Afghanistan Crisis

[WhiteRoseKillie]

22 minutes ago, GordonS said:

9/11 was far from out-of-the-blue. It was the culmination of a long line of terror attacks on US and western targets, which were motivated in response to western intervention in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq... well, the entire Middle East, really. 

The invasion of Afghanistan was absolutely definitely a direct response to 9/11 and I can't take seriously anyone who claims otherwise. It wasn't just to "avenge that attack", as you put it, it was to stop Afghanistan being used as a base for international terror, which it's beyond question that it had been under the Taliban. It's pure denialism to claim otherwise. You have to take the evidence and then ignore everything that doesn't fit your pre-existing opinions to believe these things.

I wonder how many of the people who make those sorts of claims have adult memories of that time.

I don't subscribe to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Those who choose to believe in them usually do so because they think rejecting a mainstream narrative is a sign of intelligence. It's not, it's a sign of failing to weigh up evidence.

I've absolutely got adult memories of that time - and a more than a few years prior. 

What I don't have memories of is religious terrorism being a massive world-wide threat. Yep, there were groups, but their fields of operations tended to be local, and comparitively parochial. 

At the end of the seventies, the US (and Soviet) meddling began to impact on Afghanistan (brave mujihaddin) and Iran. Lebanon was a basket case, and those pesky Palestinians were making their voices heard.

Then, at the end of the eighties, the Soviet Empire collapsed. All of a sudden, the US needed a new bogey-man to keep the populace scared and therefore malleable. A politiccal identity was probably too complex for the average punter to get a grip of, but funny clothes, dark skin and going to worship on a different day were all handy ways to identify the new "other". 

Continued meddling in other countries' issues because "America, fúck yeah!" have, unsurprisingly, increased opposition to Uncle Sam and his well-armed nieces and nephews, and Islam has been used as a pretty handy flag to rally the poorly educated and suggestible around*. The effect over effectively the last quarter of the last century and all of this has been that many groups have sprung up to resist what is seen (rightlky or wrongly)as US imperialism - and, from two identified groups in 1982, to around 26/56 in 1995**, to the overwhelming majority today, Islam is the common recruiting theme. 

* In much the same way as the US flag and fetishisation of the Armed Forces is used in the USA.  And, increasingly, in the UK.

**According to Bruce Hoffman. 

[vikingTON]

1) Religious terrorism was not a "massive world-wide threat" in 2001 and isn't today either.

2) The idea that the United States only 'began to impact' Iran in the late 1970s is just wild. The legitimate democratic PM of Iran was overthrown in a 1953 coup* with the crucial support of the US and the UK as its usual tagalong. The Shah then oversaw domestic repression on an American tab until the Revolution got rid of him.

3) The Iranian Revolution was the starting point for the destabilisation of its neighbour Afghanistan (precipitating the Soviet intervention a year later) and the growth of Islamic fundamentalism among various sects in the region. Secular-leaning authorities clung too tightly to American foreign policy and failed to meet the basic needs of rapidly growing populations, which have steadily eroded their legitimacy. 

* Not to mention that Iran was also carved up into spheres of influence during WWII, with Allied forces only leaving the country under mutual suspicion at the onset of the Cold War. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by vikingTON

[coprolite]

I think that it's relatively clear that the US had some legal (possibly some moral?) justification for going to war with Afghanistan. 

It's not clear that going to war with Afghanistan would have been necessary to achieve their stated goals. It's not clear that war would have been the best way to achieve these objectives. 

There were still diplomatic solutions available but war was preferred. 

While it may have been a justifiable choice, up to a point, the fact is that the US (plus hangers on) chose to go to war. 

The US was the aggressor and this was not a defensive war, however it is presented. 

 

[scottsdad]

The US war against Afghanistan in 2001 was justified as a direct result of 9/11. People by and large were supportive also. I remember the 90s and there was occasional news of some middle Eastern group bombing the US embassies and ships. But in truth, not many here in the UK paid much attention to it. The Clinton scandal masked much of it. 

When 9/11 happened the news was saturated with information on bin Laden, AQ, the Taliban and Afghanistan. And it was felt like an international attack. The story at the time was that AQ killed more people that day than the IRA had in the 20 years previously. So Britain was a victim too. And other countries too. The original coalition of military countries was massive. And there was reasons to take out the Taliban, as Dubya put it:

Quote

"I said to the Taliban, turn them over, destroy the camps, free people you're unjustly holding. I said, you've got time to do it. But they didn't listen. They didn't respond, and now they're paying a price. They are learning that anyone who strikes America will hear from our military, and they're not going to like what they hear. In choosing their enemy, the evildoers and those who harbor them have chosen their fate."

The problem we have is that 2 years later the US and UK tried using similar justifications for invading Iraq. In the minds of many this was just not on (including me). What was seen as justification for going into Afghanistan was perverted by Dubya and Blair. The international coalition melted away. And for many the memories of the two actions became conflated into a single "war on terror" that was on shaky ground. 

[Jinky67]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Readers should note the sleight of hand that goes on here and throughout much of the Western commentary.

The Taliban did not actually attack the United States. The state of Afghanistan also did not attack the United States. 

'Dispersing the Taliban' was easy. But the US didn't actually deliver payback to the leader of Al Qaeda - whose organisation did attack the United States - for nearly a full decade, in a compound under the nose of a different government. 

It is this sort of completely muddled thinking - fed to the public over twenty years - that leads to disastrous foreign policy outcomes. 

Can you clarify what you mean by dispersing the Taliban was easy?

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Jinky67

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

That's fine, just the way things were being suggested was as if we'd just been innocently minding our own business and those crazy Afghans blew up New York. 

Ah sorry, I see the context of your question, it was the second clause that threw me.

I vividly remember sitting watching the news that night with my wife with us saying surely now the Americans will pay attention to what their government has been doing overseas, surely now they'll learn about Palestine and the Shah and arms to Iran and Iraq and support for corrupt dictators and all the rest of it. But no, they went the other way and the only thing anyone was allowed to say was "they hate our freedom."

I woke up the next morning genuinely relived that Afghanistan wasn't a big smouldering hole in the ground.

It wasn't bin Laden or mad Mullahs that radicalised some Muslims into wanting to kill us - it was western governments.

[GordonS]

2 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

Can you clarify what you mean by dispersing the Taliban was easy?

 

Good luck getting sense out of that loon.

The bits he's choosing to forget are that the Taliban happily hosted Al Qaeda and knew what they were doing, they stood by them after 9/11, they refused to put bin Laden on a plane and there was absolutely no way to Al Qaeda that didn't involve breaking their power.

If the US had found bin Laden quickly I doubt we'd be here now. How could they leave before finding him? It's not like they knew he was in Pakistan until almost a decade later.

[vikingTON]

13 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

Can you clarify what you mean by dispersing the Taliban was easy?

 

I'm quoting another poster. 

[GordonS]

26 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

The problem we have is that 2 years later the US and UK tried using similar justifications for invading Iraq. In the minds of many this was just not on (including me). What was seen as justification for going into Afghanistan was perverted by Dubya and Blair. The international coalition melted away. And for many the memories of the two actions became conflated into a single "war on terror" that was on shaky ground. 

Very, very much so. For Afghanistan it was simple to get UN resolutions and an international coalition. For Iraq they couldn't even get NATO members to participate with Canada, France and Germany objecting and Turkey refusing access to coalition forces. 

Iraq has muddied memories and thinking about Afghanistan. Iraq was the exploitation of the international situation by bad actors to achieve completely irrelevant goals. I've heard knowledgeable people say that if it hadn't been for Iraq draining soldiers, resources and attention from Afghanistan, the Taliban might have been completely destroyed and proper long-term goals achieved. No-one can know if that's true but Iraq sure as hell didn't help. 

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Good luck getting sense out of that loon.

The bits he's choosing to forget are that the Taliban happily hosted Al Qaeda and knew what they were doing, they stood by them after 9/11, they refused to put bin Laden on a plane and there was absolutely no way to Al Qaeda that didn't involve breaking their power.

If the US had found bin Laden quickly I doubt we'd be here now. How could they leave before finding him? It's not like they knew he was in Pakistan until almost a decade later.

If by 'bits you chose to forget' you mean 'unsubstantiated nonsense' then there's a pretty obvious reason why that has been discarded in the bin where it belongs.

It's also worth remembering that literally none of the above claims actually matter to you: it was all about 'the families!!11!!' of 9/11 who in your wacko world get to obliterate sovereign states. 

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

Can you clarify what you mean by dispersing the Taliban was easy?

 

The initial victory was easy, using the Northern Alliance on the ground backed by massive aerial power with hardly any western boots on the ground, and the Taliban realised that resistance was futile so they went home. Then while the West's attention switched to Iraq the Taliban was able retake most of the territory and proved much harder to shift when the West took notice again, they could choose their own battlegrounds, and when to retreat.

[GordonS]

52 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I think that it's relatively clear that the US had some legal (possibly some moral?) justification for going to war with Afghanistan. 

It's not clear that going to war with Afghanistan would have been necessary to achieve their stated goals. It's not clear that war would have been the best way to achieve these objectives. 

There were still diplomatic solutions available but war was preferred. 

While it may have been a justifiable choice, up to a point, the fact is that the US (plus hangers on) chose to go to war. 

The US was the aggressor and this was not a defensive war, however it is presented. 

 

Like what?

"If you don't hand over these mass-murdering b*****ds and shut down the training camps we're going to... expel your ambassador and stop selling you Coke!"

The hangers-on you mention includes all 15 members of the Un Security Council who demanded that the Taliban stop providing sanctuary for international terrorists.

On 7 October 2001 bin Laden said;

"I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God’s peace and blessing be upon him."

The following month the Taliban gave him Afghan citizenship.

Too many edgelords around here.

[vikingTON]

Gormless Gordon now claiming that all diplomatic options known to mankind were thoroughly exhausted by those peaceful great statesmen in, err, NATO and George W Bush's administration, in the 28 fucking days between the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of a war against Afghanistan. 

An absolute warmongering freak.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

1) Religious terrorism was not a "massive world-wide threat" in 2001 and isn't today either.

2) The idea that the United States only 'began to impact' Iran in the late 1970s is just wild. The legitimate democratic PM of Iran was overthrown in a 1953 coup* with the crucial support of the US and the UK as its usual tagalong. The Shah then oversaw domestic repression on an American tab until the Revolution got rid of him.

3) The Iranian Revolution was the starting point for the destabilisation of its neighbour Afghanistan (precipitating the Soviet intervention a year later) and the growth of Islamic fundamentalism among various sects in the region. Secular-leaning authorities clung too tightly to American foreign policy and failed to meet the basic needs of rapidly growing populations, which have steadily eroded their legitimacy. 

* Not to mention that Iran was also carved up into spheres of influence during WWII, with Allied forces only leaving the country under mutual suspicion at the onset of the Cold War. 

1. I don't think you'll find me, or anyone else on here, claiming it was, or is.

2. Again, not what was said. That whole post is based on my lived experience of the time. Including the wider (in ME terms) issues of that period. I mean, we can draw some conclusions from events throughout the Pahlavi period, or even back as far as the turn of the Twentieth Centur, but while I am getting on a bit, I wasn't actually around then.

3. Fair enough point. When minorities (as the then-government had become due to sucking the Yankee Boaby) lose the backing of their erstwhile benefactors, things rarely end well for them.

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, GordonS said:

On 7 October 2001 bin Laden said;

"I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God’s peace and blessing be upon him."

The following month the Taliban gave him Afghan citizenship.

7 October 2001 was by no coincidence the beginning of NATO coalition airstrikes on Afghan territory. By the time that the Taliban gave him citizenship "the following month", the Afghan state was already embroiled in an enormous fucking ground war, which you conveniently omitted to mention. It's almost as if conducting 'diplomacy' after you've already declared war on a sovereign state is an absolutely pointless exercise.

[coprolite]

14 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Like what?

"If you don't hand over these mass-murdering b*****ds and shut down the training camps we're going to... expel your ambassador and stop selling you Coke!"

The hangers-on you mention includes all 15 members of the Un Security Council who demanded that the Taliban stop providing sanctuary for international terrorists.

On 7 October 2001 bin Laden said;

"I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God’s peace and blessing be upon him."

The following month the Taliban gave him Afghan citizenship.

Too many edgelords around here.

All 15 members of the security council invaded Afghanistan? 

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. 

You can argue about the merits of the deal and whether it was worth taking. 

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

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. 

Not sure you know what an edgelord is. 

[scottsdad]

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Gormless Gordon now claiming that all diplomatic options known to mankind were thoroughly exhausted by those peaceful great statesmen in, err, NATO and George W Bush's administration, in the 28 fucking days between the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of a war against Afghanistan. 

An absolute warmongering freak.

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

[WhiteRoseKillie]

17 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Like what?

"If you don't hand over these mass-murdering b*****ds and shut down the training camps we're going to... expel your ambassador and stop selling you Coke!"

The hangers-on you mention includes all 15 members of the Un Security Council who demanded that the Taliban stop providing sanctuary for international terrorists.

On 7 October 2001 bin Laden said;

"I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God’s peace and blessing be upon him."

The following month the Taliban gave him Afghan citizenship.

Too many edgelords around here.

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.

[Jinky67]

28 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The initial victory was easy, using the Northern Alliance on the ground backed by massive aerial power with hardly any western boots on the ground, and the Taliban realised that resistance was futile so they went home. Then while the West's attention switched to Iraq the Taliban was able retake most of the territory and proved much harder to shift when the West took notice again, they could choose their own battlegrounds, and when to retreat.

From your personal experience of being on the ground? 

[welshbairn]

11 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

From your personal experience of being on the ground? 

Well no, I don't think the Northern Alliance would have let me join even if I'd asked. You'll obviously know better, but I don't think the major British deployment, apart from special forces, happened till 2006 by which time the Taliban had the space and time to reorganise after the rout in 2001.

Edited August 18, 2021 by welshbairn