Would your opinion on Bush would've been different if......

[Strike For The South]

Does it really matter?

No matter who sits in the oval office, the yoke around the yeomans neck grows tighter every year.

All good things, I suppose

[Papewaio]

If 9/11 happened but all the resources were thrown into Afghanistan then Bush would have had far more international support and post presidency good will (which translates into $$$ on the speaking circuit).

It might even be possible that Afghanistan might be on its way to being the next Nepal rather then the next Syria, Somalia or Iraq.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If 9/11 happened but all the resources were thrown into Afghanistan then Bush would have had far more intentional support and post presidency good will (which translates into $$$ on the speaking circuit).

It might even be possible that Afghanistan might be on its way to being the next Nepal rather then the next Syria, Somalia or Iraq.

Possible, but still long odds. Shifting it to a Nepal would have required a decades-long occupation and transition to self-governance.

[Papewaio]

Possible, but still long odds. Shifting it to a Nepal would have required a decades-long occupation and transition to self-governance.

Agreed that's why I said possibly on its way to

[Pannonian]

If 9/11 happened but all the resources were thrown into Afghanistan then Bush would have had far more intentional support and post presidency good will (which translates into $$$ on the speaking circuit).

It might even be possible that Afghanistan might be on its way to being the next Nepal rather then the next Syria, Somalia or Iraq.

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

I think that that was exactly the Bush43 admin goal, but the chap they'd decided to back in the local follow-up to a punitive strike got sui-whacked.

[Pannonian]

I think that that was exactly the Bush43 admin goal, but the chap they'd decided to back in the local follow-up to a punitive strike got sui-whacked.

Chop sui.

[Papewaio]

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

If you read your Kipling you will understand how little control Britain had over Afghanistan. If Bush and Co had looked at history they might have approached Afghanistan in a different manner.

[Kralizec]

My preference at the time, having accepted that the US needed to take action to demonstrate that it wasn't to be sniped at without consequence, was for a big noise punitive-style strike, followed by leasing out the war to reasonably friendly local agents. If another OBL-type figure arose as a result, it would be unfortunate, but you can't entirely control these things, and shifting funding to another faction would effectively take care of this. Britain never completely had Afghanistan under its control during the Great Game, and I don't see any other foreign power ever doing so either. The USSR probably had the best chance, and we know what happened there.

I thought that invading and occupying Afghanistan was entirely justified at the time, and I still do.

I can understand the reasons behind your suggestion, but experience with Somalia suggests that abandoning a country to anarchy and extremism isn't really in the interest of the region or even the wider world.

The USSR wouldn't have lost Afghanistan if they were the only player in the court, and neither would the Taliban have taken over the country if they hadn't been been supported by Pakistan. If Afghanistan is a "graveyard of empires" or some sort of incurable backwater, then it's largely due to neighbouring countries pissing in the soup and not because of Afghanistan itself.

[Pannonian]

I thought that invading and occupying Afghanistan was entirely justified at the time, and I still do.

I can understand the reasons behind your suggestion, but experience with Somalia suggests that abandoning a country to anarchy and extremism isn't really in the interest of the region or even the wider world.

The USSR wouldn't have lost Afghanistan if they were the only player in the court, and neither would the Taliban have taken over the country if they hadn't been been supported by Pakistan. If Afghanistan is a "graveyard of empires" or some sort of incurable backwater, then it's largely due to neighbouring countries pissing in the soup and not because of Afghanistan itself.

Somalia is important because it's beside an important sea lane. If it were in the middle of Africa, it wouldn't matter a jot what its people do with their spare time. Afghanistan is in the middle of nowhere, only important to people who care what happens in central Asia (I don't). If your suggestion is that Afghanistan is concludable were it not for meddling outside powers, note who that meddling outside power is. Pakistan is a nuclear state and thus immune to conclusive military action.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, I feel the US had it's chance at coming out of Afghanistan unscathed if we had simply gotten OBL at Tora Bora. His escape turned the military incursion into an occupation. It was all downhill from there.