Afghanistan Crisis

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

My memories of that time were that 28 days was a long bloody time. The pressure in the US, and from the US, for immediate action was immense. The international coalition formed very rapidly (victims came from about 80 countries). So with 20 years of hindsight 28 days may seem extremely rapid, but the mood at the time was that something needed to be done, and done right away. 

The mood among whom? The foreign policy of a military hyperpower should not get dragged along by public sentiment, so long as there are adults still in the room. 28 days is not sufficient time for a diplomatic solution to a large-scale crisis so the claim made earlier is demonstrable nonsense.

The fact that strikes began at the point means that detailed plans and the decision to mobilise forces were drawn up in even less time than that. 

[GordonS]

15 minutes ago, coprolite said:

All 15 members of the security council invaded Afghanistan? 

Why are you changing what I said and posing it as a question?

Quote

There were factions in the Taliban that wanted the foreigners (ie al Quaeda) out of Afghanistan. After 9/11 Pakistan brokered a deal for the Taliban to hand over Al Quaeda. The US didn't take the deal and invaded instead. 

Like I said before, falling for American propaganda is bad but falling for Taliban propaganda is worse.

Quote

Less than a month seems like not much diplomatic effort before starting the bombing. Maybe they tried really hard.

A month was plenty enough time for Afghanistan to put bin Laden on a plane. Or at least, y'know, try. This much is screamingly obvious and I literally cannot believe you even believe what you've typed here.

Quote

Personally i think the US wanted war for domestic optics, you know the eye for an eye stuff that the bible belt would lap up. 

Honestly, that's laughable, for so many reasons.

The biggest one is that you have to pretend 9/11 was no biggie.

Quote

Not sure you know what an edgelord is. 

Someone who takes edgy positions in the internet to look cool.

[GordonS]

12 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Now, Bin Laden was an absolute cúnt, make no mistake, but " we're going to continue to fight you until you take your armies out of countries that aren't actually yours, and while you're at it, let's stop fucking over the Palestinians" isn't the most combative statement he ever made - sounds pretty reasonable in fact, compared to some of the shi'ite* Bush, Blair and Brown spouted.

FTAOD - this in no way constitutes approval of any of Osama BL's wee schemes - merely an understanding of some views which may be expressed by those unfortunate enough to play host to US "Advisers" over the years.

*Sorry, couldn't resist.

He said he was going to keep killing American civilians. Doesn't matter what his political objectives were, that's a threat, he made it after repeated attacks against Americans, he made it from a camp in Afghanistan and the Taliban were cool with it. That's part of the reason why the invasion was justified as self defence in customary international law and in the UN Charter, and I don't know of any qualified person who argues against that. 

[GordonS]

19 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

My memories of that time were that 28 days was a long bloody time. The pressure in the US, and from the US, for immediate action was immense. The international coalition formed very rapidly (victims came from about 80 countries). So with 20 years of hindsight 28 days may seem extremely rapid, but the mood at the time was that something needed to be done, and done right away.  That 4 weeks were taken up with a massive international coalition building led by Blair and Bush. It gave their attack international credibility (which the later Iraq invasion never had).

The only upside to 9/11 was this

Yep, a month was far more than enough time.

I only see virginton's posts when others reply to him. If you're not being insulted by him you're not saying anything worth saying. He's one of the principle reasons why lots of folk avoid that coronavirus thread. 

[vikingTON]

Gormless Gordon must have lived a past life in Austria-Hungary's Chancellery in the summer of 1914, with this insistence that i) states are fully responsible for atrocities committed by terrorist groups and ii) foreign governments should be given no time whatsoever to resolve their domestic policy, prior to the 'diplomatic solution' elapsing and war being declared.

Fun fact: the Austrian ultimatum of 1914 is now understood to have been a sham pretext for war all along and it ended even worse for them than it did for the US. 

Fun fact 2: The Austrians actually let 30 days pass before declaring war, so the US beat even them to the punch.

Edited August 18, 2021 by vikingTON

[scottsdad]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

The mood among whom? The foreign policy of a military hyperpower should not get dragged along by public sentiment, so long as there are adults still in the room. 28 days is not sufficient time for a diplomatic solution to a large-scale crisis so the claim made earlier is demonstrable nonsense.

The fact that strikes began at the point means that detailed plans and the decision to mobilise forces were drawn up in even less time than that. 

With the US, all sides wanted action right away. Republicans, Democrats, the public. People signed up for the armed services in their droves in the days following 9/11. But the response went much beyond this. 

The US grounded all air travel over their skies. 2 of my colleagues were in the US that day (one actually in Manhattan and slept through the whole thing). There was genuine worry that 9/11 was the first of a series of attacks. So the US was both defensive and offensive all at once. And the UK, to a lesser degree, was the same. Every day on the news, a new British victim named.

In the UK, Blair signed up right away with broad public support. I remember Iain Duncan Smith's press conference from outside Downing Street after he met Blair. His words were that the UK and US should be shoulder to shoulder so much so that no light could be seen between them (or some such bollocks; he was never a good public speaker). 

As for a diplomatic solution...many in the US saw 9/11 like Pearl Harbour. It was an act of war declared on the US. It was just a case of taking the new war to their enemy. In this case though the enemy was not a nation state but rather a disparate group sheltered and supported by a nation state, Afghanistan. If they had handed over Bin Laden, what would the US have done? We'll never know. 

[coprolite]

4 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Why are you changing what I said and posing it as a question?

Like I said before, falling for American propaganda is bad but falling for Taliban propaganda is worse.

A month was plenty enough time for Afghanistan to put bin Laden on a plane. Or at least, y'know, try. This much is screamingly obvious and I literally cannot believe you even believe what you've typed here.

Honestly, that's laughable, for so many reasons.

The biggest one is that you have to pretend 9/11 was no biggie.

Someone who takes edgy positions in the internet to look cool.

I didn't change what you said. 

I like that some guys on horseback with a couple of 4x4s and some victorian rifles could have overcome in a month a guerilla force that the US military machine took years to overcome. 

It's almost like you don't appreciate the nature and distribution of power in the country.  

I've said that America was justified in going to war, just that i think they were over keen for the wrong reasons. If you think that's an edgy position then you are very sheltered. 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

With the US, all sides wanted action right away. Republicans, Democrats, the public. People signed up for the armed services in their droves in the days following 9/11. But the response went much beyond this. 

The US grounded all air travel over their skies. 2 of my colleagues were in the US that day (one actually in Manhattan and slept through the whole thing). There was genuine worry that 9/11 was the first of a series of attacks. So the US was both defensive and offensive all at once. And the UK, to a lesser degree, was the same. Every day on the news, a new British victim named.

In the UK, Blair signed up right away with broad public support. I remember Iain Duncan Smith's press conference from outside Downing Street after he met Blair. His words were that the UK and US should be shoulder to shoulder so much so that no light could be seen between them (or some such bollocks; he was never a good public speaker). 

As for a diplomatic solution...many in the US saw 9/11 like Pearl Harbour. It was an act of war declared on the US. It was just a case of taking the new war to their enemy. In this case though the enemy was not a nation state but rather a disparate group sheltered and supported by a nation state, Afghanistan. If they had handed over Bin Laden, what would the US have done? We'll never know. 

For a while I thought nukes might be on the cards. It was about vengeance far more than any coherent strategy. 

[vikingTON]

Just now, scottsdad said:

With the US, all sides wanted action right away. Republicans, Democrats, the public. People signed up for the armed services in their droves in the days following 9/11. But the response went much beyond this. 

The US grounded all air travel over their skies. 2 of my colleagues were in the US that day (one actually in Manhattan and slept through the whole thing). There was genuine worry that 9/11 was the first of a series of attacks. So the US was both defensive and offensive all at once. And the UK, to a lesser degree, was the same. Every day on the news, a new British victim named.

In the UK, Blair signed up right away with broad public support. I remember Iain Duncan Smith's press conference from outside Downing Street after he met Blair. His words were that the UK and US should be shoulder to shoulder so much so that no light could be seen between them (or some such bollocks; he was never a good public speaker). 

As for a diplomatic solution...many in the US saw 9/11 like Pearl Harbour. It was an act of war declared on the US. It was just a case of taking the new war to their enemy. In this case though the enemy was not a nation state but rather a disparate group sheltered and supported by a nation state, Afghanistan. If they had handed over Bin Laden, what would the US have done? We'll never know. 

None of this is actually relevant to the rational foreign policy of a hyperpower. A demand for action did not actually require declaring war on a sovereign state in the pursuit of regime change. It did not require constructing a mission with unlimited and completely unrealistic goals such as the 'War on Terror'.

The US could have lobbed cruise missiles at suspected AQ targets across Asia and the Sahel for weeks on end and its government packaged this as legitimate payback, while exerting a genuine diplomatic effort to remove AQ from Afghanistan. Instead it presented an ultimatum and rolled all the way to Kabul, which was disastrous folly. 

[AMMjag]

19 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

Going to out myself a little here which i wouldn't normally do

 

25 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

From your personal experience of being on the ground? 

Well that meek and mild pretense fell away (predictably) quickly. 

 

[Detournement]

Did you know any of these lads Jinky?

[scottsdad]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

None of this is actually relevant to the rational foreign policy of a hyperpower. A demand for action did not actually require declaring war on a sovereign state in the pursuit of regime change. It did not require constructing a mission with unlimited and completely unrealistic goals such as the 'War on Terror'.

The US could have lobbed cruise missiles at suspected AQ targets across Asia and the Sahel for weeks on end and its government packaged this as legitimate payback, while exerting a genuine diplomatic effort to remove AQ from Afghanistan. Instead it presented an ultimatum and rolled all the way to Kabul, which was disastrous folly. 

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps none of it was required or needed. But the political reality of the time was that, as soon as the towers were hit, war was on. 

Mission creep was the trouble with Bush. Yes, he could have taken out the camps (and indeed, he did) and left it at that. But he went after the Taliban, then Saddam and, if those two had gone smoothly and quickly, would probably have gone after North Korea as well. 

There was no appetite for a "genuine diplomatic effort". It was war. Blood was demanded. 

[Detournement]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

None of this is actually relevant to the rational foreign policy of a hyperpower. A demand for action did not actually require declaring war on a sovereign state in the pursuit of regime change. It did not require constructing a mission with unlimited and completely unrealistic goals such as the 'War on Terror'.

The US could have lobbed cruise missiles at suspected AQ targets across Asia and the Sahel for weeks on end and its government packaged this as legitimate payback, while exerting a genuine diplomatic effort to remove AQ from Afghanistan. Instead it presented an ultimatum and rolled all the way to Kabul, which was disastrous folly. 

They needed to establish a permanent war. They were successful in doing so and eventually Obama converted Neocon policy into state ideology. 

The is the Project For A New American Century fulfilled.

 

[Ad Lib]

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

So, only impose Western Values on countries too weak to stand up for themselves, then?

Insisting that the Afghan state doesn't sanction the forced marriage, rape, stoning and beheading of women and girls (and others) isn't "imposing Western values" and it's incredibly fucking racist for you to imply that the values of people not from the West are somehow innately presdisposed to that. You are in effect pretending that there are no Muslim majority countries or nations where these things are wrong and condemned.

The values of the Taliban are out of step not just with substantial parts of the Western world, but also most of the societies elsewhere on the planet in the second half of the 20th, let alone in the 21st, century.

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

OK to rape and dehumanise any blokes they disagree with, then? 

No of course not. The way the Taliban treats LGBT people, for example, is every bit as despicable as the way it treats women.

Thank you for helping to identify yet another group that has benefited tremendously from not being governed (in Kabul and other provincial capitals) by the Taliban for 20 years.

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

You've unwittingly nailed it there. Yes, it did happen for Kabul. For the rest of Afghanistan, not so much. But then, the oil/gas and rebuilding contracts were all being signed in Kabul, and the window-dressing was concentrated in the major population centres, so who, really, gave the slightest fúck what was going on elsewhere in the country?

The NATO nations have overwhelmingly spent more money and shed more of their own soldiers' blood fighting and supporting the Afghan army than they could ever hope to have made in energy contracts and reconstruction.

I agree with you that NATO for the most part was unsuccessful in helping those outside Kabul and a handful of other provincial capitals.

But for years they also haven't been in those parts of Afghanistan. So they're not really "withdrawing" from there are they?

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

1,. I know you want to turn this into a numbers game, but I'm just going to say that almost fifty thousand civilian deaths and millions of refugess created aren't exactly figures the US and NATO should be proud of. 

Good thing no one is suggesting this then, is it? Except of course most of those refugees are seeking refuge... because we withdrew.

And many of those deaths were at the hands of the Taliban or were themselves civilian supporters of the Taliban who oppressed women and girls.

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

2. That, with all due respect, is appalingly racist.

It is not racist to call the Taliban theocratic savages.

They are. They forcibly marry, rape, stone and behead women and girls, deny them the vote, deny them positions of political power, force them to wear certain clothes and more. All in the name of a barbaric legal system founded upon a religious code conceived a millennium or so ago.

It would be like us imposing the letter of Leviticus.

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

3. Nope, "we" are there because we can't help following the Yanks in any intervention they ask. The Yanks, in turn, have made more than a few quid, especially through rebuilding areas which they bombed back to the stone age in the first place.Then there's that oil/gas pipeline..

This is just a completely empty assertion, lacking in any factual underpinning.

But let's assume you're right, and the financial gains of the occupation outweigh the astronomical military and aid cost that has gone into it in the past 20 years. Why on earth would they pull out of Afghanistan just when those sources of revenue were starting to bear fruit? That makes absolutely no strategic sense, even selfishly.

The more plausible explanation is that the operation does not have at its heart a profit motive.

4 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

4. "Godbothering patriarchs". Firstly, you are aware that the Yanks truly believe they are favoured by God, right? The Christian God, of course. Secondly, I would really like you to put up some kinnd of defence of the credentials our PM and the lately-deposed US President have for treating women with respect. I really can't wait for this. 

The American constitution literally provides for the separation of Church and state.

Both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson treat women appallingly. That is not in dispute. By any reasonable standards, we in this country should (and I do) condemn their track records, judged against any standards.

But neither of them have, as far as I can tell, used a religious justification for forcing girls to get married when they've barely hit puberty. Neither of them has advocated or used state power to stone or behead anyone. Neither of them has tried to tell women that they cannot show their nose and mouth in public (in Boris' case, slightly disgustingly, he has done the opposite by comparing burqas to letterboxes).

Their appalling records on women's and LGBT rights are not even remotely comparable to those who throw gay people off towerblocks tied to chairs. And you know that just as well as I do.

3 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

..and live in a country that won't fight back. All very noble, wee man, but when you exclude Saudi and China from your crusade because, well, reasons, you undermine youself. 

Except I didn't say "and live in a country that won't fight back". I explained very clearly that no military intervention in Saudi Arabia or China would have any reasonable prospect of success, even in pockets of populations (as in Kabul).

You don't do things that would be demonstrably futile and counter-productive to your objectives and values. Staying in Afghanistan would be better for millions of women and girls in Kabul and other provincial capitals. There are precisely zero military intervention strategies that would improve the lives of a single person in Saudi Arabia or China.

That is not to endorse the West's accommodation of and cooperation with Saudi Arabia. Quite the opposite. It is simply a recognition that if your priorities and values are the upholding of human rights, some military interventions advance them whereas others actively hinder them.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Good thread, this.

[NotThePars]

From your personal experience of being on the ground? 

Do you say this if you ever read any modern historiography on, say, the Napoleonic Wars?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

19 minutes ago, GordonS said:

He said he was going to keep killing American civilians. Doesn't matter what his political objectives were, that's a threat, he made it after repeated attacks against Americans, he made it from a camp in Afghanistan and the Taliban were cool with it. That's part of the reason why the invasion was justified as self defence in customary international law and in the UN Charter, and I don't know of any qualified person who argues against that. 

At least the Yanks didn't kill any civilians, eh? Just terrorists - defined as such by, er, the Yanks. I dread to think how many civilians of how many nations have been killed by incompetent American actions in the last fifty years. Figures suggest about fifty thousand killed and 6 million displaced in the first US invasion (as Bill Hicks said re: Iraq, a "war" requires two more or less equal sides fighting).

To address your point about what Bin Laden said - he threatened no more than many other military ventures in history. to pick a couple of occasions from off the top of my head - Dresden and Hiroshima. Again, I'm not claiming any of this is right in any way - just pointing out that there is no way support of the actions of our Special Chums (or indeed, our lovely, colonising, civilian-killing selves) allows a space on any kind of moral high ground. 

[Ad Lib]

11 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Did you know any of these lads Jinky?

Notice that those soldiers face a court martial.

When the Taliban do it, they get given a thirteen year old trophy bride.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Ad Lib

[Granny Danger]

‘The West’ and ‘Western Values’ leave a lot to be desired at times, but anyone who thinks that these ‘values’ are inferior to what the Taliban will impose is a fucking crackpot.

And yes, if I had the power I’d impose these values on people until such times as a majority were able to run their own affairs in a way that wouldn’t mean them reverting to the brutality of the religious crackpots.  I could live with my conscience quite easily ‘imposing’ educational rights for girls and tolerance of LGBT people amongst other things.

[Detournement]

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Notice that those soldiers face a court martial.

When the Taliban do it, they get given a thirteen year old trophy bride.

That's like saying because an occasional police officer ends up in jail in the USA police violence isn't an issue. All the cases you hear about involve complete depravity, there is never any Bloody Sunday incidents with reprecussions for inappropriate lethal force. 

There are also notable cases where US and British soldiers have committed war crimes and been hailed as heroes by various politicians and the media. Chris Kyle being the highest profile example.