Was anyone here opposed to Afganistan???
 

I was wondering if anyone here was opposed to the actions taken in Afganistan, and if you could indulge me as to why. I'll concede that Iraq is shaky at best (that's another beat dead horse thread unto itself), but I am wondering if the would be pacifists have anything to say about Afganistan. I'm not really interested in any political rhetoric, just a question to spark some discussion, board has been spread pretty thin lately, hopefully this will spark some intelligent discussion.

As for myself, I don't know how one could've opposed any military action in Afganistan, I mean holy crap even France thought we were justified. I think we should've reamed through the country side until we had Omar and OBL's heads on sticks. I think it is a bloody shame that our attention has shifted, granted that Iraq requires a strong military presence, but I think as a country we are in more danger with OBL out and about then if Saddam is stuck to moving every 2 hours.

I agree with you. Going into Afghanistan was, well, necessary. And the post-war situation seems to have gone better there, too. I don't think there's much violence going on, and I just was skimming through some news artciles, and it seems that they are getting a constitution (which means a government) underway.

I am definately of the beleif that Bush handled Afghanistan properly, but Iraq (very) poorly.


Added: actually, I'm gonna extend this a little further. What is the real diffenece between the situation in Iraq vs. the situation in Afghanistan? In terms that explain why there's so much more violence going on in Iraq, I mean. I really don't have an answer, but my initial impression is that it's a result of how Bush handled the situation. But any insight into the matter would be appreciated.

The military action itself seemed necessary. But it seems as if the post-war work leaves things to be desired. It will get easy for Al-Quaida to get around in Afghanistan now, since the regime is busy growing poppies.

The heroin from those poppies will probably not reach the US, though, since you get yours from Colombia and Mexico.

The initial phase of the operation was "War on Terror".
Now, we've entered the "War for Drugs"-phase.

And a drug-dealing regime consisting of different warlords will hardly care what Bin Laden is doing, as long as he leaves them alone.

Way I hear it things are rough. People in the Pushtan region (both Pakistan/Afganistan) hate America and love the taliban. Pakistan has very little control over this hardline Islamic area. As far as Afganistan goes it's a joke sadly. The Country is basically a 12th century mud hut stuck in the 20th century neighborhood. They still buy big in the Warlord system, thus the President has very little control outside of Kabul.

The millitary action was some sort of OK, I would have prefered a more precise attempt to capture ALKaida and OBL but OK (more special Forces to capture AlKaida Leaders than bombing the land to shreds). Oh and a mojor fault was in my opinion the use of the "northern alliance", a bunch of fanatics.

Post-War Afganistan is a mess, only Kabul and some other areas a some sort of safe. Those fanatic Warlord rule too much of the rest, the DrugLords also have too much power and the coalition forces are unable to do anything against them. (See the region around Kundus for example, the US was there now the german army moves it, but noone, not the US and certainly not germany, will do anything against the local DrugLords (in kundus that is Fahim Khan the minister of defence, who has his own, private, army))

I'm sure there were quite a few people against it just as there are people consistently against military action of any kind. Afghanistan was/is a difficult situation. There is little prospect to rebuilding a nation with few natural resources, low skill levels, and no unified government. Drugs are a major export and there's no way the US government could change that.

A tangential question would be, for those that were for the action in Afghanistan and criticizing the current situation (alleged abandonment and failure to capture OBL) what would they have done differently?

What really bugs me is that people that were against attacking the Taliban do not have an alternative plan. Close friends of mine that were against action in Afganistan only response was "their has to be a better solution". without offering one.

I think you have to part of the problem or part of the solution.

No, that war made Afghanistan everything it is today, a well-functioning, peaceful democracy. There are noe terror there anymore, and all the evil men in the country have been killed. Luckily, we managed to capture Osama Bin Laden as well. The best part is, Aganistand haven't been forgotten like many feared. Money keep flowing into the country, and hopefully these investements will soon pay off when the democratic republic of Afghanistan gets it's economy rolling.
Oh wai

Per my post above, what is it you would have done differently in Afghanistan to avoid the criticisms you now level?

I forgot why we attacked those guys at all. Can someone remind me what the original purpose of the entire attack was?

Afghanistan is worse of shape now than pre-war.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/9.html

You remember that little incident that happened a little over two years ago, 9/11? Yeah well the Taliban was the group that harbored Osama and his cronies. I hope you weren't serious in asking that question.

I was semi-serious, I just don't understand what the war in Afghanistan did to prevent terror at all. Osama even got away. It seems we just went in, bombed the remnains of civilization in Afghanistan after the war with the Soviets, then pulled out and forgot about the whole country.

Edit: I know what excuse we used for bombing them, I just don't see what we have gained from doing so.

Afghanistan sent a valuable message to those states who would sponsor and provide refuge for terrorists: unless you have a formidable militery force or have nukes or are america, dealing with terrorists is unacceptable.
Other than that i don't really see what we have accomplished there. We haven't really put a dent in terrorism because it seems to still be occuring all over the world. No osama, no crippling of al quaeda.

While the U.S. may have rushed into the attack on Afganistan, I believe it was the correct action. The U.S. had been attacked and the Taliban government of Afganistan was harboring the leaders of the group that carried out the attacks. The purpose of the U.S. action was clear, retribution for the 9/11 attacks and destruction of the command center for the al-Qaida network. An added bonus was the removal of the Taiban government.

The problem is that the Bush administration rushed into the action before a comprehensive strategy could be developed (something that seems to be a pattern). They also were so eager to turn their attention on Iraq that they failed to complete the mission and commit the resources needed to stablize Afganistan and give it a chance to come out of the Taliban years and the U.S. invasion a better, stronger nation.

So, yes I was/am for the attack on Afganistan. I disapprove of the manner in which the U.S. carried out the war and the continuing post-war.

I believe action was needed, HOWERER going in guns blazing doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
To give you an idea of my thought pattern......
If Osama was hiding out in Texas, backed by the local terrorist cell, would it still be OK to bomb the hell out of the cities trying to kill him?

Prosequence thats weak, I mean seriously. What other alternatibes were there? Sanction a government that had legitimate standing with 2 other countries? A country that had about as much economic infrastructure as it did in the 12th century? And I wouldn't call it going in guns blazing either, we had a pretty small force in there, and we waited nearly two months for action. And your Osama hiding in Texas is a moot example, It wasn't one cell of people that was protecting him, it was an entire regime or "country" that still protects him to this day.

Which part of Texas are we talkin' about?

How do you know how much damage to Al Quaeda was done?

I guess I'm still suspicious of the evidence leading to the attack on Afganistan. I think a team of snipers would have much better chance of eliminating key leaders than blowing up the country side and towns "hoping" that they got one.

I think, as a rule, we try to avoid suicide missions as much as possible.

suicide versus murder .... yet another interesting thread

Interesting that the only alternatives presented are waiting to plan more and sending in sniper teams. Snipers and planning were done. Afghanistan wasn't rushed or doesn't anyone recall the praise that Bush got after 9/11 for not just going out and bombing the hell out of places immediately?

No one has presented any alternatives to how the effort was conducted.

Personally, I had no problem with the lead-up to Afghanistan.

I did have a problem with the transfer of our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq before we were even done in Afghanistan. Wolfowitz, Cheney and other have already talked publicly about how they wanted to use 9/11 to attack Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They succeeded in talking Bush into their plan.

What would I have done differently? I would have stayed in Afghanistan worked on building up a relationship with the Afghan people, and began serious reconstruction efforts. Afghanistan will continue to be a source of terrorism until the warlord system is dismantled, and that will only happen with the development of education, jobs, and resources in the area.

Rather than attack Iraq on our own, I would have reached out and built up a coalition, slowly, with UN approval, to go in and remove Saddam. Had Bush & Company not been total dicks to the rest of the world, this would have been possible. Then, rather than dealing with a half-finished job in Afghanistan and a quagmire in Iraq, we would have been dealing with an improving situation and a new ally in resource-rich Afghanistan, and a coalition-led war in Iraq. Iraq would be mostly peaceful, much like the British-run regions are peaceful there today.

As a bonus, the USA would have tens of billions more free dollars to reduce the deficit or improve the economy.

My .02 :)

Maybe we should have offered them some candy and asked them politely to be nice.

Actually I think that most of us agree that the invasion of Afganistan was the correct action. What some of us are concerned with, was the lack of a comprehensive plan to deal with Afganistan and al-Qaida. Just because our mainstream media outlets are not paying much attention to Afganistan does not mean everything there is great. The place is in shambles. Admittedly I believe that they are better off without the Taliban in charge, but the country is still a very dangerous place. Afganistan had the potential to be the first step in a successful war on terrorism, followed by a comprehensive and funded Homeland Security program that would decrease the likelihood of domestic terror. Unfortunately, this administration decided to turn their attention, forces and money on Iraq and neglected to complete their mission in Afganistan. Yes we are still there, but with a greater presence perhaps we could have gotten Afganistan more settled before we pulled the bulk of our resources out. Just my opinion.

So, you want alternative plans? OK depends on which style you like i show you two. First we have to define ourr goals, what do we want to achieve in Afghanistan? The primary goals are:

Capture OBL
Capture the leaders of the AlKaida
Destroy teerrorist infrastructure (camps etc.)

Bonuns mission:
liberate Afghanistan.

Plan one (smart style):
Get some Special Forces into Afghanistan to locate AlKaida Camps, OBL etc. Then try to capure these guy and use guided weapons to destroy the Camps.

advantages:
- no or very little civilian casulties, therefore you dont have to answer the question why killing thousands of afghan civilians is OK.
- the chances to get OBL or at least verify his death are higher

advantages:
- long mission
- possible more american deaths
- bonus mission missed

Plan Two (brutal style):

Bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, than go in with groundforces and liberate the land, establish a UN Goverment and try to convert Afghanistan into a democracy

advantages:
- quick complete control over the land, no or very little chances for AKaida to escape
- no need for local (Northern alliance) troops.
- better chances to establish a stable goverment
- better chances to have a long term success
- the announcement effect for other goverments is good since it shows the we are willing to put some effort to "democratise" a nation

disadvantages:
- more coalition deaths
- guerillia warfare after the invasion (like iraq now)
- the convertion into a democracy would take time and money
- high numer of civilian death, raising the question if "an eye for an eye" or better "a civillian for civillian" is a valid strategy in global policy


And now the Plan that was actually used (dumb style):

Bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, then use local extremists to "liberate" the land. Establish a weak local Puppet-Goverment and try to convert Afghanistan into a democracy

advantages:
- very little american/coalition deaths

disadvantages:
- local troops are corrupt and somewhat AlKaida-freindly making it very easy for AlKaida to buy their way out.
- the goverment is weak, means that it has no influence over the land. most parts are ruled be local troops
- chances for the goverment to survive long enough are low
- high numer of civilian death, raising the question if "an eye for an eye" or better "a civillian for civillian" is a valid strategy in global policy
- the announcement effect for other goverments is not very good since it shows no real effort to build a goverment that will last long enough
- this plan shows that "revenge" is higher ranked than "help"


So the fact that something was done is not bad, I agree that something had to be done to fight AlKaida. But what was done is, in my opinion, the worst thing that could be done. None of our mission are completed. noone knows where OBL is, or what the status of AlKaid is. They could be destroyed, but it is also very possible that they moved out of Afghanistan and formed multiple smaller "terror cells". Tis would make the future figh against AlKaida very difficult

HR, I disagree with some points, of course, but thank you for a well thought out response and not a knee jerk "we rushed into it" excuse that so many others seem to use. As far as Afghanistan goes, I agree we should still have more of a presence there. The major problem with redeveloping the country is that there is little in the way of a base to work from. Decades of war have destroyed infrastructure, educational systems, social orders, etc. It would take 20 years for us to get it into shape to stand on its own and only if we could find something other than drugs for them to market.

As far as attacking Iraq on our own, again I disagree but respect your point of view. There is no way we could have garnered UN support with France and Germany pushing their agendas. Not only did they stand to lose the money owed to them by Iraq, they are in collusion to dominate the EU and were/are using the Iraq issue to undermine US and British influence in the region.

Even if we could have garnered said support, the US would still bear the brunt of the costs and warmaking.

I agree that we have pulled the plug too soon, but what more could we do to get Afghanistan "up to speed" so to speak. Natural resources, infrastructure, the persistence of drug dealing, etc make it almost impossible to rehab in any short time frame.

Pieces of all of your plans were used. But again, there is no easy way to rehab Afghanistan. The UN will not commit resources for as long as it will take to accomplish the democratization of Afghanistan and there are quite a few doubts about whether their culture would accept democracy.

There are also a couple of goals you missed in the invasion of Afghanistan. One being to strike back against the terror network in the short term and make them focus their energies on evasion. The second was as an example to governments who support terrorism that they will pay a price for that support. The last thing most dictators want is to lose power as they spent most of their lives trying to attain it.

Yeah, but that are pint you think about before you invade a nation to build a democracy. The Afghan culture is nothing new.

That is one big flaw in the US stategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, they seem to think that it would be easy to walk in an build up a democracy. Afghanistan is now nearly left alone and the violence in Iraq is still rising. People generally refer to Germany and Japan as an example for successful democratic nations, but they forget that both, german and japanese, cultures were different from the culture in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seem that also the Bush administration failed to see the difference and the consequences before the invasions

So i googled and actually, i was wrong. The u.s. did cripple al quaeda, but delivered no deathblow. They are apparently regrouping and now reside in georgia where they are training with the atlanta falcons. OBL will start next sunday for an injured micheal vick.;)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/W...eda030520.html

I don't recall anyone in the Bush administration saying this would be easy or quick. Nor do I think that Muslims are incapable of living in a democracy, which is what everyone is implying if not saying.

If I remember correctly the President gave the Taliban an ample three week period to turn over Osama. The response was everything from a "we don't know where he is" to "f*#@ you". I feel there was full justification.

I am puzzled why he hasnt been captured or killed. It seems to me if there was 100% intention on that goal it would have been completed.

Since when were we commiting to rebuild Afghanistan and build a democracy? In Iraq that's a goal but I don't believe that was a stated goal. Remove Taliban from power and disrupt Al Quaeda yes, rebuild the nation, no.

The US did realize that the UN wouldn't commit to it as the UN has rarely committed to any task that large. In Japan and Germany it went beyond culture as well. Prior to WWII there was considerable levels of infrastructure, education, resources, etc that could be built upon. That's completely lacking in Afghanistan and that was my main point. There is little if anything to work with to quickly revitalize the nation.

Iraq is a different story. Very educated people, advanced technologically, and oil resources to tap into to grow the economy and produce jobs. Overall, a solid base to work from.

This is really the crux of the problem. I am not an expert on "nation-building" so deliniating specifics is probably a waste of time. However, many of the things we are currently trying to do to improve Iraq should have been attempted in Afganistan. The reality is that Afganistan allowed the training and development of the actual terrorists who attacked our county. The country and its Taliban regime posed a specific, quantified threat to the U.S. and Europe. As most everyone has noted, the country is not secure and in time it is certainly possible that the Taliban or those like them will return to power. If we, in conjuction with the U.N.(the only institution that has had any success with nation-building) were to focus resources and manpower towards restoring Afganistan, I think we all would be better off. We could have allowed the Iraqi arms inspections to continue, while continuing to try to win international support for action against Iraq. If once Afganistan was more stable, Iraq was still a threat, we could have led and international force into Iraq and begun the process of invasion and rebuilding again. Hopefully with the support of the U.N. or at least a multinational coallition. Now, understand that this is not my ideal situation. I am generally opposed to the U.S. invading other nations, but if we are going to do so, we should do it right - well planned out, with overwhelming force and with an exit strategy. By the way, that is the Powell Doctrine from when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Afghanistan was only a supporting player. The warlord structure, remote regions, difficult terrain, many avenues of escape, etc made it a good place to bed down. Removal of the Taliban was symbolic at best, giving notice to other states that supporting terrorists (either directly or by default) will have consequences. The base of the militant Islamic movement is in the Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, et al area. Turning Iraq into a sovereign state with a government that represents all its citizens will put pressure on the surrounding governments to be more representative and less class dominated. Giving these classes a voice and hope for the future will shrink the pool from which the OBLs can recruit.