Was the US justified in removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?

[Don Corleone]

First, we didn't punish the entire Afghan population. The vast majority of them are happier now than they were in September of 2001. I know the women certainly are. The one argument they might make is "a little more, please sir?"

Second, it wasn't about one person. The Taliban and Al-Queda were fully cooperative in each other's mayhem. The Taliban had been providing a safe haven from which Al Queda had been launching attacks for a decade. And at the end of the day, if we hadn't taken the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and broken up all the Al Queda training camps, the next attack would have made 9/11 look small in comparison. Maybe you're forgetting that all those dirty bomb plans they found in Taliban and Al Queda offices when they cleaned the place up.

Tribesman, didn't forget you old chum. No, the Taliban's not in power anywmore. Sure, they're slowly trying to come back to life, and we've given them much more of a lease on that we should have. Your point is valid, we should finish the job and finish them off. No argument here.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The positive results of the Afghanistan war were more or less luck, and were not part of the original plan made by Bush. Like I said: deposing of the oppressive regime is a good thing, but the US army under Bush's plan had little do in this compared to the local - muslim - forces who led the ground invasion, who did the dirty job and established a new peaceful regime there. The plan as made by Bush was to score propaganda points by finding a scapegoat and killing as many as possible that could be claimed to have anything in common with the 9/11 attackers. As I explained, even that objective failed, in that bin Laden escaped. After the US bombings stopped, the muslim ground invasion, and hard work by the UN, established what we now have in Afghanistan. It would be pretty unfair for the USA to take the honor for this, since it wasn't part of the initial invasion plan and a large deal of the stablization work was carried out by third parties.

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Legio, MoveOn.Org has let you down on this one. I'm afraid you just dove into the deep end with your claim that the US Army shouldn't get the credit for taking out the Taliban.

You do get my respect for taking a position you knew was going to be unpopular and sticking to the facts (or at least your convolved interpretation of them), and not taking personal issue. I do salute you for that.

Looks like you've got plenty of other people to continue to discuss this with though. Good luck.

[ajaxfetish]

I'm perfectly happy to give most of the credit to native Afghani forces, and I think that's what it takes to enact lasting change. In my opinion, any move toward democracy must come from within or it is doomed to failure. How does this make it wrong for the US to have invaded and worked in concert with those local forces? Osama bin Laden has yet to be found, but Al Qaeda power in Afghanistan has been severely limited, and they have lost the immunity of their former homebase. This seems to me, while not complete success, a large accomplishment in terms of US objectives. I'll agree with several other posters here that more should have been and still should be invested in bringing the Afghani situation to a successful conclusion. It is unfortunate that another, more misguided venture has diverted most of both the resources and attention that could have been spent on Afghanistan, but I feel the invasion was fully justified and continues to be.

Ajax

P.S.--along with DC, I'd like to voice my respect for your willingness, Legio, to stand alone on this issue and defend a position you consider worth defending in spite of basically unanimous opposition. That is commendable. But as much as I respect your stand, I cannot respect the position you are standing for.

[Marshal Murat]

(Sounds like Antigone)

The UN and hard-work rarely are uttered in the same statement, unless there is a negative interjected in between the 2.
A combine nations force, the local Afghani's who were seeking to free themselves of the Taliban's influence.

And now, with the liberation and democratization of Afghanistan, things are looking up. It's a HUGE investment opportunity, and companies are moving in, to exploit a labor base that has often been passed over. Telecommunications companies have a new buyer group, and all in all, I think that business investment will continue.
Unless.....
The Taliban can come back and break the local Afghani forces and the NATO troops posted there. Hopefully the Taliban will be broken, Osama Bin Laden is caught, and peace enters the region. While reality interjects it's pessimistic, I'm feeling good about it.

Now to main question.
The US was justified in removing a regime who harbored acknowledged terrorists and killers. AQ is one of the groups that trained in the area, and had an anti-US mindset. You can't diplomatically solve an issue when

a.They aren't a nation
b.The nation they live in is also anti-American.

We punished those responsible for harboring terrorists and violent malicious men who punished the innocent in Kenya and in their attacks against the United States.

[CrossLOPER]

But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view. Perhaps I'm odd and not normal for thinking so? What do you think? Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by? Or maybe I should keep reasoning the way I do, since I consider it a lot more rational.

I'm not going in too far and I will just say that you have a valid point to argue...

[Tribesman]

Tribesman, didn't forget you old chum. No, the Taliban's not in power anywmore. Sure, they're slowly trying to come back to life, and we've given them much more of a lease on that we should have. Your point is valid, we should finish the job and finish them off. No argument here.

You might get an arguement from Karzai , he says the Taliban are always welcome in Afghanistan . I wonder what he said about sharing power with them ?
Hey Don you should have known it was a loaded question

Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.

Now that seems to clash with what I have read about both the nature and the timing of the responses from the Taliban .

Osama claimed responsibility. There is no question of his guilt.

CR what date was it when he claimed responsibility ?

[AntiochusIII]

I know the Don doesn't want stuff like [Iraq/future/more Iraq] to distract from the main topic, but since there are claims made here that the Afghans are really better off now I must dispute that position just a little bit.

I mean, the Taliban aren't dead; the local government is very weak; the civilians are less and less receptive to the peacekeeping/occupation forces...these aren't the signs of happy people...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The scale of the 9/11 attack, the target that was picked, and the tightness of the relationship between AQ and the Taliban meant 9/11 was nothing short of an open declaration of war. By any conventional standard there was a clear casus belli. The justification question, in terms of legality, is easy.

Not to mention, I think a good case could be made for removing the Taliban even despite AQ, even if 9/11 never took place at all.

To me, it's utterly barbaric and irrational to follow this type of thought pattern: to think it's more important to punish a guilty man than to avoid killing innocents in the process.

But it seems like so far in this thread I'm alone in this view.

Maybe I should go seek all old enemies from my life and bomb them, not minding other civilians passing by?

You are not alone in this. Disregarding everything else you wrote, the wisdom of revenging 3000 when you are sure it's going to claim a multifold of that in innocent lives is a tough question, morally. At the very least it can't simply be dismissed.

I would counter by saying that:
Firstly, the invasion was not only about avenge, but also about prevention. Secondly, that those responsible for 9/11 were not only the twenty hijackers, but a much larger organisation and their hosts. Thirdly, that those innocent Afghanis (by non-Islamist standards?) would be better off without the repressive Taliban regime. And lastly that global relations are conducted by nations, with nations being the actors in matters of war and self-defense, and that the US by international law had every right to protect their own with, within reasonable bounds, disregard of the citizens of the hostile war-declaring state.

Granted though that this fourth argument belongs to the sphere of legality, not morality. Maybe the others too.

[Husar]

I think they kind of were, yet I voted Gah!
I don't really know why but something inside me said I shouldn't vote yes...

[Tribesman]

Did the Taliban respond that they couldn't because they don't know where AQ were? No (And they did know where Al Queda itself was)

Did the Taliban respond that they wouldn't because they hadn't seen enough proof yet? (Actually, they tried this, 6 hours before the first bombs started landing) No.

Their answer? No answer. They effectively said "you are not muslims and you are not worthy of acknowledging", a great big 'go yourself'.

Now then Don.......

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in310852.shtml

[Zaknafien]

No.

The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.

The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.

I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.

[ajaxfetish]

No.

The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.

The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.

I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.

I would question whether the main solidification for terrorist ideology resulted from Afghanistan or Iraq. I suspect the increase would have been much lower if the Iraq invasion had not taken place, but I doubt there is any way to know for sure. I have two questions for you. Could the attack be considered justified, even if it ultimately ends in failure (justification isn't necessarily the same as the best response to a situation)? What would be the proper response to the Taliban-protected Al Qaeda if military invasion was not justified?

Ajax

[Zaknafien]

Afghanistan did not attack the U.S, islamic radicals did. Those are criminal actions, and all the Bush administration did by declaring 'war' on a criminal group is elevate their prestige.

Don't get me wrong, if Afghanistan had conducted the 9/11 attacks, obviously a full scale military retaliation would have been appropriate.

And yes, the attack could be justified even if ultimately it failed, I think. Good intentions and all.

I think with hindsight we can see the more appropriate response would have been to more robustly pursue the law enforcement aspect and bank accounts, funding, etc of the Al Qaeda network. (first of all, Al-Qaeda is misunderstood by most americans and does not really exist as a group, its merely a name given to many many groups and idealists by the government so people can "name" their enemy.)

[Tribesman]

Oh well , I finally voted .
No it was not justified , the justification used was that the Taliban refused to comply with the demands placed on it .
There was no way they could comply with the demands .
Impossible demands negate the justification .
Sad , but it is the only possible answer .

[Pannonian]

No.

The military response for a criminal terrorist action has only served to solidify terrorist ideology around the world, elevate Al Qaeda and its assosciated groups to the same level of the US Military, essentially making them a legitimate group as opposed to treating them as a criminal organization as they should be.

The United States and Allies' involvement in Afghanistan has done very little to improve the way of life of the thousands of Afghans, many hundreds of whom have been killed directly or indirectly because of Coalition actions in the area. As soon as Allied forces withdraw the Taliban will return to power, period.

I have served two tours in Afghanistan, so I base this analysis off first-hand knowledge.

Wisdom and justification are two different things. It might not have been wise to deal with Afghanistan as we did, in the context of Afghanistan, but it was most certainly justified. After 9/11, America wanted blood, and Afghanistan was the justest place where they could get it. My thinking at the time was that, if the US didn't take out its anger on Afghanistan, it could very well escalate the whole thing elsewhere, most likely Iraq. So I supported any war effort made in that direction, and wanted Blair to try and keep the Americans' minds in that direction, lest they should look elsewhere for trouble. Alas, that didn't work, but it doesn't make the Afghan cause any less valid.

As for solidifying the terrorist cause and not improving the lives of Afghan civilians - the Afghan war was a war of revenge, simple as that. After 9/11, the US was entitled to reciprocal action against the country that harboured their attackers. A cool-minded statesman might have reasoned that war wouldn't be the best way of pursuing US goals, but the political reality was that the American people wanted blood, and giving them the Afghans was the least bad option available. IIRC what I suggested at the time was that there should be a short but impressive demostration of power to satisfy the American people, then switch to other methods to make the most of the political capital the US had at that point. Why does the President of the US have less common sense than this amateur newswatcher?

[ajaxfetish]

I agree that the American people, including me, were out for blood after September 11, and that the Afghan war was at least in part an act of revenge, but I do not agree that that is enough to justify it. (perhaps enough to make it inevitable, but not to justify) Justification, I think, takes a little more, namely considering the war an act of defense against an aggressor, which I think is the other part of what the war was. Apart from that, I agree with your post, Pannonian.

Ajax

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Simple, they have done poorly in the parts of afghanistan they took charge of. A larger special forces presence would have been better IMO. Even a US army presence would have done well.

You must admit, Canada has done quite well in their parts of the country, and Germany hasn't fared too poorly either.

[Zaknafien]

if you define "well" as not doing anything, then sure they're doing great :) unfortunately the NATO rules of engagement propagated by Canadian command prevent them from taking detainees, among other things. Which is sort of silly in the theatre.

[Whacker]

Half jokingly, I fully approved of this action because of what the Taliban did to those ancient stone Buddahs. Absolutely disgusting.

[Lemur]

The demolition of the stone Buddhas really got my goat as well. Nobody should run around blowing up history.

This all reminds me of a woman I used to work with who forwarded me an email in '99 or '00 about how the Taliban brutalized women. It was quite detailed. I spoke to her later, and said that I understood everything in the email to be true, but what was the point? It wasn't as though those guys would bow to any sort of international pressure. The only way to change them would be by force.

"Oh, no, we're not advocating a war."

Then what is the point?

"We're raising awareness."

Raising awareness. All of these years later, I still don't think that's a worthwhile goal. While the Talibs oppressed and destroyed their own people and culture, you would have been hard-pressed to find an American who cared. Then everything changed very quickly.

I'm not sure if this anecdote has a point or not.

[Fragony]

Isn't this removing from power thingie a bit, or better, terribly premature?

[Adrian II]

Regardless of Bin Laden himself, there was tons of evidence that Al Queda was operating training camps openly within Afghanistan.

And there is more: due to their historic ties (forged during the Soviet episode) the 'Arabs' as they were called were a dominant force within the Taliban regime itself. This was a major reason why Kabul wouldn't cough up their leader, close down their camps and confiscate their weapons. If you are looking for an example of a rogue regime, this was it. I have always supported the removal of that regime and I still do. I always knew that the occupation would be disastrous as well. But it was necessary to prevent the bigger of two evils. Sooner or later the Taliban/Al Qaeda regime in Kabul would, through its high-placed sympathizers in neighbouring Pakistan (the islamist secret service ISI and corrupt scientists like Dr Khan), have procured a nuclear capacity with which it would have unleashed the dogs of hell in the Middle East.

[sapi]

[skips entire discussion up to this point]

Not justified.

Military strikes - maybe.

Invasion? No.

It was just a waste of time, money and resources.

Far better to bomb a few miliary bases/cities at a time until the government gets the point and surrenders OBL

[Husar]

[...]the American people wanted blood, and giving them the Afghans was the least bad option available.

That sounds like tribal behaviour to me, also reminds me of Jesus and Pilatus "oh, the people want it, so I give them some blood of strangers to make them shut up." And now the people complain about "all the losses" they are taking there(as if 2000 of almost 300million were a lot...).

IMO that doesn't throw a very good light on "the Americans".

It all depends on the viewpoint though, if you have the narrow-minded tribal viewpoint of a militarily superior "tribe", you can always go for the revenge option and from there it's just a step away from genocide in some peoples' minds(yeah, we have had this sort of "1000 afghans aren't worth a single american soldier's life"-comments here before).

I'm sounding anti-USA again, eh? Well, don't always remind me of the bad parts of US foreign policy.

[KrooK]

Let me reply by question.
Were the Tailban justified to removing Mudzahedins from Afghanistan?

[Odin]

[skips entire discussion up to this point]

Not justified.

Military strikes - maybe.

Invasion? No.

It was just a waste of time, money and resources.

Far better to bomb a few miliary bases/cities at a time until the government gets the point and surrenders OBL

I agree. An invasion is to costly, the manpower would have been better served at home. The U.S. has the tactical ability to pinpoint bomb infrastructure from many miles away with minimal harm to its forces.

[Zaknafien]

well, alot of people do not understand that the taliban was a popular movement within afghanistan seen by a large majority of its population as legitimate, if not 'saviors' of the country from the turmoil after the soviet pull-out. the taliban originated as a group of religious crime-fighters if you will in khandahar, going after the roving rape and murder gangs in the south.

[caravel]

The fundamental question of all this is: Did the US have the right to invade and occupy Afghanistan? I would say not.

The way I see it 11/09/01 was a strictly terrorist attack by a terrorist group or by those acting on behalf of a terrorist group, not on behalf of any regime, and certainly not on behalf of the Taliban regime. Yes there may have been an element, probably including the Taliban, laughing their socks off at the United States' misfortune, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that the Taliban regime orchestrated or carried out the attack . None of the terrorists themselves were Afghans, in fact they were mostly Saudis. The link to Al Qaeda was based on a Saudi in Afghanistan claiming that he had orchestrated the attacks. So you have a group of Saudis actually carrying out the attack and another Saudi claiming to have been behind it.

Many of you are also ignoring the excuses, and the lies. Bin Laden was never taken, and never brought to account. This was supposed to be the main objective/for going in there in the first place, but was in fact hollow propaganda. When the questions started popping up, the usual excuses started to get churned out, the Taliban were evil and needed to be removed etc. The same happened in Iraq after the WMD debacle, Saddam was harbouring terrorists, linked to Bin Laden even, false, the ba'athists were an evil and repressive regime, true, as were the Taliban,very true, and as are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and hundreds of other regimes worldwide. The problem I have with this is that invading on a trumped up pretext failing to find the man and then when it is obvious there's nothing else for it, they resort to the same old "they were evil/harbouring terrorists/thinking of building wmds/we're liberating them" line.

What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.

[Zaknafien]

The fundamental question of all this is: Did the US have the right to invade and occupy Afghanistan? I would say not.

The way I see it 11/09/01 was a strictly terrorist attack by a terrorist group or by those acting on behalf of a terrorist group, not on behalf of any regime, and certainly not on behalf of the Taliban regime. Yes there may have been an element, probably including the Taliban, laughing their socks off at the United States' misfortune, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that the Taliban regime orchestrated or carried out the attack . None of the terrorists themselves were Afghans, in fact they were mostly Saudis. The link to Al Qaeda was based on a Saudi in Afghanistan claiming that he had orchestrated the attacks. So you have a group of Saudis actually carrying out the attack and another Saudi claiming to have been behind it.

Many of you are also ignoring the excuses, and the lies. Bin Laden was never taken, and never brought to account. This was supposed to be the main objective/for going in there in the first place, but was in fact hollow propaganda. When the questions started popping up, the usual excuses started to get churned out, the Taliban were evil and needed to be removed etc. The same happened in Iraq after the WMD debacle, Saddam was harbouring terrorists, linked to Bin Laden even, false, the ba'athists were an evil and repressive regime, true, as were the Taliban,very true, and as are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and hundreds of other regimes worldwide. The problem I have with this is that invading on a trumped up pretext failing to find the man and then when it is obvious there's nothing else for it, they resort to the same old "they were evil/harbouring terrorists/thinking of building wmds/we're liberating them" line.

What I find disturbing is this very selective meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states (mostly middle eastern or asian ones that either have some of the worlds largest oil reserves or whose territory involves a certain pipeline) around the world. Not having same kind of faith in the US and UK governments as some of you, I'm not so sure that this meddling is for the good of those being meddled with. I also doubt it is for the good of US citizens or UK subjects.

Yeah, but if we didn't invade Afghanistan how else would we get those killer contracts for the pipeline?