> Houda Araj wrote:
> >
> > I know very little about Common Lisp and would like some help. I have
> > a list of Lisp commands that I can execute to analyze sentences (From
> > an input (text) I receive a linguistic analysis). The problem is how I
> > direct the output (the result of analysis) to a file instead of
> > viewing it only on the screen.
> >
> > The Command is (tag-analysis:tag-file “copy.txt”)
> >
> > Would love that someone could give tell me how to resolve this
> > problem.
>
> Here are two methods that should work:
>
> (with-open-file (stream "your-file.txt" :direction :output)
> (let ((*standard-output* stream))
> (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
>
> (unwind-protect
> (progn (dribble "/tmp/foo.txt")
> (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt"))
> (dribble))
Thanks for all of you.
(with-open-file (stream "your-file.txt" :direction :output)
> (let ((*standard-output* stream))
> (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
I tried this method and it works, but I am wondering if it is possible
to have several text input in (tag-analysis) that maps several
corresponding output.(result of tag analysis). The idea is to analyze
several small text at once.
Thanks again
··········@CogMedia.com (Houda Araj) writes:
> I know very little about Common Lisp and would like some help. I have
> a list of Lisp commands that I can execute to analyze sentences (From
> an input (text) I receive a linguistic analysis). The problem is how I
> direct the output (the result of analysis) to a file instead of
> viewing it only on the screen.
>
> The Command is (tag-analysis:tag-file “copy.txt”)
Try this:
(with-open-file (s "/path/to/your/output/file" :direction :output :if-exists
:supersede)
(let ((*standard-output* s)) ;hope that's enough
(tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
Andras
>
> Would love that someone could give tell me how to resolve this
> problem.
>
> Thanks
> ··········@cogmedia.com
* Simon Andr�s
> (with-open-file (s "/path/to/your/output/file" :direction :output :if-exists
> :supersede)
> (let ((*standard-output* s)) ;hope that's enough
> (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
It should have been enough to bind *standard-output* in with-open-file.
Why do you think you need the extra let binding inside that form?
///
--
Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism to
fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade", which only
invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period of Christianity
with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam? He is _such_ an idiot.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * Simon Andr�s
> > (with-open-file (s "/path/to/your/output/file" :direction :output :if-exists
> > :supersede)
> > (let ((*standard-output* s)) ;hope that's enough
> > (tag-analysis:tag-file "copy.txt")))
>
> It should have been enough to bind *standard-output* in with-open-file.
> Why do you think you need the extra let binding inside that form?
Of course you're right.
>
> ///
> --
> Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism to
> fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade", which only
> invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period of Christianity
> with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam? He is _such_ an idiot.
Ditto.
Andras
······@math.bme.hu (Simon Andr�s) writes:
> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>> Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism
>> to fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade",
>> which only invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period
>> of Christianity with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam?
>> He is _such_ an idiot.
> Ditto.
He used the term "crusade"? [I'm a tad incredulous; perhaps I should
not be so skeptical, but I am, a little...]
That pretty much is a big "red flag" to throw out in front of anyone
from the Middle East; Protestants have been working for _centuries_ to
try and get disassociated from the the gigantic "black mark" of The
Crusades.
If it's so, then it's liable also to raise the hackles of Jewish folk,
too, which arguably cuts out about the only "principled" ally (e.g. -
ally where the relationship is more than merely "convenient") that the
American administration has in the region...
It underlines the principle that Bush needs _desperately_ to learn to
_never_ open his mouth except when he's got a script to work with.
One interesting observation that has been pointed out: If you look
back at The Crusades, the ultimate result was that Saladin crushed the
crusaders... That's not exactly the result Bush is likely to want
to be associated with, either...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"Feel free to contribute build files. Or work on your motivational
skills, and maybe someone somewhere will write them for you..."
-- "Fredrik Lundh" <······@telia.com>
* ········@acm.org
> He used the term "crusade"? [I'm a tad incredulous; perhaps I should
> not be so skeptical, but I am, a little...]
I have had CNN and BBC World on at all times since I saw the terrorist
attack live in September 11. George W. Bush has stupidly talked about
"wanted: dead or alive", "war on terrorism", and "crusade against the
terrorists" on numerous occasions, but the "crusade" quote has been
edited out of recently aired footage of the unscripted speech where he
stuffed his foot way down his throat. Still, it has made the rounds in
the Norwegian press and several other European presses, and several
learned people on the history of the "interactions" between Islam and
Christianity have written lucid commentaries on the blundering cowboy's
lack of rhetorical skills and tremendous lack of sensitivity towards
other faiths than his own, not the least of which is the complete and
utter alienation of _non-religiuos_ in the United States, itself, which
also the San Francisco Chronicle has commented intelligently on�. The
Christian fundamentalist rhetoric in "you are with us, or you are with
the terrorists" is such a gag-worthy line that I am sorely tempted to
join the terrorists. Such fantastically retarded rhetoric is precisely
what we expect from Taliban and other amazingly narrow-minded religious
fundamentalists, although the latter turn out to be far more measured and
mentally aware of their own predicament than that blundering cowboy that
very unfortunately leads the most powerful nation in the world.
> It underlines the principle that Bush needs _desperately_ to learn to
> _never_ open his mouth except when he's got a script to work with.
So true. It reminds me of a line that went around when Dick Cheney was
having heart problems. "If Dick Cheney dies, does George W. Bush become
president?""
> One interesting observation that has been pointed out: If you look
> back at The Crusades, the ultimate result was that Saladin crushed the
> crusaders... That's not exactly the result Bush is likely to want
> to be associated with, either...
The crusades were also incredibly ill-prepared and ill-executed. As much
as I hate, and I really mean _hate_, incomptence, especially when matched
with political power, it ranks in my view as an order of magnitude worse
than the most disgraceful and mass-murderous event of the last century.
Considering, however, the propensity of American political leaders to
invoke "war" as if it is something good or noble or just, one should not
be surprised that they are likely to think of the crusades as reasonably
positive events in the history of their own religion.
Just as I find the turn towards fundamentalism in Islam very alarming (it
started, I believe, with the religious fundamentalist overthrow of the
Shah of Iran, as a very violent reaction to the "Western" influence, and
which has been used by the morons who thought they could use religious
fundamentalism for their own political ends, such as CIA's backing of
Afghan nutcase groups which now become targets because they got out of
control -- well, duh!), the turn towards more Christian fundamentalism in
the political landscape of several European countries, including Norway,
and the United States is not boding well for the future. I believe that
World War III will be a war between Islam and Christianity, motivated by
simple turf wars over water and oil, but somebody as stupid and emotive
as president George W. Bush may well lay a ground that will be very hard
for more reasonable people to undo and reverse. George W. Bush is using
"God" in his speeches even more often than the Taliban are using "Allah",
and this is neither patriotic nor inclusive -- it is parochial and _very_
exclusive of those who are Americans and who do not share the president's
_personal_ belief system and revengeful attitude.
This _should_ have been a time for people everywhere to join the U.S.A's
desperate need for international, panglobal support in fighting terrorism
and ridding the world of the cultures that support such antisocial and
anti-_human_ tactics to serve their sick, sick political agenda, but we
are instead looking at a dangerously emotional and narrow-minded cowboy
who fails to recognize that he would gain much more support from many
more people if he could can his own religious zealotry (and unlike those
who want adherence to the ANSI Common Lisp standard, this is what _real_
religious zealotry looks like, to keep this sub-marginally on-topic :).
///
-------
� http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/22/MN215155.DTL
--
Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism to
fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade", which only
invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period of Christianity
with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam? He is _such_ an idiot.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * ········@acm.org
> > He used the term "crusade"? [I'm a tad incredulous; perhaps I should
> > not be so skeptical, but I am, a little...]
>
> I have had CNN and BBC World on at all times since I saw the terrorist
> attack live in September 11. George W. Bush has stupidly talked about
> "wanted: dead or alive", "war on terrorism", and "crusade against the
> terrorists" on numerous occasions, but the "crusade" quote has been
> edited out of recently aired footage of the unscripted speech where he
> stuffed his foot way down his throat. Still, it has made the rounds in
> the Norwegian press and several other European presses, and several
> learned people on the history of the "interactions" between Islam and
> Christianity have written lucid commentaries on the blundering cowboy's
> lack of rhetorical skills and tremendous lack of sensitivity towards
> other faiths than his own [...]
I heard the quote a couple times. It's made the round in the European
presses, sure, but it also made the round through the Islamic world.
And in a recent statement, the Taliban referred to it. Given that the
president is under heavy watch, I'm not so sure it was a lack of
rhetorical skills, or blundering; it may have been an intentional
provocation, intended to try to scare Islamic countries into letting
the US trample on them, for fear of the consequences. I find that far
more frightening than a slur accidentally slipped out of the mouth of
a known religious fanatic.
<········@acm.org> wrote in message
····························@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ······@math.bme.hu (Simon Andr�s) writes:
> > Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
>
> >> Why did that stupid George W. Bush turn to Christian fundamentalism
> >> to fight Islamic fundamentalism? Why use terms like "crusade",
> >> which only invokes fear of a repetition of that disgraceful period
> >> of Christianity with its _sustained_ terrorist attacks on Islam?
> >> He is _such_ an idiot.
>
> > Ditto.
>
> He used the term "crusade"? [I'm a tad incredulous; perhaps I should
> not be so skeptical, but I am, a little...]
>
But it's so approriate for "Operation Infinite Justice"
I find your discussion of foreign affairs in a LISP newsgroup strange but I
might as well throw in my 2 cents...
I'm surprised everyone has focused on the president's speech so much and has
not discussed the terrorists. I for one am more interested in the
motivations for such a desperate and evil act them in the pious rhetoric of
some
marginally elected, C-average windbag who can't even seem to string together
three words before pausing to read his cue cards. (glad I got that off my
chest!)
I think I war in Afganistan is nothing more then an equally desperate act on
part of the president to make it seem as if he is actually doing something!
He knows why those terrorists did what they did and it wasn't for anything
as stupid as trying to sabotage freedom. Who does he think he's kidding
here anyway! The US was instrumental in the partition of Palestine (thus
founding Isreal) after WWII and did nothing to stop Isreal's unjustified war
with the Palestinians. How would you feel towards a coutry that makes the
bullets and artillary that is hurled at you!
I am not saying that these people were justified but lets call a duck a duck
and not a "crusade" for freedom. Isreal may have brought this situation to
a boil but it is our support of them that makes the US a target.
It also makes me angry that the only reason we support Isreal in the first
place is to appease the Jewish Zionists in the US. Presidents have always
done this just to get elected. It seems like a stupid reason for people to
die.
"Jeff Vollmer" <···········@powersurfr.com> writes:
> It also makes me angry that the only reason we support Isreal in the first
> place is to appease the Jewish Zionists in the US. Presidents have always
> done this just to get elected. It seems like a stupid reason for people to
> die.
The (consistent) support of Israel is about the only "principled" part
of it all, and of American "stirring" of the "pot" that is the Middle
East.
I would instead point to the use of the Middle East as a source of
_OIL_ as the more important cause for problems.
Anybody that behaves "stably" in the Middle East tends to be treated
as politically friendly irrespective of the form of government that
they have.
- Israel at least has the merit of being a somewhat-functioning
democracy; that would make it a _possible_ candidate for support
on the grounds that America supports "freedom and democracy."
- Saudi Arabia? A kingdom where all important things are owned by
the Saudi family. _Definitely_ not a democracy. Note that Bin
Laden started becoming "criminal" when he decided to be critical of
the Saudi government.
- Kuwait? Again, decidedly _not_ a democracy.
- At assorted times, American administrations [note that this is
distinct from "American people"] have supported governments in Iraq
and Iran; in no case were these governments particularly "populist"
let alone getting anywhere near being "freedom and democracy."
The common thread, throughout: "If you look like a stable source of
oil, you'll be our ``friend.''" As soon as that stability is
threatened, the friendliness goes away. If there was no oil in Saudi
Arabia, they wouldn't be a "good friend;" they'd most likely be
considered an irrelevant little tyranny, and the same is pretty much
true for all the other lands of "oil sheiks."
It seems to me that the recent events are to a significant extent the
consequence of fifty-odd years of these sorts of mercenary,
unprincipled dealings. The US is pretty dependent on Middle Eastern
oil, so it's nearly impossible to get out of this cycle of
unprincipled dealings. Walking away from it would be a daunting
challenge in all sorts of ways.
And after 50 years of "unprincipled dealings," the vast anger in the
Middle East should be little surprise. On the one hand, anyone with a
TV should have the message that "America" is supposed to be all about
the principles of freedom and democracy. On the other hand, the set
of repressive regimes that successive administrations have kept on
supporting suggests that "freedom and democracy" is not quite the
truth, at least not the truth that impacts foreign affairs...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/xwindows.html
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and can assure you that data processing is a fad
that won't last out the year". -- Business books editor, Prentice
Hall 1957
<········@acm.org> wrote in message
·························@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Jeff Vollmer" <···········@powersurfr.com> writes:
> > It also makes me angry that the only reason we support Isreal in the
first
> > place is to appease the Jewish Zionists in the US. Presidents have
always
> > done this just to get elected. It seems like a stupid reason for people
to
> > die.
>
> The (consistent) support of Israel is about the only "principled" part
> of it all, and of American "stirring" of the "pot" that is the Middle
> East.
>
> I would instead point to the use of the Middle East as a source of
> _OIL_ as the more important cause for problems.
>
> Anybody that behaves "stably" in the Middle East tends to be treated
> as politically friendly irrespective of the form of government that
> they have.
>
> - Israel at least has the merit of being a somewhat-functioning
> democracy; that would make it a _possible_ candidate for support
> on the grounds that America supports "freedom and democracy."
>
> - Saudi Arabia? A kingdom where all important things are owned by
> the Saudi family. _Definitely_ not a democracy. Note that Bin
> Laden started becoming "criminal" when he decided to be critical of
> the Saudi government.
>
> - Kuwait? Again, decidedly _not_ a democracy.
>
> - At assorted times, American administrations [note that this is
> distinct from "American people"] have supported governments in Iraq
> and Iran; in no case were these governments particularly "populist"
> let alone getting anywhere near being "freedom and democracy."
>
> The common thread, throughout: "If you look like a stable source of
> oil, you'll be our ``friend.''" As soon as that stability is
> threatened, the friendliness goes away. If there was no oil in Saudi
> Arabia, they wouldn't be a "good friend;" they'd most likely be
> considered an irrelevant little tyranny, and the same is pretty much
> true for all the other lands of "oil sheiks."
>
> It seems to me that the recent events are to a significant extent the
> consequence of fifty-odd years of these sorts of mercenary,
> unprincipled dealings. The US is pretty dependent on Middle Eastern
> oil, so it's nearly impossible to get out of this cycle of
> unprincipled dealings. Walking away from it would be a daunting
> challenge in all sorts of ways.
>
> And after 50 years of "unprincipled dealings," the vast anger in the
> Middle East should be little surprise. On the one hand, anyone with a
> TV should have the message that "America" is supposed to be all about
> the principles of freedom and democracy. On the other hand, the set
> of repressive regimes that successive administrations have kept on
> supporting suggests that "freedom and democracy" is not quite the
> truth, at least not the truth that impacts foreign affairs...
> --
> (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@ntlug.org")
> http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/xwindows.html
> "I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
> with the best people, and can assure you that data processing is a fad
> that won't last out the year". -- Business books editor, Prentice
> Hall 1957
Well said...It's nice to see at least some people are thinking out of the
box!
"Jeff Vollmer" <···········@powersurfr.com> wrote:
>Well said...It's nice to see at least some people are thinking out of the
>box!
For all of them, below a recent article from Tamim Ansary he has mailed to some
friends. he is an Afghan writer who's lived in the United States for 35 years.
To go further:
- at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s371614.htm , an interview of Tamim Ansary about
his article.
- 2 petitions to Bush :
http://www.findefux.de/petition/Haupseite.php
http://www.thePetitionSite.com/takeaction/224622495
--
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone
Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would mean
killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity,
but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What else can we
do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing whether we have the
belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never
lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who will
listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt
in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York.
I agree that something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics
who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a
plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you
think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of
Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only
that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the
first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if someone would come in
there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international
thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A few
years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled
orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the
farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why
the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age.
Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses?
Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their
hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from medicine
and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least
get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat,
only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. Maybe
the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too
fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping
bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this
horrific thing. Actually it would only be making common cause with the
Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with true
fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there
with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what needs
to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as
needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about killing
innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's actually on
the table is Americans dying. And not just because some Americans would die
fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much
bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have
to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of
Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by?
You see where I'm going. We're flirting with a world war between Islam and
the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants.
That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right
there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem
ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the
West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a holocaust in those
lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, that's even better
from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably
wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the war
would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who
has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
Tamim Ansary
--
www.algo.be
Logo programming : www.algo.be/logo.html
I find it hard to believe that the US would intentionally bomb civilian
targets even if they thought Bin Laden may be within. The points that you
raised are good ones but I don't think that the US government is oblivious
to the type of regime and people that they are dealing with.
The US government is well aware that it must choose its moves very
carefully. An all out air force strike would only make the US seem more
rash and irresponsible. That is an image that the US cannot afford to
portray. The US needs a world wide coalition to obtain its objectives.
Even mainstream governments would find it hard to side with a country that
makes a suffering people suffer even more.
I think the pundits are refering to being able to stomach American
causualties more so than Afgan causualties. I don't think that the air
force will be utilized to anywhere near the extent that they were used
during the gulf war. First of all it would be ineffectual and second it
would only tarnish the image of the US and thus make a world coalition more
difficult. Ground troops will be the major American force and that means
Afgan civilian casualties should be kept to a minimum. It would not only be
the most effective method but would also prove to be the most humane way for
the US to obtain Bin Laden and his network.
Because ground troops are really the only option, I think that any military
action against Afganistan would be short lived. American ground troops are
woefully underprepared. First of all they let anyone into the army and that
means you simply get people who are not qualified for any other line of
work. Instead of a training ground for its best and finest, the US army has
been nothing more then a dumping ground for the unemployed for decades.
This means that the troops it has are undisiplined, lazy and generally
untrustable. Is that the kind of people that they want to send to a war
zone?
The US does have a handful of highly qualified troops but not nearly enough
to obtain the US's objectives. The US seems to only have been spending
money on increasing the technology in its military and as such only the air
force and marines can be classified as being a formidable force. With its
two most powerful (an effective) divisions being redered useless, the US
will be hard pressed to put together a ground assault.
The troops moral will quickly fade and home support for the war will fade
with it. The troops will be sent home and will not have accomplished
anything. In short any military action against Afganistan will only be a
waste of time, money and life.