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

[Incongruous]

Poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly handled.
Also shows a complete lack of understanding when dealing with terrorists by the White house. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of fractured warlords and drug dealers (yeah go occupying force!).
Liberation is definatley not a word one would throw around anywhere near the name Afghanistan niether is success.
Catastrophe or failure perhaps.
But hey, this is what happen in polotics, real morals are replaced with words and dirty dealing. People become statistics. Someone is making huge amounts of money somewhere, so there is a plus side.

[Adrian II]

Also shows a complete lack of understanding when dealing with terrorists by the White house. Afghanistan is once again in the hands of fractured warlords and drug dealers (yeah go occupying force!).

The Taliban no longer control the country and they are on the defensive. That is the most important result. And the greatest danger, an islamist take-over of Pakistan, is still clear and present. There is no way that Nato can leave the area without the direst consequences. God knows the present picture isn't pretty, but it would be far worse had this regime been allowed to govern and expand unchecked in the region.

The invasion was justified because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda, not because they personaly organised the 9/11 attacks. Any decent government would have handed over Bin and consorts at the drop of a rosary. Kabul didn't, so the invasion was necessary.

Sure, all states have 'dirty morals', particularly in war. But don't kid yourself that U.S. morals are similar to (or worse than) those of the Taliban. Such moral equivocation is worse than dirty morals.

[Conradus]

I'm afraid I voted Gah! because I can't really make up my mind. Back in 2001 I would've voted yes without a moment's doubt. 'Revenge for 9/11/making sure it wouldn't happen again' and the removal of a dangerous regime was legitimation enough for me back then. But now, I have a double feeling.
The Taliban never was defeated utterly, the goverment is weak, conditions haven't improved that much and the war has claimed many lives, and didn't achieve what it wanted. Sure AQ has to move its base of operations, but Osama still lives and nobody knows where he is. And then I consider that the hijackers of the planes on 9/11 weren't Afghani's and that it does make sense that a country refuses to hand over inhabitants/friends of the regime to a regime it doesn't 'like' and whose justice system it doesn't accept. I mean, even the USA isn't going to hand over some of it's 'war criminals' to the International Court in The Hague and they are arguably not as biased as American judges after 9/11.

[Tribesman]

The invasion was justified because the Taliban aided and abetted Al Qaeda, not because they personaly organised the 9/11 attacks.

But that wasn't the justification was it , the justification was non-compliance with the ultimatum , just as the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was the justification for war against Serbia .
The ultimatum the US issued was crap , yet was not open for discussion or negotiation and had to be accepted immediately . That pile of crap removes the proper justification .

Any decent government would have handed over Bin and consorts at the drop of a rosary. Kabul didn't, so the invasion was necessary.

No government would have accepted the ultimatum given .

[Lemur]

No government would have accepted the ultimatum given .

As Jar-Jar Binks would say, exqweeeze me? Governments hand over criminals all the time. It's called extradition. They even sign agreements to do it automatically.

I really don't understand how you can call our demand for Bin Laden & Co. unreasonable.

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Tribesman, I have to disagree with you on this point. The Taliban already had UN resolutions against them for harboring Al Queda after the embassy bombings. It's your contention that they had the right to continue to do so and we were wrong for insisting they turn them over? Telling the Taliban to do so is 'a pile of crap'?

In your own words, just how much aid and abetment can you give an international criminal before you're complicit in their crimes?

[Tribesman]

Telling the Taliban to do so is 'a pile of crap'?

I really don't understand how you can call our demand for Bin Laden & Co. unreasonable.

Well thats two quick and easy ones ... read what I wrote . Especially the post when I voted .......Sad , but it is the only possible answer .
Or even better read the ultimatum .
If you want to you can even do a compare and contrast with the other ultimatum I mentioned .
Then come back and try and tell me it wasn't a pile of crap .

[Don Corleone]

As I understand it, the ultimatum issued was pretty simple and straight forward "Surrender Bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Queda holed up in your country or face the consequences". Is that how you remember it as well, T?

[Tribesman]

Try again Don , your memory already let you down earlier in the topic .

Or try the compare and contrast , that might be fun .

[Adrian II]

But that wasn't the justification was it , the justification was non-compliance with the ultimatum , just as the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was the justification for war against Serbia .

But that wasn't the start of the affair was it? The ultimatum was the last stage of a lenghty period of diplomacy.

When was the frist time Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for the killing of five Americans in Riyadh?
And when was the second indictment for the embassy bombings in Africa?

Which former U.S. President had tried in vain to get him extradited? And when were two UNSC Resolutions adopted that called for sanctions against Afghanistan as long as Kabul did not extradite Osams bin Laden?

How many years passed before the U.S. finally had enough and decided it couldn't sit back and wait for another major attack by Al Qaeda orchestrated out of Afghanistan?

[Don Corleone]

Try again Don , your memory already let you down earlier in the topic .

Or try the compare and contrast , that might be fun .

Sorry, I'm not playing your game today. You're either going to have to commit actually making a direct statement, or I have to dismiss your position as "the US has no right to defend itself no matter what threats it faced". You're free to continue to use your usual obfuscation all you care to.

[Tribesman]

You're either going to have to commit actually making a direct statement

I already have .

or I have to dismiss your position as "the US has no right to defend itself no matter what threats it faced".

That would be a rather silly thing to say .

But that wasn't the start of the affair was it?

It doesn't matter if it was the start or not , it was the justification used .

[Don Corleone]

Let me put it another way. Perhaps you could tell me what the ultimatum that you view as so unfair was?

[Adrian II]

It doesn't matter if it was the start or not , it was the justification used .

Oh, but it does matter. The diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Kabul over Osama had been going on for three whole years, hadn't it?

And do you remember all the laughable pretexts the Taliban came up with? "Osama went missing" - that was a good one. Osama was the son-in-law of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, for Christ's sake, and we were supposed to believe they 'couldn't find him'. Personally I loved the one about extradition being a breach of their 'time-honoured Afghan hospitality'.

After three years of diplomacy and tugs of war (and three terrorist attacks, each one more devastating than the previous one) the U.S. gave the Taliban a final choice: either you root up Al Qaeda's organisation on your territory to our complete satisfaction, or we will do it for you and we will treat you as its accomplices. Even after 9/11 the U.S. offered to let Osama be extradited to, and tried in, a third country. The Taliban refused. The invasion was the only option left to Washington.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why are you trying so hard Don. Any question posed to tribesman in which he can side with the US or X, he will side with X - even if it happens to be the Taliban and OBL.

[Don Corleone]

I don't think it's quite so simple as that, PJ. I will grant you that he does appear to be allowing the Taliban quite a bit of latitude here, or at least he appears to be, which is why I'd like to know what he actually thinks the ultimatum that was so impossible to fulfill was. The one I'm familiar with sounds not only reasonable, but is actually done around the world by other nations, on a regular basis.

[Adrian II]

Why are you trying so hard Don. Any question posed to tribesman in which he can side with the US or X, he will side with X - even if it happens to be the Taliban and OBL.

Oh, give him some credit. Based on his track record in this forum (I don't know anything else about him) I would trust Tribesman almost blindly to take the right side in any conflict. But he hates sloppy thinking and easy-going majority views. That's his basic attitude. I sometimes share it.

[Don Corleone]

While I agree with you Adrian that there is frequently more to Tribesman's views than may initially meet the eye, I don't think that's the case here. If I understand him, and his comments about the period between 9/11/2001 and 10/14/2001; he appears to be making the point that the Taliban was in fact justified in refusing to turn over OBL and that the USA was unjustified in demanding that they do, hence the war to enforce that demand (and the other 4) was bogus. Correct, T?

[Don Corleone]

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?

Right, the famed Afghan pipeline. I almost forgot about that. You folks clearly must be using Fahrenheit 911 as a primary source. The theory proposed by Mr. Moore ws that we rushed into war with Afghanistan so that Haliburton could rush in and build a trans-Afghan pipeline and drain oil and gas out of central Russia.

As urgent as it was, seems a little odd that no construction has yet started, close to 6 years later.

[Tribesman]

Oh, but it does matter. The diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Kabul over Osama had been going on for three whole years, hadn't it?

You wouldn't be on about the 33 admitted discussions would you ?
(perhaps there are more that are not yet admitted)

While I agree with you Adrian that there is frequently more to Tribesman's views than may initially meet the eye

Keep thinking Don
Oh dear.......

I don't think that's the case here. If I understand him, and his comments about the period between 9/11/2001 and 10/14/2001; he appears to be making the point that the Taliban was in fact justified in refusing to turn over OBL and that the USA was unjustified in demanding that they do, hence the war to enforce that demand (and the other 4) was bogus. Correct, T?

Have I once mentioned Bin Laden in this topic ?

[Lemur]

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 .

This seems to be the heart of your argument, as far as I can make it out. That and the CBS new item you linked, which doesn't seem tremendously relevant.

Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No." But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."

He also said he had no information on bin Laden's current whereabouts.

Are you accepting the Taliban's position at face value? Even though cooperation between AQ and the Talibs was well-documented and longstanding? Or is there something else that you're aiming for? At this point, baiting Don and declaring that you've already proved your point isn't helpful. Please clarify so that we may understand where you're coming from.

[Don Corleone]

As I said Tribesman, I'm not up for playing games like a trained dog. You'll either have to come out and specifically point to the portion of the ultimatum that you believe to be unfair, (the dismantling of Al-Queda training camps, the allowance of American inspectors to check that they really are dismantled, etcetera) or you'll have to leave me bereft of the insights of your supreme intellect. I have no patience for this.

[Grey_Fox]

One term:

'Base of operations'

[Tribesman]

You'll either have to come out and specifically point to the portion of the ultimatum that you believe to be unfair, (the dismantling of Al-Queda training camps,

Where does it mention Al-Qaida training camps ?
Besides which as released NSA archives show the main Al-Qaida camps were nothing to do with the Taliban , they were under a directive from elsewhere .

Likewise the demand about all terrorists and supporters , absolute bollox .

And where do you start with "unjustly detained foriegners" the main group concerned there had been detained under local law , and funnily enough other foriegn detainees ended up in Gitmo .

[Don Corleone]

Alright, I'm sick of this. Here are all five conditions, spelled out explicitly from George W. Bush's speech to Congress on September 20th, 2001:

"Deliver to U.S. authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda [terrorist organization] that hide in your land.

"Release all foreign nationals including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

"Protect all journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

"Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.

"Give the US full access to terrorist training camps so we make sure they are no longer operating."

Which of those 5 is so eggregious and unfair? That the Taliban stop imprisoning foreign journalists? That they actually allow verification that the training camps had been closed?

[Don Corleone]

Where does it mention Al-Qaida training camps ?
Besides which as released NSA archives show the main Al-Qaida camps were nothing to do with the Taliban , they were under a directive from elsewhere .

Likewise the demand about all terrorists and supporters , absolute bollox .

And where do you start with "unjustly detained foriegners" the main group concerned there had been detained under local law , and funnily enough other foriegn detainees ended up in Gitmo .

Finally, we're getting somewhere. Look, whether the Al-Queda training camps were working with the Taliban, or just operating within their borders with the Taliban's tacit approval is irrelevant. They were granting shelter and refuge to a group that was actively attacking the US on multiple occassions. Every diplomatic request we made for the extradition of the terrorists, from Khobai to Tanzania to Yemen to finally 9/11 was met with yet another attack.

Yes, the language 'all terrorists and supporters' is vague and broad. Of course the Taliban could have argued that point. But they didn't did they? They refused to acknowledge us. Instead, they played a child's game of telling the Pakastanis "Tell the Americans that we're not speaking to them, but if we were, we would tell them we refuse".

Now as for 'unjustly detained foreigners', you can make the argument that maybe some of those being held were being held for actually having broken local laws. But a sizeable number were being held as human shields.

I fail to see how any of the terms of that ultimatum were impossible to act upon, except in Bush's 'no discussion, no negotiation' phrase. Truth is, the Taliban could have really screwed him on that if they had turned over a few known terrorists and then went to the UN and said "Look, we're trying to cooperate here", and then done nothing on the rest of it. There wouldn't have been a military response.

But they didn't choose that route, did they?

[edyzmedieval]

No, till the moment Bush will stop winking his eye to the Queen.

[Tribesman]

Yes, the language 'all terrorists and supporters' is vague and broad.

Now you are getting there , look at the ultimatum , its bollox , there is no way the Taliban could comply .
Since there is no way they could comply then failing to comply is not a justification .

Of course the Taliban could have argued that point.

No , remember the condition attached to the demands .
No discussion , no negotiation , immediate effect

Truth is, the Taliban could have really screwed him on that if they had turned over a few known terrorists and then went to the UN and said "Look, we're trying to cooperate here", and then done nothing on the rest of it. There wouldn't have been a military response.

But they didn't choose that route, did they?

Your memory is playing up again , the UN was one of the two international organisations proposed .

Now then Don , why I suggested a comparison with the 1914 ultimatum is quite simple , at first glance they appear reasonable and justified , but are in reality delivered in terms that cannot be complied with .

What I don't understand though , is considering the US militaries assessments that I have read about the situation in the country and region , the relationship between Taliban , Al-Qaida , ISI and the populations in various areas , plus the negative assessments of air-strikes , SF ops , local forces and full ground deployment ....is why the hell they went in as they did and when they did .(and of course to mention the topic which you didn't want mentioned , why they made an extremely difficult task an almost impossible task)

[Adrian II]

Likewise the demand about all terrorists and supporters , absolute bollox .

After three years of terrorist plots and Taliban obstinacy, that was a fully justified demand. The Taliban had made it perfectly clear that they would not oversee the dismantling of Al Qaeda themselves. The fake reasons they gave were ridiculous. The fake reason you come up with wasn't even mentioned in their communiques.

Likewise the release of all unjustly detained foreigners, such as aid workers arrested for 'spreading Christianity' and journalists like Yvonne Ridley (UK), Michel Peyrard (France), Daigen Yanagida and Isamu Iida (Japan), was fully justified.

The ultimatum contained nothing new; all those demands had been made on the Taliban earlier by various governments, by international bodies like the EU, by human rights organisations and last but not least by the UN Security Council. There is no way around it, Tribesman.

[Sarmatian]

Which of those 5 is so eggregious and unfair? That the Taliban stop imprisoning foreign journalists? That they actually allow verification that the training camps had been closed?

"Deliver to U.S. authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda [terrorist organization] that hide in your land.

"Release all foreign nationals including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

"Protect all journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

"Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist and every person in their support structure to appropriate authorities.

"Give the US full access to terrorist training camps so we make sure they are no longer operating."

1. Let's say the first one is okay, although it still leaves americans an option to say "thats not all, you still have some". All is very vague...

2. "Unjustly accused" is very vague...

3. Protect all journalists and diplomats - that's pretty much clear. Aid workers, however, is not.

4. At first glance everything seems ok with this one. But, problem with it is that goal is not clearly measurable. Americans could be unsatisfied indefinitely saying that there are still people who support terrorists or terrorism who are not extradicted.

5. Completely appropriate.


It seems to me this was reverse Don Corleone's type of offer - we'll give them an offer they can't accept. America's public was outraged after the 9/11 attack and they wanted someone's blood. They wouldn't have been satisfied with a footage of american inspector walking around empty barracks that used to be a terrorist camp in afghanistan...