Western involvement in Afghanistan

huzzah!!!

hiptastic has made it to saturate this thread

well done

that would mean a bonus for you surely?

hiptastic would tell you that there was no war, hence no problem with trillions of dollars disappearing down the memory hole.

 

from who?

 

You seem to be "saturating" this thread with your usual theory you run this site and know who should be talking to who and who should not be talking to who...and basically who should be talking. You don't have any real right to do that do you?
The not to strange thing is, it seems you spout off when you don't really have much to add to what has been said.

 

Odon

To repeat –

The question is why Iraq?

The supposed reason for action in the Middle East was 9/11

So why Iraq – it had nothing to do with 9/11 - in fact al-queada hated Saddam.

And Saddam was penned in by fly zones and sanctions and was being less brutal than at other times in his life.

And many independent experts didn’t think he had WMD’s (and they were right) or the capacity to make them.

So why Iraq?

Well there had been one think tank lobbying very hard for just such action – the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century (you could call it a fixation with them).

And as I’ve pointed out a lot of influential people who had associations with PNAC were in the Bush Admin.

Coincidence?

Maybe but I don’t believe so.

*

Basically they had to do something about Afghanistan but they always intended to do Iraq.

That’s why Afghanistan didn’t get the attention it deserved, it was an inconvenient war, one that was not wanted or intended, unlike Iraq which was wanted and was intended.

So Afghanistan wasn’t staved of resources because of Iraq, Iraq was always going to get the resources and Afghanistan wasn’t. Maybe if things had gone the way the neo-con’s believed (quick war in Iraq imposing of pro-US government and withdrawal into US bases) they would then have properly resourced Afghanistan (however they may have been more interested in Iran by then). Anyway things didn’t go that way so that never happen, and the damage was done.

 

Mad

The US goes to war with Afghanistan in October 2001 because it had been attacked and calls on NATO for help.

As such they became responsible for that countries well being.

This was a major task and would need a great deal of time and attention along with a wide range of resources of men, money and equipment.

But before the job had even really begun US’s attention was shifting to Iraq.

So why Iraq?


It had nothing to do with 9/11

Saddam wasn’t an immediate threat.

So why start another war and occupation?

Why undertake another major task that would also need a great deal of time and attention along with a wide range of resources of both men and equipment?

 

I didn't wish to comment on Iraq in a thread about Afghanistan, but, ok, fair enough...

"The supposed reason for action in the Middle East was 9/11"
This isn't entirely true.
I'm positive you appreciate Iraq was about WMD/UN Resolutions.
I'm positive you appreciate Afghanistan was about 911/Al-Quaeda training grounds/Crushing safe havens.
To charaterise it was just about 9/11 is being slightly disingenuous.

What did those "independent experts" base their opinion on?

We all know now the inteligence was faulty.
But it did boil down to the WMD and breaking UN resolutions.
So "why Iraq" for all the stated reasons given at the time.
If you have another theory, do share.
I don't have any other theories.

Moving onto Afghanistan:
I did comment about your comments about that, but didn't comment much (only to thank you for your thoughts)...as all that seemed new was:
"Iraq imposing of pro-US government and withdrawal into US bases"

Isn't there a "pro-US government" (to be more precise: A Pro-western government.) in Afghanistan?
The goal does seem to be for "western" troops to ultimately retreat to their bases, and leave the security upto the particular countries indigenous military.
That mission is effectively accomplished in Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/15/iraq-us-troops-withdrawal

 

odon

So your argument is that the two things were completely separate, two totally different and unconnected wars?

The thing is that both seem to have had a connection under the banner of The War on Terror.

And I wasn’t the only one to notice that the Bush Admin often “juxtaposed references to the 9/11 terror attacks to those of Saddam Hussein, thereby helping to create the false impression that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/581

Also try

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...2143&jid=PPS&volumeId=3&issueId=03&aid=332142

Do you think the Bush Admin would have got the support to invade Iraq if 9/11 hadn’t happened?

*

I agree the Bush Admin gave reasons are you claiming you accepted them without question?

*

The evidence for Saddam’s WMD’s never seemed that concrete and definitely didn’t seem a good enough excuse for the war I mean even Colin Powells UN show and tell was a bit lacklustre and didn’t persuade enough people in it to get a second resolution.

I mean the Inspectors who’d actually been on the ground in Iraq had found nothing they visited some 700 sites and found nought but a few empty chemical munitions. That was known at the time.

Like many I looked at both sides and thought the pro-war argument weaker and suspect. As it turned out our suspicions were right and a lot of the supposedly concrete evidence turned out to be dodgy at best and of course no WMD’s were ever found.

I suppose it comes down to how much you’ll accept without question what politicians tell you.

*

But the thing about Iraq in relation to Afghanistan was that many in the Bush Admin had been pushing for action well before 9/11 and the whole War on Terror they just used the opportunity to do something they already wanted.

And that’s why Afghanistan didn’t get the attention it deserved, it was an inconvenient war, one that was not wanted or intended, unlike Iraq which was wanted and was intended.

So Afghanistan wasn’t staved of resources because of Iraq, Iraq was always going to get the resources and Afghanistan wasn’t. Maybe if things had gone the way the neo-con’s believed (quick war in Iraq imposing of pro-US government and withdrawal into US bases) they would then have properly resourced Afghanistan (however they may have been more interested in Iran by then). Anyway things didn’t go that way so that never happen, and the damage was done.

 

I would always prefer a pro-Afghan government in Afghanistan

A government that worked in the best interests of the Afghan citizens.

The problem is that they have a pro-western government that is corrupt and pampers to brutal warlords.

 

see balbus

you are talking to a brick wall

matthew aka odon doesn't even know if he has ever been on holiday or wants to go on holiday, what would make youthink that any intelligible answer would be forth coming?

the middle east seems to be his area of expertise yet he has never been there.

you could more or less throw "hiptastic" and the other crew into the same catagory.

remember, all they have to do is keep talking and keep posting anything and fairly soon only their opinion will be present - which is the objective. on googling the subject it seems that this type of attack on the net is quite common.

 

Western involvement in Afghanistan ????

Why is it "We" always forget about the UK & Coalition Forces ?

I remember Operation Enduring Freedom to be a joint operation between the US UK and Afghanistan.

 

Iraq was more of a joint exercise between America and Britain, Afghanistan is basically a full NATO operation.

 

International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan

WiKi Link

 

NATO didn't take over military operations until 2006
Operation Enduring Freedom
excerpt,
It should be noted that Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan, which is a joint U.S., UK and Afghan operation, is separate from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is an operation of NATO nations including the USA and UK. The two operations run in parallel, and although it has been intended that they merge for some time, this has not yet happened.

excerpt,
Since January 2006, the NATO International Security Assistance Force undertook combat duties from Operation Enduring Freedom in southern Afghanistan, the NATO force chiefly made up of British, Canadian and Dutch forces (and some smaller contributions from Denmark, Romania and Estonia and air support from Norway as well as air and artillery support from the U.S.) (see the article Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2006). The United States military also conducts military operations separate from NATO as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in other parts of Afghanistan, in areas such as Kandahar, Bagram, and Kabul (including Camp Eggers and Camp Phoenix.)

 

This is such a head in the clouds comment - "I would prefer perfect justice everywhere". You look at whatever flaws exist in Afghanistan and say "You see I would have done things differently, I would have made everything all nice".

Thanks for letting us know how things look from your ivory tower.

 

As far as I am concerned, yes.
When I read/heard about the rationale it was after the fact.
I really didn't make up my mind till after the fact.
It was about 2005 when I became interested in these issues.
I really wasn't that interested prior to 2005.
I have mentioned this point before.

Did you really notice, balbus? truthfully and honestly, did you?
It feels very much like a stock answer.
I've heard that particular line many times, I even think it was being said in 2003, too.
I dunno, maybe you sat through too many repeats of the news or something.
I personally wouldn't have known why Saddam Hussein would want to help carry out 9/11, so wouldn't have thought any connection was likely.
If you were glued to your TV listening to every utterance GWB made, fair enough.

Hand on heart, I wouldn't know if GWB juxtaposed rock with roll, let alone if he juxtaposed Saddam Hussein with 9/11.
My mind didn't work like that.
I was totaslly switched off.
If GWB didn't say: "Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9/11," then I wouldn't be seeking out him saying that.
I've never been mesmerised, that much, by a politicians.
I make my own mind up rather than listen to one politician.

Probably not.

I questioned them for a while.

Fair enough. I totally respect you if you gathered your own evidence and made your own mind up.
Clearly we can to two totally different opinions.

True enough.

True enough.

Like I said: I questioned them for a while.

We've been through this and you just have not provided enough evidence to convince me.

Totally. It's still good news if they are "pro west".

Totally.

Really?

I've given you multiple opportunities to find out about my personal life.
Why should I answer your specific questions?
Even when I do you ignore what I say.

I've never been there, no.
Answer me this: "Is there multiple opinions scattered around, one person disagree with another...and some people are unwilling to listen to others"?
I have no Idea where I can do that with out leaving my home.

 

error

 

Odon

I wasn’t the only one to notice that the Bush Admin often “juxtaposed references to the 9/11 terror attacks to those of Saddam Hussein.

Yes, you see I was actually interested in what was going on at the time and of course I was moderator here and involved daily in discussions on the issues.

*

I agree the Bush Admin gave reasons are you claiming you accepted them without question?

I’m confused I mean how could you, since you claim that you weren’t interested in any of it prior to 2005. Are you saying you accepted them at the time but only started questioning later?

So what conclusions did you come to?

*

Maybe it would help if you told be what evidence you think I’ve presented.

*
The problem is that they have a pro-western government that is corrupt and pampers to brutal warlords.

Oh have you an alternative view?
*

 

Ok, but what does that have to do with what I said?

We were talking about Afghanistan NOT Iraq.

 

Note to self: *don't post when tired*

This is what I meant to post:
The second operation is the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which was established by the UN Security Council at the end of December 2001 to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas. NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003.

Fair enough. I hope you appreciate where my scepticism came from, though.

Most of what has been said is archived.
I was looking at the issue retrospectively.
It was better, actually, as I wasn't being swayed by constant soundbites and I wasn't so maniputed by the media.
I came at the issue at my own pace and it was in the cold light of day.

Like I said: "Fair enough. I totally respect you if you gathered your own evidence and made your own mind up."

That it was right to invade Iraq and Afgahnistan.
I'd hoped I'd made that clear by now.

I'd read through this thread again.
I won't quote everything you have said as it is presented rather well and in context within this thread.
I'll just say: The neo-con aspect is what I find hard to swallow...as that aspect wasn't so well articulated, imho.

I don't know. I don't know your POV.

 

US and UK forces conduct military operations separate from NATO/ISAF.

McChrystal takes control of special forces in Afghanistan

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_14682869#ixzz0iSoCGYIA

note the date of the article.
​