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

[Don Corleone]

I'm afraid a discussion of the French presidential race is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. So here we are, another war debate.

Now, on October 14, 2001 the USA and our allies launched an aerial invasion of Afghanistan. Several days later a ground invasion began as well. The stated goal was to remove the Taliban from power, to shut down Al Queda training camps and to capture and put on trial Osama bin Laden; for the 1998 embassy bombings, for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 2001 9/11 attacks in which almost 3000 Americans were killed.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush announced to the world an ultimatum to the Taliban, that if they did not surrender Osama bin Laden, they would be viewed as supporting and sheltering him and would be treated as such. The Taliban's response? They refused to acknowledge the statement. Speaking to Saudi and Pakastani ambassadors, they claimed to acknowledge a non-muslim leader of any country would be an insult to Islam, and that only muslim heads of states where sharia was enforced were legitimate rulers.

After several weeks of stall tactics, during which Saudi Arabia and all other states, save Pakistan, severed diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the USA's deadline expired and war commenced.

Was the USA justified? Note, for the purposes of this thread the subsequent military actions in Iraq are not open for discussion, except in how they can be linked to the original decision to engage the Taliban with military force.

[drone]

Yes.

The lack of follow-thru has been disgraceful though, but since that is related to the item we are not supposed to discuss I will leave it at that.

[BigTex]

Yes, the only proper response to an attack on New York and the pentagon.

Sad that we have let the aftermath slip. They were on the right track, but Nato was a poor choice.

[Pannonian]

Yes, the only proper response to an attack on New York and the pentagon.

Sad that we have let the aftermath slip. They were on the right track, but Nato was a poor choice.

Why was NATO a poor choice?

[BigTex]

Why was NATO a poor choice?

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.

[Odin]

I'm afraid a discussion of the French presidential race is not an appropriate place to have this discussion. So here we are, another war debate.

Now, on October 14, 2001 the USA and our allies launched an aerial invasion of Afghanistan. Several days later a ground invasion began as well. The stated goal was to remove the Taliban from power, to shut down Al Queda training camps and to capture and put on trial Osama bin Laden; for the 1998 embassy bombings, for the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 2001 9/11 attacks in which almost 3000 Americans were killed.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, President Bush announced to the world an ultimatum to the Taliban, that if they did not surrender Osama bin Laden, they would be viewed as supporting and sheltering him and would be treated as such. The Taliban's response? They refused to acknowledge the statement. Speaking to Saudi and Pakastani ambassadors, they claimed to acknowledge a non-muslim leader of any country would be an insult to Islam, and that only muslim heads of states where sharia was enforced were legitimate rulers.

After several weeks of stall tactics, during which Saudi Arabia and all other states, save Pakistan, severed diplomatic ties with the Taliban, the USA's deadline expired and war commenced.

Was the USA justified? Note, for the purposes of this thread the subsequent military actions in Iraq are not open for discussion, except in how they can be linked to the original decision to engage the Taliban with military force.

I think you will be hardpressed to find many who didnt agree with the removal at the time, sadly current circumstances of opinion are flavored by our other choices in the region

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Heh, nice poll results.

edit: legio, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

[lancelot]

I guess I'll play devils advocate on this one and say a guarded 'no.'

Reasons-

Was it even confirmed that Binnie was even in the country? And even if he was (and as has subsequently been shown) he seems reasonably adept at hiding. It stands to reason that maybe the Afghan government had no knowledge of his location.

I cant help but have a gut feeling that the US response was a bit over the top if the search for one man was truly the goal in question.

Which makes me think there were other issues in play- I dont think the exportation of democracy was one of them, thats for sure. Sabre-rattling perhaps?

[Tribesman]

Don . Has the US removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan ?

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.

Could you explain why the parts of Afghanistan with a US army presence are screwed up aswell then ?

[Pannonian]

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.

How do you propose you could have controlled things better on the ground if NATO hadn't provided the grunts? If you used special forces "advisors" to assist primarily Afghan forces, you would have ended up with a warlord-controlled Afghanistan, as in the OTL, but without even the facade of control that we have now. As for a US army presence - we all know why there isn't one, and Don stated specifically at the start of the thread that he doesn't want it discussed here.

For the French baiters here - "Nous sommes tous les Americains".

[Kralizec]

Yes.

[Goofball]

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.

Examples?

[Don Corleone]

Actually, I'm surprised, pleasantly so, by the results. I didn't start the thread on a need to justify our actions to myself. There's very few things the US has done militarily that were as obviously appropriate as our action in Afghanistan. I started this thread in direct response to a couple of posts in another thread that implied a different view. Thus far, said posters have yet to contribute in this thread.

I too wish we had prosecuted the Afghanistan theater more fully, focused on our intended goals more vehemently, and paid more attention to the nation building we claimed we were there to do. My point in not mentioning Iraq was not that we can't mention how that has drained resources from the theater in a way that has inhibited our ability to prosecute the war. That's a very valid point.

My point was to avoid discussions along the lines of "Well, based on the fact that the USA used it as justification to later attack Iraq, then no, they were wrong in Afghanistan too".

And don't blame NATO, BigTex. They've done the best that they can, under the circumstances. We've asked them to keep the area free and clear and they've done a pretty good job. I do think they're stretched thin, and I don't know the gist of what NATO service obligations are, but they are there and they are doing the job.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@topic: No, the claimed casus belli for the war was that the Afghani regime didn't hand over bin Laden. First of all, it's questionable whether at all you can hold someone besides the suicide bombers who carried out the 9/11 attack guilty for that action - the only that are obviously and provably guilty were dead by the time the attack had taken place. Secondly, to claim the Afghani regime illegally protected bin Laden for failing to hand him over is also a fallacy - 200,000 American soldiers have been unable to find the man while occupying the country so how could the Afghani representatives at all be able to find him and/or hand him over? To require someone to perform an impossible task or face war is hardly fair play. Thirdly, the Afghani government had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't support the action in any way whatsoever and didn't declare war on the USA. So why attack Afghanistan? The war was merely a propaganda action from the Bush administration who needed someone to blame for the attack to look like he cared about the victims of 9/11. From the 9/11 perspective, the attack wasn't justified.

The other possible casus belli would be to act as liberators to remove the repressive talibani government. In that aspect there was more of an excuse to attack, but not through the methods used by the USA - a pure air campaign with random bombings with outdated precisionless bombs, many of which struck civilian targets. There was also no proper program for how to handle the situation after the war. If the latter had been made, the war could have been justied.

[Marshal Murat]

I think that the U.S. went in, we did the right thing. We stopped the sharia law women oppression of the Taliban, and got the country stablized. However, the unfortunate circumstances elsewhere has rendered out gains to a marginal victory, as warlords seek to carve territory, opium trade flourishes, and the Taliban has moved back into some places.

However, in response to the original question. Yes.

[Lemur]

We were 100% correct to remove the Taliban. If they had been willing to hand over Bin Laden and his lieutenants, it would be a different story. But as it stands, they were truly a rogue nation, harboring people who had planned and executed a massive attack on civilians.

It goes without saying that the follow-up has been disappointing. I cringe when I read accounts of translators, gear and troops being pulled out of Afghanistan because of Iraq. That's a different thread, though.

[ajaxfetish]

Secondly, to claim the Afghani regime illegally protected bin Laden for failing to hand him over is also a fallacy - 200,000 American soldiers have been unable to find the man while occupying the country so how could the Afghani representatives at all be able to find him and/or hand him over? To require someone to perform an impossible task or face war is hardly fair play.

I'm going to leave your other points alone, but I'll take issue with this. The Afghani government didn't say, 'This is an impossible task. We can't do it.' They said, 'We don't recognize your right to speak to us, USA.' There was no hint of cooperation, while as I understand it there is plenty of evidence for considerable cooperation with the Al Qaeda forces within their country. If the Taliban had been a little more polite, things may have turned out differently. But then, I don't think there was any real chance of that, or any expectation on the part of US officials, either.

Ajax

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm going to leave your other points alone, but I'll take issue with this. The Afghani government didn't say, 'This is an impossible task. We can't do it.' They said, 'We don't recognize your right to speak to us, USA.' There was no hint of cooperation, while as I understand it there is plenty of evidence for considerable cooperation with the Al Qaeda forces within their country. If the Taliban had been a little more polite, things may have turned out differently. But then, I don't think there was any real chance of that, or any expectation on the part of US officials, either.

So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...

[ajaxfetish]

So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...

No. It's a rhetorical device called understatement. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Ajax

[Rodion Romanovich]

No. It's a rhetorical device called understatement. I'm sure you've heard of it.

Ajax

So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?

[Goofball]

So you're basically saying the war with Afghanistan was fought because Afghani officials weren't polite enough? Wow that's some serious penis measuring contest...

If that's how you read his post, may I suggest a quick dose of "Hooked on Phonics?"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think we were justified even if we know bin laden wasn't in the country.

[ajaxfetish]

So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?

Theoretically, there's the possibility of US and/or international forces being allowed to operate jointly with Afghani forces to accomplish the task. But as I said earlier, there was no real chance or expectation of the Taliban cooperating with the US. The ultimatum was political theatrics to demonstrate just cause for the world (which doesn't make it wrong: it had to be done). The conclusion was foregone.

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Might require a heavy dose.

First of all, it's questionable whether at all you can hold someone besides the suicide bombers who carried out the 9/11 attack guilty for that action - the only that are obviously and provably guilty were dead by the time the attack had taken place.

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

Thirdly, the Afghani government had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't support the action in any way whatsoever and didn't declare war on the USA.

They harbored those who carried it out.

Really, your case against the war is poor.

CR

[Don Corleone]

Regardless of Bin Laden himself, there was tons of evidence that Al Queda was operating training camps openly within Afghanistan. The UN passed three resolutions over it!!! When the bombers were sought to face criminal charages, they took refuge within Afghanistan. The Taliban were openly supporting them. Forget Bin Laden himself for a moment, the two organizations: Al Queda and the Taliban, are inexorably linked. They were fully cooperating with each other.

The USA gave the Taliban one last chance on September 12th, 2001. We told them past behavior will be forgotton. Hand over those responsible and we will let bygones be bygones.

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'. They knew fully well they were making a decision about their destiny. They were betting that the rest of the Muslim world would back them, and they were wrong, because, as it turns out, Muslims recognized how wrong the Taliban were on this issue as well.

[Goofball]

So you're saying that if the Afghani officials had said the obvious truth: "we can't find bin Laden", would there not have been any war?

I believe he is saying that if the Taliban had said "We don't know where he is, but we will cooperate fully with U.S. and other nations to locate and capture this mass murderer" then there wouldn't have been a war.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I just find it odd how you can consider it your right to punish an entire population because you're pissed with 1 person in that population and want to carry through your personal vendetta. It's a bit like Hitler wanting to kill all Jews because he was pissed with 2 guys - his father and the guy who rejected his art school application. Lenin too expressed this type of idea: "it's better to kill 100 innocents, than let 1 guilty get away". 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. 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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

Every year, there are over 1,000 non-murderers "admitting" murder in normal legal systems, who are later found out to have lied. Someone admitting a deed doesn't equal guilt. What do you think are the proofs that bin Laden did the attack, despite the fact that he is alive, and the attack was a suicide attack?

[ajaxfetish]

I just find it odd how you can consider it your right to punish an entire population because you're pissed with 1 person in that population and want to carry through your personal vendetta. It's a bit like Hitler wanting to kill all Jews because he was pissed with 2 guys - his father and the guy who rejected his art school application. Lenin too expressed this type of idea: "it's better to kill 100 innocents, than let 1 guilty get away". 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. 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.

Had Hitler's father and Art School Dean committed mass murder of innocents? Were 'all Jews' protecting the two and shielding them from international justice? Was Hitler's objective only to remove the Jews from their position of power so as to bring the murderers to justice? Your analogy makes zero sense to me, but Godwin would be proud.

Ajax

edit: As to the 100 innocents vs 1 guilty--I personally prefer the sentiment (was it Franklin's?) that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent, but the invasion wasn't just a matter of justice. America did not take issue with Al Qaeda and Osama for past injuries alone. The organization represented a continuing threat to innocents worldwide, and for that matter the Taliban represented a continuing threat to innocents within its own country. The invasion was part retribution, part protection.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Had Hitler's father and Art School Dean committed mass murder of innocents? Were 'all Jews' protecting the two and shielding them from international justice? Was Hitler's objective only to remove the Jews from their position of power so as to bring the murderers to justice? Your analogy makes zero sense to me, but Godwin would be proud.

Ajax

The analogy is simple: someone having a quarrel with you, and you're prepared to kill plenty of civilians to get to the few that are your real enemies. In this case even worse: you want to kill someone you have no proofs against (I have yet to hear any proof that bin Laden had anything whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack) to score propaganda points at home, and in order to get him you're prepared to kill thousands of innocents. Let's call it "revenge accuracy". The US government killed a few thousands in Afghanistan, but failed to get the one they claim was guilty. The revenge accuracy is thus 0% - 0 successful kills of persons considered guilty per kill of civilians/innocents.