Why is the US in Afghanistan?

[Rogers]

The Taliban are assholes, but they're their assholes. They never did anything to us. There were no Afghans on the planes. They weren't looking to pick a fight with the US. They couldn't "hand over binLaden" because they never had him in custody. He wasn't engaged in criminal activity there. They said exactly what we say any time someone requests extradition: "Show us your evidence." We bombed instead.

I agree with that. What's more is the Taliban had actually brought a semblance of order to a place that had known only drug fueled wars and warlordism. What we brought back was more warlordism, and a less stable orderly situation....didn't improve anyone's rights for the most part.

Mmm, tell that to the women there...
"If this was happening to any other class of people around the world, there would be a tremendous outcry."
-Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation
http://feminist.org/afghan/facts.html

and the Afghan refugees...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_refugees

Guess we could have stood by and watched Hitler persecute the Jews, Gypsys, and Slavs (to extinction) also. And the Serbs do the same to the Bosnians. After all, those wars weren't ours were they? We did sit by and watch the Rwandan Genocide though... but then they were just poor Africans.

I would have thought that there would have been a bit more egalitarianism on show on this board, but then again, life never FAILS to surprise me.

... just like me having posted a link to a feminist website. OMFG, hahaha.

[hippifried]

The Taliban was a product of the cold war following colonialism. When Afghanistan (a creation of European colonial powers with no sense of who's who in the region) was in the Soviet camp, & women were making all those strides, The great egalitarian western powers were wringing their hands & sobbing crocodile tears about how mistreated everybody was under the thumb of the "reds". So we pooled our resources & pressed thos folks to rise up & rid themselves of the tyranny of having to think of women as anyting more than chattel. Property to be traded like a commodity. Subhuman.

Careful what you wish for.


Rwanda (another creation of European colonial powers with no sense of who's who in the region)was on the road to genocide once the social order was turned to an ethnic or genetic based heirarchy by the Germans, Belgians, & the Catholic church. Pre-colonization, the Hutus & Tutsis weren't separate tribes. It was just a social pecking order based on ownership of cattle. Whether through ignorance, hubris, or both, Europeans refused to see anything but a system of peerage royalty & reinforced it. It suited their purpose, which was to virtually enslave the populace, take control of all natural resources, & turn as much arable land as possible to the production of export cash crops.

Before the genocide, it was Hutus who were being persecuted. Those were Hutu refugee camps in the surrounding countries. The genocide was rash to be sure. Harsh beyond comprehension. But to call what happened anything other than the backlash to colonialism is a lie. Western "egalitarians" had nothing to offer but more of the same crap. Harsh as the backlash was, it shattered the peerage system. Things are still in Tutsi control, like they always have been. The difference now, as it was pre-colonialism, is that Hutu can aspire to be & become Tutsi. Cattle were the exchange medium & symbol of wealth at that time. I'm sure it's more complex & complicated today.

[Rogers]

Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:

Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.

Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.

Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.

Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.

Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.

Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.

[thx1138]

Flashback

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329]

[hippifried]

Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:

(1) Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.

(2) Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.

(3) Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.

(4) Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.

(5) Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.

(6) Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.

The past gives us perspective on the present. Let's look at your questions: (numbers put in by me)

(1) Which ones? American interests are targeted by everybody, including Americans. Muslim fundamentalists run the gamut of loving us to hating us. In general, the answer is no. Specifically, we can all cite instances of tension turned violent, & all sorts of interference with American interests prior to 9/11. But we're supposed to be in the present. Right?

(2) Not really. They got their flight training here. They took over the planes amed with nothing more than some plastic knives, a couple of razor blades, a lame story about a bomb, a whole bunch of chutzpah, & knowlege of what the flying public had been taught to do in a hijacking since D B Cooper, or even Jesse James.

(3) No, but that's what happened. Retaliate against whom? The hijackers were dead. We took a huge leap of faith when we accepted the idea that there was some Dr Evil type mastermind sitting in Afghanistan pulling the puppet strings. Personally, I'm still not convinced, & I haven't seen anything but a lot of declarations. No evidence. I whacked a sidewinder with a shovel once. Not knowing what hit it, it just started coiling & striking, rapid fire in all directions. Our reaction to 9/11 reminds me of that rattler.

(4) Yes. They said "Show us your evidence.". We turned down their request & bombed the city of Kabul. A lot of people died that had no connection at all to 9/11. Nobody knows how many because nobody ever cared. They're not American so they don't count. Besides, to hear everybody tell it, our bombs are so smart that they just kill Talibans & alQaedas. Well, a few Canadians, but they don't count either.

(5) Whew! Finally back to the present. Yes. I expect any President to be smarter than me. Smarter than to think he can keep up a bunch of false precepts & lame excuses forever to keep the perpetual war going. There's already been casualties. There's going to be more casualties regardless of whether we stay or go. Nobody knows what success in Afghanistan means. There's nobody to defeat because we don't know who the enemy is. It could be that guy walking down the street with a cell phone & briefcase, or the woman in the burqa, or the guy on the prayer rug, or the gal in the designer dress on her way to class at the university. They're back where they were when the Soviets held sway, before the late '70s collapse & the soviet invasion. Mission accomplished. Declare victory & get the hell out.

(6) Not for me to say. Not my decision to make, or anybody else's for that matter. But the assumption that the Taliban would automatically take over if we left is pretty far fetched. Was the Afghan populace disarmed while nobody was looking? The Taliban never had complete control, even while they were considered in charge. We need to get over this idea that there's some sovereign nationality of Afghans. Time for a reality check.

[tstv_lover]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

[Rogers]

Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:

(1) Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.

(2) Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.

(3) Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.

(4) Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.

(5) Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.

(6) Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.

The past gives us perspective on the present. Let's look at your questions: (numbers put in by me)

(1) Which ones? American interests are targeted by everybody, including Americans. Muslim fundamentalists run the gamut of loving us to hating us. In general, the answer is no.

Really?
1993 World Trade Center bombing (a dress-rehearsal for 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_T...C_1993_bombing
1995 Bonjika plot (another dress-rehearsal for 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka
1998 United States embassy bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
2000 USS Cole bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
January 2001 Al Qaeda identified as major threat by Clinton Administration
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html

(2) Not really.

Oh really?
Bin Laden (?) at an Al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Bin Laden and 9/11 pilots at his home in Afghanistan:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle656440.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle656541.ece

(3) No, but that's what happened. Retaliate against whom? The hijackers were dead. We took a huge leap of faith when we accepted the idea that there was some Dr Evil type mastermind sitting in Afghanistan pulling the puppet strings. Personally, I'm still not convinced, & I haven't seen anything but a lot of declarations. No evidence. I whacked a sidewinder with a shovel once. Not knowing what hit it, it just started coiling & striking, rapid fire in all directions. Our reaction to 9/11 reminds me of that rattler.

Ben Franklin (very clever man ) on the Rattlesnake as a Symbol of America
"a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America"
http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/rattlesnake.html

(4) Yes. They said "Show us your evidence.". We turned down their request & bombed the city of Kabul.

If the Taliban had one collective brain-cell between them they would have figured out very quickly that they had to let U.S. intel and ground troops find any evidence for themselves. But then what should we expect from people who ban T.V., chess, kites, and force women to be nothing more than slaves for breeding.

Saudis secretly funding Taliban (Robert Fisk, 199
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sa...n-1195453.html

(5) Yes. I expect any President to be smarter than me. Smarter than to think he can keep up a bunch of false precepts & lame excuses forever to keep the perpetual war going.

Presidents don't have to be that smart to be elected. Just look at Dumbya, he got re-elected simply because, as far as most are concerned, men in power should never look weak. Obama almost certainly thinks the same way too.

(6) Not for me to say. Not my decision to make, or anybody else's for that matter. But the assumption that the Taliban would automatically take over if we left is pretty far fetched... Time for a reality check.

Yes, it maybe is time for a reality check...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
Taliban Threat Is Said to Grow in Afghan South
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/wo.../03afghan.html
Zardari: We Underestimated Taliban Threat
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4800926.shtml
Taliban a threat to Pakistan's 'existence'
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...ery-existence/

[Rogers]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..

"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.

Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm

I.E. To support a democracy!

[tstv_lover]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..

"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.

Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm

I.E. To support a democracy!

There are plenty examples of countries which have a "strong and representative government" but are not democracies. You want an example? Oh, say China.

The reality is that Karzai has no popular mandate, is only able to travel outside Kabul under tight security, was appointed by Western countries and will disappear when the US/NATO troops leave. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just reality.

The British discovered over 100 years ago what the Russians encountered in 1980s - Afghanistan is a county of tribal leaders with fierce belief in their historic culture.

The word "democratic" is not mentioned in the ISAF mandate. Leaving the issue of democracy aside for a minute do you believe that a deal between the US and Taliban, which will result in them not supporting al-Qaeda, is both achievable and politically acceptable to the US?

[Rogers]

According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate

Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?

This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..

"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.

Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm

I.E. To support a democracy!

There are plenty examples of countries which have a "strong and representative government" but are not democracies. You want an example? Oh, say China.

The reality is that Karzai has no popular mandate, is only able to travel outside Kabul under tight security, was appointed by Western countries and will disappear when the US/NATO troops leave. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just reality.

The British discovered over 100 years ago what the Russians encountered in 1980s - Afghanistan is a county of tribal leaders with fierce belief in their historic culture.

The word "democratic" is not mentioned in the ISAF mandate. Leaving the issue of democracy aside for a minute do you believe that a deal between the US and Taliban, which will result in them not supporting al-Qaeda, is both achievable and politically acceptable to the US?

The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919

Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/

Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!

"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919

And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.

Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio...ntial_election

Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.

Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.

Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill

"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...