Afghanistan: Was the west wrong?

[Brennus]

Hello everyone!

Now I understand this thread is likely to become contentious rather quickly and may be subject to those with fairly strong political views.

Since 2001 numerous nations have been involved in the war in Afghanistan. It is the ivolvement and history of involvement in Aghanistan of three countries I wish to discuss: The USA, UK and Pakistan. During the 1980s all three countries (along with others) supported the Mujahadeen against the USSR and the Soviet supported Afghan government. I wish to ask whether or not the price paid by these nations in attempting to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda since 2001 is poetic justice for a short sighted Cold War operation or whether the involvement of these nations in Afghanistan's 1980s politics would have made little difference to the future of a nation which has proven historically to be unstable and unpredictable.

DISCLAIMER: I understand this is likely to be a sensitive subject for some people and I do not post this subject to offend or cause undue provocation, I simply wish to hear peoples' opinions. I would like to ask all who post to respect the political and national sentiments of others and not let this thread descend to personal attacks. Thank you.

[Lazy O]

I blame Zia ul Haq.

[Brandy Blue]

I can't say I know alot about it, but the Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1989, and 9/11 happened in 2001. It would be asking rather a lot to expect the west's leaders to anticipate such a threat that far in advance. However, I think its probably true that most of America's leaders don't understand Islam much and should probably make more effort to learn about it.

[snorky]

I can't say I know alot about it, but the Soviet war in Afghanistan ended in 1989, and 9/11 happened in 2001. It would be asking rather a lot to expect the west's leaders to anticipate such a threat that far in advance. However, I think its probably true that most of America's leaders don't understand Islam much and should probably make more effort to learn about it.

Well neither do the followers of Al Qaeda I bet, otherwise they would not let themselves be used as pawns in other people's games.

As the to the thread's stated question I do believe the west was wrong, not because of particular circumstances in this conflict but because of a wider stance I have regarding war.

I believe that in any situation open war between nations should be avoided at ALMOST any cost. This including the suffering of civilians, because any conflict is only likely to increase this suffering. The instigators of such conflicts often baffle me with their childish presentation of war as a struggle between good and bad. As I see it in war there are only winners and losers. Winners most often are politicians and businessmen and losers innocent civilians.

To name an example where conflict was avoided for a price but to the eventual benefit of a larger group, during WW2 Sweden managed to remain to a degree neutral. They were heavily criticized for this but their stance saved it's people an unspeakable amount of suffering compared to nations who been occupied. I don't know the full price of this neutrality, but I believe Germany was allowed to transport men and equipment through Sweden which caused Norway a great amount suffering if I'm not mistaken. However the benefit was that the Swedish people were spared most this tragedy and were thus able to recover from the post WW2 economic dip far sooner then a country like the Netherlands.

The Netherlands had remained neutral during WW1 and no doubt had to make some questionable political maneuvers to achieve this, but the result was that in contrast with our southern neighbors we hardly remember the history of WW1 at all. WW2 however has left deep scares in the Netherlands that are visible to this day, and had we managed to remain neutral as in WW1 those scares might have been avoided. The cost or even possibility of such an action is another discussion but notheless I remain convinced that neutrality is preferable over war regardless of ALMOST any cost (not every cost)

To illustrate a situation where practically everyone would agree to the opposite, an attack that was justified in public opinion. Namely the allied invasion of Europe to defeat Nazi Germany. But had for instance had Russia not returned to strike at Germany then an allied invasion would no doubt have been doomed to fail and would instead only cause a prolonged conflict, achieving nothing but the increase of suffering in occupied nations, beside the loss of countless lives among soldiers. This would make the lesser of two evils neutrality, despite human suffering. Luckily of course the allies weren't forced to make this choice.

Back to thread's subject. The main argument I have often heard for the invasion of Afghanistan as well as Iraq is that the people are better of without the tyrannical rule of Al Qaeda and Saddam,
and the main argument against that people are not better of because things are worse then ever before, whatever the truth I'm surprised nobody has taken the unfolding of recent events in the region consideration as to speculate what might have happened had America not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Because exactly such dictatorship are falling all across the Arabic world not by the force of foreign troops but by the strength of civilian effort. However assuming a similar revolution would have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq , it's civilians would have had to suffer for another ten years, however such is the price of neutrality and I believe it is a price that in this instance should have been paid.

[Brennus]

It would be asking rather a lot to expect the west's leaders to anticipate such a threat that far in advance.

That's a very valid point, I suppose you could drawer parallels between the effects of the 7 Years War and the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War using similar logic.

I suppose Afghanistan stands as a stark warning to the dangers of the great international game of chess.

[xxrulerofswedenxx]

they just killed al lot of terrorist butt also innocent people :drama3: maybe like this ? :smg::campfire::hmg::charge::army:~:confused::horn: see that they killed the people:tnt: the place and :hide: there fault's

[PanzerJaeger]

I wish to ask whether or not the price paid by these nations in attempting to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda since 2001 is poetic justice for a short sighted Cold War operation

The oft-repeated narrative of America shortsightedly supporting the Mujahedeen against the Soviets only to have them, upon seizing power, butcher their own people and open the nation to al Qaeda as the staging ground for the September 11, 2001 attacks is false. It makes for a compelling story, but the not an accurate one.

The Taliban were/are not the vaunted soviet-era Mujahedeen. There is no direct line from the Mujahedeen factions supported during the Soviet occupation to the Taliban. While Mullah Omar did fight against the Soviets, he was merely a levy of a minor warlord and was certainly not a power player on any scale. He returned home to southern Afghanistan after the conflict and got into the madrassa movement.

The actual factions supported by the West against the Soviets ended up battling each other for control of Afghanistan during the Afghan Civil War. They were eventually defeated by Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Defense Minister under Rabbini. While that was going on, Omar was building a small faction based in the madrassas and nominally in response to the lawlessness of the Kandahar region. His soldiers came almost exclusively from those madrassas located on both sides of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was actually a student movement from a younger generation, not an extension of the Mujahedeen, 'Taliban' meaning 'students' in Pashto. Massoud was well on his way to defeating them too, but at some point Omar won over the ISI and the rest is history.

Some also claim that the West should not have 'abandoned' Afghanistan as it fell into chaos and Civil War, a notion popularized by 'Charlie Wilson's War'. This, too, betrays the reality of what was going on in Afghanistan. The preferable leader (from a Western perspective), Massoud, was winning and gradually leading the nation towards unity, democracy, and the rule of law without the interference of Western powers. The Civil War was seen as a regrettable but necessary element in building a stable power structure to fill the void left by the Soviet puppet government. The warlords only understood force of arms, and Massoud would have been in a much better position to lead the various factions after he had decisively and independently beaten them.

The rise of the Taliban was unexpected and remarkably fast. They first emerged in 1994 and wrested control of most of the country in 1996, and during most of that time they were actually losing to Massoud's forces. The '96 summer campaign that took Kabul was a brilliant coup for the ISI. It is a bit of a stretch to claim that Western powers a) should have anticipated the threat they posed to Mossoud's control and b) could have acted in any significant way to stop them even if they had been paying close attention to the region. Oh, and of course the most disingenuous claim of all - that they somehow should have foreseen that events in the backwater that is Afghanistan in the mid-90s would have led to 9/11.