News Is it just Britain and America in Afghanistan?

[maverick_starstrider]

It is a conspiracy theory.

I have to say I'm extremely surprised to see that perspective (aren't you australian?). I was under the impression that every international leader asked to partake in this escapade (including blair, despite making comments of the exact same nature later) had made comments to similar effect (that America wants its foothold in the middle east at our expense).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have to say I'm extremely surprised to see that perspective (aren't you australian?). I was under the impression that every international leader asked to partake in this escapade (including blair, despite making comments of the exact same nature later) had made comments to similar effect (that America wants its foothold in the middle east at our expense).

From what I remember the world communty was rather well behind the Afghanistan invasion, at least at first. To say that it was planned as a precursor to get into Iraq is definitely a conspiracy theory. Of course not all conspiracy theories are absolutely nutty but to really get into a discussion of this one would require discussing a related topic which is on the no no list since it has already been discussed to death.

 

[Proton Soup]

From what I remember the world communty was rather well behind the Afghanistan invasion, at least at first. To say that it was planned as a precursor to get into Iraq is definitely a conspiracy theory. Of course not all conspiracy theories are absolutely nutty but to really get into a discussion of this one would require discussing a related topic which is on the no no list since it has already been discussed to death.

why we went there seems pretty obvious: retaliation, chasing down al qaeda for 9/11.

what isn't so obvious is why we're still there.

 

[russ_watters]

what isn't so obvious is why we're still there.

It should be:

1. Once you're in it is tough to get out.
2. Al Qaeda is regrouping (may just be part of #1).

 

[russ_watters]

I have to say I'm extremely surprised to see that perspective (aren't you australian?). I was under the impression that every international leader asked to partake in this escapade (including blair, despite making comments of the exact same nature later) had made comments to similar effect (that America wants its foothold in the middle east at our expense).

Why don't you try googling for their actual statements and see if you can find support for your allegations - it just seems to me that you're pulling this stuff straight out of the air. Or are you reading it on conspiracy theory websites?

You're also mixing and matching and moving around your claims, trying to morph them into something they didn't start out as. Don't think you can fool us: your posts stay up for people to go back and read. Ie, in post 33, you said

Suggesting that the war in Afghanistan was a disguised precursor to the war in iraq...

which is much different from what you said earlier, in post 29 (and while still wrong, not quite as out in la la land):

If you want to grab a valuable commodity while trying to divert public opinion by manufacturing an enemy go for it. [referring specifically to Afghanistan]

That we went after Afghanistan as a precursor for Iraq is wrong. That we went after Afghanistan in a Machiavellian land-grab is just plain nuts.

 

[Proton Soup]

It should be:

1. Once you're in it is tough to get out.
2. Al Qaeda is regrouping (may just be part of #1).

what you're saying is that our efforts are ineffective.

 

[russ_watters]

what you're saying is that our efforts are ineffective.

Not 100% effective, but also not 100% ineffective. Say, 90% effective. Enough that we've been safe from Al Qaeda in the US for the past 8 years, but not enough to completely eliminate them.

 

[russ_watters]

I always though it was assumed that by supplying group X with arms to overthrow the invading regime that you were promising them the country.

Wasn't our country to give them! They have to do the work themselves.

Do you really not find anything remotely Faustian about that (or perhaps Mephisophelian)?

Not even a little bit.

And why would we ever think STATED motives would be remotely truthful? Every action taken by every politician is motivated by something other then what they say it was. That's the essence of politics.

It is not in Bin Laden's interest to lie about that/leave that out (that we left him out to dry). Speaking and acting in their best interests - that is the essence of politicians.

In any case, what you are saying is that you choose not to believe what people say and instead are just going to pull your beliefs out of the air. I can't help you with that, but that's a refusal to deal with reality. You're living in a dream world of your own creation, pulling thoughts and ideas out of the air and believing them for no other reason than that they sound good to you in your head. They are not connected to reality. They aren't even logical and self-consistent, such as the above.

 

[russ_watters]

Jumping in on just this one: Bin Laden was there, but he very probably never had any help from the CIA since as a foreign Arab he was not in the loop, and they simply ticked off the locals. The CIA has consistently denied ever giving aid to BL in Afghanistan, and there's no real evidence to the contrary.

Fair enough - whether the CIA helped Bin Laden directly (apparently not) or just helped the cause he was associated with (apparently) isn't something that matters much to me, though. Conspiracy theorists like the idea because of the direct connection, but they lie about what the connection means anyway, so what's the difference? In other words, even if the CIA had directly supplied Bin Laden with weapons to fight the soviets, so what? It still wouldn't have been wrong - it still wouldn't have been a reason for Bin Laden to turn on us and become a terrorist.

But yeah, if you can show that the connection never happened, then I guess it is easier to show that we didn't create Bin Laden the terrorist (not that they'd even accept that logic anyway).

 

[Proton Soup]

Not 100% effective, but also not 100% ineffective. Say, 90% effective. Enough that we've been safe from Al Qaeda in the US for the past 8 years, but not enough to completely eliminate them.

well, i don't see progress. it seems to be status quo. which, given the differences in capabilities seems like a total failure for the stated objective.

 

[russ_watters]

From what I remember the world communty was rather well behind the Afghanistan invasion...

It really is disturbingly straighforward. It is clearly documented by the UN and just about everyone in the UN put their stamp of approval on it:

In late 2001, the Security Council authorized the United States to overthrow the Taliban government, as an offensive against the terrorist al-Qaeda organization, said to be based in the country.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...-the-security-council-agenda/afghanistan.html

Actual resolutions: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm

So there both parts are in black and white:
1. Our reason for going was to oust the terrorist supporting government and destroy the terrorist organization.
2. Strong international support for exactly that mission.

You can read more about the many UN resolutions regarding Afghanistan here:
http://www.un.org/ga/62/plenary/afghanistan/bkg.shtml
(start with 57/113)

And in particular, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Assistance_Mission_in_Afghanistan

Also, from the get-go, we started forming the government of the liberated Afghanistan (December, 2001 - before the invasion even started!) using prominent Afghans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonn_Agreement_(Afghanistan )

But, of course, this could all just be moot if you assume everything you see that doesn't agree with your opinion is a lie.

 

[russ_watters]

well, i don't see progress. it seems to be status quo. which, given the differences in capabilities seems like a total failure for the stated objective.

Could you explain what you mean a little more? What status quo? What stated objective? The status quo that existed in September of 2001? The stated objective of overthrowing the Taliban? Does the Taliban still run the country? Does Al Qaeda still operate openly in the country? Has Al Qaeda made as many attacks on US soil since 2001 as it did before 2002?

Those are some pretty obvious successes/progress and obvious achievement of stated objectives.

 

[Astronuc]

I have to say I'm extremely surprised to see that perspective (aren't you australian?).

My nationality and my residence are irrelevant in this matter.

I was under the impression that every international leader asked to partake in this escapade (including blair, despite making comments of the exact same nature later) had made comments to similar effect (that America wants its foothold in the middle east at our expense).

Such statements are purely political, overly simplistic and simply not true.

The main issues in Afghanistan are regional stability and global security, with the former affect the latter.

The US is involved, and has been for two decades, because NATO and the UN lack the resources and resolve. Afghanistan is a left-over conflict from the Cold War phase of the Great Game. Iraq is a burdensome addition that.

Here is one perspective - Obama’s Vietnam
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650/page/1
The analogy isn't exact. But the war in Afghanistan is starting to look disturbingly familiar.

Another perspective - A Turnaround Strategy
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182651
We're better at creating enemies in Afghanistan than friends. Here's how to fix that—and the war, too.

President Obama announced his plan to send an additional 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan late this March, in terms of continuing the fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens United States, our friends and our allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you. And to achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq.
. . . .

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/11/conservative_historian_andrew_bacevich_warns_against


If progress is being made in Afghanistan, it is coming and will come slowly. Unfortunately, it is a rather precarious situation for the US, and the US and industrialized nations cannot afford to lose.

A short term goal is to defeat the Taliban and al Qaida, and at the moment that's iffy.

The long term goal is to succeed in establishing Afghanistan as a stable nation/state, which can provide peace, security and prosperity for the people of Afghanistan, and a state that can develop stable and secure relationships with neighboring states thus fostering trade and economic development.

Then there is the parallel matter of Pakistan and its stability and its contentious relationship with India, particularly with respect to Kashmir, another unresolved issue from the past.