Justification for war in Afghanistan

[REASON]

Why would the US want to take over a country like Afghanistan, are you serious? Why did Russia want to take it over?

 

Hegemony.

 

The USSR was primarily attempting to expand it's republic and establish a greater buffer.

 

In the case of the US, it also served as a staging ground for our invasion of Iraq in that it justified our military build-up in the Persian Gulf region. Once we had invaded Iraq, we now were positioned with forces on two primary borders with Iran, and in a position to apply leverage to them, which we have been attempting to do. Our overall purpose has been to dominate the region in an effort to overthrough regimes that resist our influence and inflame the cause of the Palestinians against Israel.

 

It is also important that we gain leverage over the vast oil resources of the region and not let the country with the third largest supply of crude oil fall under the control of Iran, Russia, or China. As long as Sadam Hussein was doing our bidding and warring with Iran, he was allowed to remain in place. But once he invaded Kuwait, and began resisting us, he had to be removed in order to protect our interests. This is why we are building permanent bases in Iraq, and have built the largest embassy in the world there. Our intention is to stay. The only things that are currently missing are the end to violence, the acceptance of our continual presence, and the passage of the Hydrocarbon Law which has yet to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. I believe these elements, along with the establishment of an Iraqi government that is friendly to the US is what is referred to when there is talk of "winning" in Iraq.

 

While our invasion of Afghanistan was justified by 9/11, there had to be a rationale for the Iraq war. Thus it was the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the connection to Usama Bin Laden, each of which have since been completely discredited.

 

Yet we still remain.

[REASON]

The tape where OBL claimed responsibility for the attacks (confessed), was not released until October 2004...

 

Hmmm. I missed that part. That would mean that at the time of the invation, the US had not actually produced any evidence linking Bin Laden.

 

I think bin Laden is a red herring anyway. The 9/11 hijackers were trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaeda.

 

How do we know that the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaida?

[alexander]

How do we know that the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaida?

right, because there are many other camps in many countries, notably pakistan, and the Chechen Republic, that train well and hard... I don't think that most of the facilitators of the 9/11 attack were or have ever even been a guerilla, or were ever trained in any such camp. The muscle parts could have been, but the rest came from Malaysia, Germany, etc, and they just needed to know how to fly planes, and they learned that, in the states... in all reality, maybe a few hijackers were at some point in the training camps in Afghanistan, but mostly, i think, they were just devout extreeme Islamists...

[modest]

How do we know that the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan by al-Qaida?

 

Mohammed Haydar Zammar who is in custody claims to have been the "travel agent" for the hijackers arranging their trips to Afghanistan. Of course, they were also trained in US flight schools :) But, I've read much more about Mohamed Atta, for whom there can be no doubt was Al-Qaeda, associated with bin Laden, was the leader of the 19 hijackers, and personally flew the 1st plane into the trade center towers... and yeah, spent a good amount of time in Afghanistan.

 

~modest

[REASON]

Mohammed Haydar Zammar who is in custody claims to have been the "travel agent" for the hijackers arranging their trips to Afghanistan.

 

I'm not familiar with him, but I will say that I have grown wary of any so called "confessions" from prisoners in our custody considering our new-fangled interrogation techniques are likely to generate a lot of favorable responses.

 

 

But, I've read much more about Mohamed Atta, for whom there can be no doubt was Al-Qaeda, associated with bin Laden, was the leader of the 19 hijackers, and personally flew the 1st plane into the trade center towers... and yeah, spent a good amount of time in Afghanistan.

 

Yes, there is much information about him. I believe Alex's comments are applicable to him as well.

[modest]

Yes, there is much information about him. I believe Alex's comments are applicable to him as well.

 

right, because there are many other camps in many countries, notably pakistan, and the Chechen Republic, that train well and hard...

 

This is absolutely true and one can never underestimate how often this should be mentioned in American company. You'd think 9/11 would have given the US some bit of appreciation for the hardships countries like Russia and Israel have gone through in the face of terrorism, but more often than not I find the same US-centric attitude of "we're the only ones the terrorists are after".

 

Of course, the hijackers weren't Chechnyan rebels and they weren't trained in Chechnya. But, perhaps we should mention it as a possibility anyway. If you study the situation closely, you'll find Khalid Sheikh Mohammed once tried unsuccessfully to get into Chechnya. Moreover, Mohammed Atta (the ringleader of the 19 hijackers) almost, well... I'll let wiki tell:

In late 1999, Atta, al-Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and Binalshibh decided to travel to Chechnya to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week period in late November.

 

So, there clearly is an al-qaeda / Chechnya connection. You would have no idea of this looking at wikipedia's page on Chechnya. There's not one mention of al-Qaeda.

 

It wasn't until 2003 that the US declared Chechnyan rebel groups (such as SPIR and IIPB) as terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda(1). And, yet, still no mention of al-Qaeda on wiki's Chechnya article :)

 

So, we might claim there are two problems here:

1. American government has not done a good job of supporting Russia's efforts in Chechnya.
   
2. People perhaps underestimate the al-Qaeda / Chechnya connection
   

The question is, should we mention Chechnya in discussion of the 9/11 attacks even if there is no substantial connection? The reason for doing this would be obvious - it would help with problems one and two above. In addition it would lessen the legitimacy of the international effort in Afghanistan which is a popular motivation.

 

But, I think there is a danger in doing this. If we imply a connection to 9/11 in order to substantiate or legitimize a war then the consequence could easily be fighting an illegitimate war. So, I'm not sure we should be talking about Chechnya.

 

I don't think that most of the facilitators of the 9/11 attack were or have ever even been a guerilla, or were ever trained in any such camp.

 

Very true. Take a look at my somewhat butchered organizational structure of the hijackers and their facilitators:

1. Osama bin Laden
   
2. Khalid Sheik Mohammed
   
3. Abu Zubaydah
   
4. Mohamed Atta
   
5. “pilot hijackers”
   
6. “muscle hijackers”
   

As Alex says, most of the hijackers weren't "guerrillas". Well, most of the hijackers were guerrillas (muscle hijackers) - most of the instigators of the attack, most of the "facilitators" were not guerrillas. The guerrillas were trained in camps in Afghanistan, but the facilitators facilitated the plot from Afghanistan.

 

Take KSM as an example:

Just as Mohammed was reestablishing himself in Afghanistan, bin Laden and his colleagues were also transplanting their operations to the same country. Abu Hafs al-Masri/Mohammed Atef, bin Laden's chief of operations, arranged a meeting between bin Laden and Mohammed in Tora Bora sometime in mid-1996, in which Mohammed outlined a plan that would eventually become the quadruple hijackings of 2001.

 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afghanistan was the center of operations for the plot, but the higher-ups were not trained as "guerrillas" in the camps. They used Afghanistan as a safe base of operations to plan, coordinate, and support the attack. In other words: they may have trained the muscle hijackers there, but they themselves were not muscle hijackers.

 

The muscle parts could have been,

 

Yes, the 10 "muscle hijackers" were trained specifically for the 9/11 attacks in Afghanistan's camp al-Matar by trainer Abu Turab al Jordani and made videos personally thanking bin Laden for the training, but... they were just the muscle hijackers - just the "guerrillas". They weren't the facilitators.

 

but the rest came from Malaysia, Germany, etc,

 

The German cell... First off, it was a German cell. Germany is not Afghanistan - not even close. The German cell wanted a bit of Jihad and they were in Germany.

 

Their plan was to go to Chechnya which, again, is not Afghanistan. They talked with Mohamedou Ould Slahi who was a well-known al-Qaeda operative in Germany. Slahi convinced the "Hamburg cell" not to go to Chechnya as it would be too difficult to enter, but advised them to go to Afghanistan, and gave them info on how to accomplish entering the country and to meet-up with the right people.

The name was a code word that instructed members of the Taliban office to escort the men to Kandahar, Afghanistan, where they were convinced to join the al-Qaeda network and wage jihad against America. They met with Osama bin Laden himself and swore their loyalty to him. Mohamed Atta al Sayed was chosen by Bin Laden as the leader of the group that would attack America; Atta would contact Bin Laden several more times before the attacks. The men then returned to Germany to enroll in flight training school, and later moved on to flight training schools in the United States

 

Hamburg cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The role Afghanistan played here was recruitment, leadership, base of operations, convincing the cell to wage jihad against America, instructing them to the plan, and giving them the means to carry it out. They came "from" Germany.

 

in all reality, maybe a few hijackers were at some point in the training camps in Afghanistan,

 

"In all reality"... "maybe"... "a few"

 

I honestly want to look at this from the standpoint of impartiality and reason. Al-Qaeda is a world-wide terrorist organization. It has been financed from every country on the map and it recruits members from where it can. Al-Qaeda affiliates have attacked dozens of nations and some of those countries have lost more people to terrorism as a percentage of their population than has the US.

 

The US response in fighting the "war on terror" has been handled horrifically. There can be no excuse and the world has every right to fear and admonish the seemingly imperial impetus. But, in all that - we should not loose sight of the facts nor have bias against the truth. The truth is that Afghanistan was the center of operations for this attack. Pieces from all over the world came together in Afghanistan. The hijackers were recruited and trained there. Al-Qaeda leaders used it as a base and training ground for an army of terrorism. It makes no sense to claim otherwise.

 

I would not claim that the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment is not based out of Chechnya even if I disagreed with Russia's policies toward Chechnya. I would not claim that Hamas is not based out of Gaza or that Fatah is not based out of the West Bank even if I disagreed with Israel's policies toward Palestine. And, I would not claim that al-Qaeda was not based out of Afghanistan on September 11, 2001 regardless of my feelings about the US "war on terror".

 

~modest

[alexander]

t wasn't until 2003 that the US declared Chechnyan rebel groups (such as SPIR and IIPB) as terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaeda(1). And, yet, still no mention of al-Qaeda on wiki's Chechnya article

I would further that by saying that it wasn't until 2003 that Chechen (propperly Chechen not Chechnyan btw :) ) resistance/rebel leaders started appearing on the CIA lists of terrorists that were well-capable and inclined at some point to harm the US... (talking about Dzhokhar Dudaev and Shamil Basayev, Basayev for sure made the list)

 

Al-Qaeda affiliates have attacked dozens of nations and some of those countries have lost more people to terrorism as a percentage of their population than has the US.

Speaking in terms of Terrorism in general, the amount of lives lost annually due to terrorism in Russia would in a couple of years add up to the amount of lives lost in the WTC. And i am not saying this as a form of competition or something, point being that the people constantly live in a world where they can be taken hostage by one cell, or another. I think that the only way to "win" the "war on terror" is to first understand terrorists and terrorism in it's root, once you understand the roots, then start tackling the problem of changing your way of doing things, to no longer stay in the wake of a terrorist organization and no longer be their target. You can not erradicate them by physical means, they will always find more people/places to hide, and money to operate; you can erradicate them by making it so their ideas will no longer target anyone...

[modest]

Absolutely. I agree on every point you make.

 

~modest :)

[Michaelangelica]

 

Speaking in terms of Terrorism in general, the amount of lives lost annually due to terrorism in Russia would in a couple of years add up to the amount of lives lost in the WTC. And i am not saying this as a form of competition or something, point being that the people constantly live in a world where they can be taken hostage by one cell, or another. I think that the only way to "win" the "war on terror" is to first understand terrorists and terrorism in it's root, once you understand the roots, then start tackling the problem of changing your way of doing things, to no longer stay in the wake of a terrorist organization and no longer be their target. You can not erradicate them by physical means, they will always find more people/places to hide, and money to operate; you can erradicate them by making it so their ideas will no longer target anyone...

Hopefully the proposed new military strategy of "winning hearts and minds' may help. It is amazing that no one has thought of doing it before

 

Despite "receiving" $9+ billion in Aid; most Afghans live in abject poverty. Schools are overcrowded hovels. hospitals not much better. Infrastructure is a mess.

 

IMHO Obama would be better off sending 40,000 teachers, nurses, doctors, builders, plumbers, carpenters, engineers, business facilitators,KIVA, horticuturalists, agronomists, administrators, bankers, musicians? etc rather than 40,000 extra troops. It would help the US unemployment problem too.

[BrianG]

Maybe President Obama could do a climate mitigation policy, like his Afghanistan plane, 30,000 new controls on CO2 now, but call them back in 2011, just before the elections.

[REASON]

Maybe President Obama could do a climate mitigation policy, like his Afghanistan plane, 30,000 new controls on CO2 now, but call them back in 2011, just before the elections.

 

Just to let you know, Brian, you are rapidly taking on the characteristics of a Troll.

 

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

[BrianG]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

I really don't like President Obama's Afghan war strategy, it reminds me of LBJ. Send in more troops now, but take them out later on. I understand there are strong emotions about this war, I love our troops and I don't want a losing strategy. I want to win, and announcing a withdrawal date isn't the way.

[REASON]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

Are you, really? I guess at this point you can hope that Turtle and I are the only ones.

 

 

I really don't like President Obama's Afghan war strategy, it reminds me of LBJ. Send in more troops now, but take them out later on. I understand there are strong emotions about this war, I love our troops and I don't want a losing strategy. I want to win, and announcing a withdrawal date isn't the way.

 

Maybe you'd be willing to elaborate on what constitutes a "win" in your estimation, and why announcing a withdrawal date is what eliminates that possibility. I also wonder if you can explain it without simply parroting the latest right-wing talking points.

 

By the way, I don't particularly care for his policy either but that's because I don't think militarism is the solution to these problems. Not to mention, there is no precedence that I'm aware of for military victory in Afghanistan. I love our troops as well (at least the good ones) which is why I find it hard to justify sending them into these fruitless quagmires in behalf of corporate interests and their quest for hegemony over the Earth's resources.

 

But I guess we can do like we did in Iraq and just claim victory. Apparently it doesn't matter what we leave behind, we can just simply say that we won and voila.....no guilt.

[BrianG]

I want Afghanistan to have enough law, that terrorists can't use it for a base of operations, like when they let Al Qaeda fly airplanes into our buildings. That would be a win, fight until the Taliban can no longer use terrorism and must compete with rhetoric, for electoral support.

 

In addition, I'd like to see some basic human rights, the right for women to attend school and work, the right of people to live their own lives, without fear of terror. It's hideous that they used to drop walls on gays in Afghanistan, that must stop.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664708,00.html

[REASON]

I want Afghanistan to have enough law, that terrorists can't use it for a base of operations, like when they let Al Qaeda fly airplanes into our buildings. That would be a win, fight until the Taliban can no longer use terrorism and must compete with rhetoric, for electoral support.

 

First of all, do you think Afghanistan is the only place Al-Qaeda can use as a base of operations? What about Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, or Indonesia and the Philippines for that matter? How about an apartment building in Hamburg, Germany?

 

Secondly, what's the motivation for the Taliban (who have no connection to Al-Qaeda) to allow Al-Qaeda back in if they were to regain control of Afghanistan? Last time, thanks to Al-Qaeda, the US military invaded their country, routed them from power (at least temporarily), and there was a lot of killing and destruction. Do you think they'd be up for another round of that if they were to regain control? I don't think so.

 

 

In addition, I'd like to see some basic human rights, the right for women to attend school and work, the right of people to live their own lives, without fear of terrorist attack. It's hideous that they used to drop walls on gays in Afghanistan, that must stop.

 

You know, I would too. It's horrible to consider the way dictatorial, religious fundamentalist regimes treat their people. But there are no guarantees that we can create the type of life for these people that you or I would like to give them. It most likely will be that they have to create that for themselves. How much are we really willing to invest in a country that looks like it still operates in the time of Jesus, particularly when the chances of success are so minimal. The government we set up is corrupt; what little security forces they have are corrupt and many are in allegence with the Taliban; they are made up of different ethnic tribes that we don't really understand very well; and they simply don't want us there. How many more billions of dollars are we going to pour into that place for them to steal?

 

Meanwhile, we are suffering here at home. Where's the compassion for the jobless, homeless, healthcareless American citizens? Our responsibility is to ourselves, not to the people of Afghanistan. They must forge their own freedom. Not to mention, is it really our responsibility to use our military to invade and occupy every country that we think treats their people unfairly? That simply cannot be a justification for war in Afghanistan or anywhere else for that matter.

[Moontanman]

Reason I agree, I don't think you can hand freedom to a country on a platter. To have freedom the people have to not only want it but they need to know what it is and how to give it to themselves. I don 't think this area of the world has a working concept of freedom that even comes close to matching ours.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Moontanman, well said,

 

Reason I agree, I don't think you can hand freedom to a country on a platter. To have freedom the people have to not only want it but they need to know what it is and how to give it to themselves. I don 't think this area of the world has a working concept of freedom that even comes close to matching ours.

 

Afghanistan has a long history repelling invaders from Alexander the great to the Brittish Indian forces long before Russia and the USA came along. Whatever 'freedom' the Afghani people value has been with them for several milennia, maybe we can learn from them?

 

Freedom is a two edged sword. If you allow others to invade your country and enforce their own definitions of 'freedom' on you then you also condone doing the same thing to them.