Sir, - A recurring theme among Irish commentators has been that the United States did not bother to negotiate before resorting to armed force in an attempt to resolve its issues with Afghanistan. This has less to do with arrogance on the part of the US than a track record of prevarication on the part of the Taliban.
For a period of nine months prior to the destruction of the World Trade Centre the de facto government of Afghanistan had been subjected to UN sanctions imposed after it failed to comply with a Security Council demand to hand Mr Bin Laden over to a third party for trial.
During this period the Taliban had a number of options. Apart from complying with the UN resolution they could have fudged the issue by handing him over to a court that would respect a "political motivation" defence, or simply allowed him to leave.
Instead they mouthed spurious excuses about Bin Laden being a "guest" while he and his associates appear to have been plotting mass murder.
The Taliban's claim that he could not have been responsible because he was being held incommunicado looks a little weak in the light of a series of videotaped statements reaching the outside world.
Nine months of UN sanctions have had no effect whatsoever on the de facto government of Afghanistan. This is the same government that is currently attempting to levy taxes on incoming food aid. It clearly has no concern for the welfare of its own people and is immune to non-violent forms of persuasion. It is inevitable that diplomacy will have to be continued by other means. Based on the track record of the previous nine months, every day that an armed resolution of the situation was postponed would be a day on which Bin Laden Ltd could plot more mayhem.
If you were the president of the US, would you negotiate in such circumstances? - Yours, etc.,
David Rolfe, Walnut Creek, California, USA.