Is it just Britain and America in Afghanistan?

[Office_Shredder]

Suggesting that the war in Afghanistan was a disguised precursor to the war in iraq which could potentially be a precursor to further mucking about in the middle east is a conspiracy theory? And to suggest that this sequence of wars was motivated by oil? You may not agree with that summation but a conspiracy theory? Really?

I'm willing to believe the Bush administration saw an opportunity to invade Iraq after Afghanistan. But you're suggesting the reason they attacked Afghanistan is for oil. And there's plenty of reason to believe otherwise.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm willing to believe the Bush administration saw an opportunity to invade Iraq after Afghanistan.

I think it's just a fashion thing.
Every empire reaches a stage where it decides to invade Afghanistan to either stop them being a nuisance to their neighbors or to deny access to their neighbors.
Historically neither reason has had a great deal of success.

 

[russ_watters]

Taliban killing troops is not terrorism, it is just war.

That's true, but I think you're missing the point: the troops are there to fight to stop the terrorism - to take the fight away from western civilians and turn it into a regular war between the troops and the terrorists.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think there's plenty of reason to believe that afghanistan is central to the west maintaining some stake in the control of oil and gas from the caspian region. consider that just recently you've got Russia asserting rights to hypothetical North Pole crude, cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine in the middle of the winter, and giving the Georgians a bloody nose. not exactly the sort of people you want to be depending on.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's true, but I think you're missing the point: the troops are there to fight to stop the terrorism - to take the fight away from western civilians and turn it into a regular war between the troops and the terrorists.

how do i know we haven't killed all the terrorists involved in say 9/11 ? taking the war to them sounds good, but it's really little more than a slogan, like 'fighting communism'. we burned the vietnamese alive for years for... for what exactly?

 

[russ_watters]

Suggesting that the war in Afghanistan was a disguised precursor to the war in iraq which could potentially be a precursor to further mucking about in the middle east is a conspiracy theory?

Well, that's not what you said in that post, but yeah, that is too.

And to suggest that this sequence of wars was motivated by oil? You may not agree with that summation but a conspiracy theory? Really?

Yep.

evidently I'm not alone in my "gibberish"

I know the CIA helped bin Laden in the 80s. That's not what I was referring to...

It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels with the bay of pigs.

I wouldn't have thought so either, but here we are! I guess I'll have to diagram it out for you:

If some cuban exhile at the bay of pigs...

Ok, so "cuban exile" = bin Laden. Bin Laden isn't an Afghan exile, he's a Saudi exile living in Afghanistan and he was defending a country that wasn't his. So that's a messy start right there. And that'll matter more later...

feels cheated by the U.S...

Bin Laden didn't feel cheated by the US - or, at least, he doesn't use it as a stated motive. If you disagree, by all means post some substantiation of that claim of yours.

...and decides to off a major politician...

Well, the key politicians behind the Bay of Pigs and the Afghan assistance of the 1980s are dead, so it would certainly be an unreasonable thing to do - as would be terrorism resulting from the 1980s Afghan war. Unless the terrorism was directed at the Russians, maybe...

is it Cuba's fault?

No, it wouldn't be Cuba's fault. Similarly, it isn't Saudia Arabia's fault that Bin Laden is a terrorist! It is Afghanistan's fault that Bin Laden based his terrorism there because they were a willing partner in the development of his organization.

Further, the Bay of Pigs was an unsuccessful attempt by Cuban exiles in the US to overthrow the Cuban government. The 1980s Afghan war was a successful attempt by Afghan fighters and fighters from other countries (bin Laden) to cast out an invasion. Not only is bin Laden not Afghani so he has no personal stake in the development of the country (he was there to kill godless Russians), but we helped him and he won! We didn't hang him out to dry as you suggested, we helped him win!

So yeah, that's a tangled mess you wove there. It isn't completely your fault, though - a lot of it is Bin Laden's fault for being such a nut. He's the one who set up the scenario you are trying to find a parallel for.

 

[russ_watters]

Bin Laden didn't feel cheated by the US - or, at least, he doesn't use it as a stated motive. If you disagree, by all means post some substantiation of that claim of yours.

Bah, no need for that. The wiki link you provided provides a direct contradiction to your assertion:

In conversation with former British Defence Secretary Michael Portillo, two-time Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto said Osama bin Laden was initially pro-American.[8] Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, has also stated that bin Laden appreciated the United States help in Afghanistan. On CNN's Larry King program he said:[9]

Bandar bin Sultan: This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

Larry King: How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

Bandar bin Sultan: Right.

Note also that that doesn't say that the US directly aided Bin Laden, just the cause.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Bah, no need for that. The wiki link you provided provides a direct contradiction to your assertion: Note also that that doesn't say that the US directly aided Bin Laden, just the cause.

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. Of course that didn't happen, after the Soviets left america just abandoned afghanistan to 4 years of civil war between separate factions all of which they'd previously supplied/trained.

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

 

[maverick_starstrider]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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. Of course that didn't happen, after the Soviets left america just abandoned afghanistan to 4 years of civil war between separate factions all of which they'd previously supplied/trained.

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

So the US should have occupied Afghanistan and told them how to run their affairs and government in place of the Soviets? If they failed to form and run a cohesive working government, how is that the fault of the US?

 

[mheslep]

Some friend!

He needs to spend the time, money and resources to look at wikipedia's article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan" (as of two days ago) …

Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country
USA: 667*
UK: 185
Canada: 124*
Germany: 38
France: 28
Denmark: 26
Spain: 25
Netherlands: 19
...

TOTAL: 1,184

Couple comments here:
-Interestingly, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/06/how-to-think-about-mexico-and/" with the third most casualties of its citizens as soldiers in Iraq is Mexico, by way of the US Military (similarly I suspect the same is true of Afghanistan)
-The information I have on the deaths of the courageous Canadian troops is troubling. I'm told that some time ago the Canadian government made decisions that essentially converted its military into a police force in terms of equipment and training. US officials were consequently worried that, our neighbours to the North were being set up to get mauled badly in Afghanistan. It appears to have played out that way since, by way of comparison, the UK has had roughly five times more troops there with only slightly more killed. My information is anecdotal so feel free to dismiss.

 

[mheslep]

Yep. I know the CIA helped bin Laden in the 80s.

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 (the Arabs) 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.

 

[jtbell]

The public's stomach for accepting casualties in war is a lot lower than it used to be.

And the government doesn't have the stomach to call us out for full-scale war like it used to. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the U.S. had a massive mobilization, re-orientation of industrial production, and rationing of gasoline and other things for civilian use, and the war was over less than four years later. When Al-Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, the President told us to keep on shopping, then sent us to war in Iraq in the meantime, and we're still in Afghanistan eight years later.

 

[Proton Soup]

Couple comments here:
-Interestingly, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/06/how-to-think-about-mexico-and/" with the third most casualties of its citizens as soldiers in Iraq is Mexico, by way of the US Army (similarly I suspect the same is true of Afghanistan)

serving in the US Army is a path to citizenship. with nice bennies like VA hospitals and such.

 

[Astronuc]

Suggesting that the war in Afghanistan was a disguised precursor to the war in iraq which could potentially be a precursor to further mucking about in the middle east is a conspiracy theory? And to suggest that this sequence of wars was motivated by oil? You may not agree with that summation but a conspiracy theory? Really?

It is a conspiracy theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden evidently I'm not alone in my "gibberish". It doesn't take a genius to see the parallels with the bay of pigs.

They are allegations - with little or no substance.

The current invasion of Afghanistan is unfinished business left over from the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (December 27, 1979 – February 15, 1989). Britain is involved as a ally of the US and through NATO.

For background, please refer to Operation Cyclone, which began under Jimmy Carter and was expanded by Ronald Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

The problem with Afghanistan is that the US prematurely withdrew from Afghanistan leaving behind heavily armed mujahedin and warlords, who started going at each other for control of the country. Pakistan (via ISI) became involved because Pakistan had ideas of controlling Afghanistan (primarily backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Hezb-e Islami) and using it in their struggle with India. Meanwhile, the people of Afghanistan suffered.

Note the criticism (but there is a lot more to that story)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone#Criticism

bin Laden became hostile to the US when the Saudi government allowed US and allied forces to enter and operate out of Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991). bin Laden was angry that 'infidels' were allowed to desecrate the land he considers holy, and he was angry that the Saudi government did not allow his group (al Qaida and affiliates) to fight the Iraqis in Kuwait.

Iraq is a wholly separate problem from Afghanistan/Pakistan, but common elements have evolved over that last 2 decades. The war in Iraq happened strictly because George Bush was determined to invade Iraq. Afghanistan was a side show for Bush.

The Taliban were initially welcomed as a force to stop the warlords and drug gangs. However, the Taliban are extremely reactionary and hostile to secular education, education of women, and many things of traditional Afghan culture. In addition, the Taliban became allies of al Qaida, and together both have tried to take control of Afghanistan and destabilize Pakistan, with the apparent goal of establishing a militant fundamentalist state based on their own distorted (Wahabi and Deobandi) views of Islam.

For a reasonable overview of Afghanistan over the last three decades, I recommend reading Ahmed Rashid's Descent into Chaos.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0670019704/?tag=pfamazon01-20
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...escent-into-chaos-by-ahmed-rashid-864383.html

Afghanistan does have some gas and possibly oil in the north toward Turkmenistan, but it is ideal for a pipeline from the Turkmenistan oil and gas fields, which would then go through Balochistan, Paksitan to the Indian Ocean. Afghanistan also has considerable mineral wealth stretching from the border with Balochistan up through Kandahar, Kabul and on up through Badakhshan, but Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure, development and means to exploit the mineral wealth.

 

[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. :uhh:

 

[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.