there's something about this sentence that sums up the privileges of empire so well...Afghanistan
- Thread starter Sherzad
- Start date
there's something about this sentence that sums up the privileges of empire so well...I guess he should have stayed at JSOC and done nothing, then.
He was nowhere near the botched raid and obviously disagreed with what happened, and he is well known for instituting much more rigorous ROE and post-combat regulations for JSOC once he took over the unit, so I’m still wondering what his war crimes are.
Sorry, I don't know anything about this guy and I'm not fit to judge on war crimes and the like, it's just the absurdity of the entire situation - "We are deeply, deeply sorry for the tragedy that befell your family old boy. By way of compensation, might we offer you this sheep which, according to my Lonely Planet guide to Afghanistan 1977, has been the standard means of settling such accounts amongst your people since time immemorial?"
The problem isn't the individual, it's the project of empire as a whole.
I’m sure McRaven knew that it wouldn’t take away what had happened.
The war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a war of empire?
Killing or capturing the perpetrators of 9/11? No.
Taking out the regime that harbored them. Maybe not, but is it the wisest move?
Militarily occupying and attempting to transform and shape the entire politics of a country about which you know and understand extremely little in a way which is amenable to your international interests (as you see them)? I'd say that's a classic war of empire, the type of which inevitably leads to absurd situations like the one above.
How would you propose fighting a war against an Al Qaeda harbored and protected by the Taliban without also fighting the Taliban?
The Taliban offered to hand over OBL to KSA. KSA recognised the Taliban as a legitimate government, the US didn't. Fact is you boys were were blood thirsty and you wanted vengance. Who you got it from didn't matter.
This link was post 911 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
From US government archives - http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/
The Invasion of Afghanistan was just another move of the American empire.
The Invasion of Afghanistan was just another move of the American empire.
Firstly you don't fight a 'war' against Al Qaeda a terrorist group, the U.S somehow managed to kill Bin Laden without going to war with Pakistan.
See this was the arrogant American attitude - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/the_us_refuses_to_negotiate_with_the_taliban
17 years on and following defeat in the war, we still see the same arrogance in the same people.
17 years on and following defeat in the war, we still see the same arrogance in the same people.
What were us boys wanting blood thirsty vengence about?
We didn’t go to war with Afghanistan, either.
It's up to the military guys to work that out, but if they figured it wasn't possible than certainly the option of fighting the Taliban should be on the table. I'm not a military man but I can't believe this just had to involve a full-scale, multi-year military occupation and alliance with a collection of grim warlords. But in any case I don't believe these considerations were ever seriously made, from the start the aim was a lot broader and involved rationale derived from America's imperial mission.
Taking out the Taliban was firstly, IMO, about the perceived need for America to look tough and powerful again in front of a Muslim world which, the argument went, had watched America being humbled in places like Iran and Somalia, and now Manhattan, and had come to regard American might with contempt. The Taliban just had to go no matter what ("Suck on this" as Tom Friedman said with regards to Iraq), otherwise that contempt would only escalate and encourage further attempts to challenge American dominance in Muslim lands.
Secondly, it was about remaking the politics of the Muslim world in America's image so that the peoples of those regions might learn to be more Western/free/compliant, etc.
In both cases, the logic is derived from the unquestioned mission to ensure the continuance of American dominance in far-away lands, i.e. Empire.
And your'e not occupying Afghanistan either.
Not much anymore, really.
Ask 19 Eypgtians and Saudi's. There were no Afghans on any of those planes.
The war escalated after we failed to get OBL in Tora Bora.
Now, if you changed out the Afghanistan specific nouns for Iraq specific ones, I’d agree with you 100%. But I don’t see the war in Afghanistan being comparable.
How could we want bloodthirsty vengeance for that before it happened?
Nobody said anything about before. If you'd bother to read the links, the Afghans offered to deport Bin Laden back to his country of origin before the USS Cole attacks. They also offered to do the same after the 911 attacks.
Furthermore, Sudan - his former residence, offered to deport him to America itself prior to the USS Cole attacks, but you weren't interested in taking back a former asset at that stage. One you'd armed and trained only a few years ago.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/05/opinion/oe-ijaz05
In 1996 actually.
Why did America refuse the options to arrest Bin Laden between 1996 and 2001?
Why did America refuse to accept Bin Laden being deported to his country of origin after 911?
It's because you thought you were Billy BigBalls and you could have your cake and eat it too. Turns out the pukthun are ball breakers.
Right...
You posted this...
Then this article...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html
To which I asked what we were feeling bloodthirsty vengence about, leading to our rejection of the proposal. To which you said 9/11.
Leave and see long your client regime lasts, my guess would be about 1 year.
Sure is a strange choice of a place to have in your empire. Would've been easier just to start with Canada...
AFAIK, the Taliban never offered to capture and hand UBL to the US. I feel like that was a reasonable demand/ultimatum at the time.
We pretty much have left compared to our numbers at the height of the conflict. We have about 15,000 people in country.
Leaving Afghanistan and other places to likely be run by some extremist/authoritarian group or another over the long run might be the inevitable thing to do, given the inability to establish any other form of government. I just find it bizarre that some seem to claim its the moral thing to do, too.
I just posted 3 links where the Taliban offered to hand him over to Saudi (his home nation). The US had no relations with the US, why would they hand anyone over to you? There is also one where the Sudanese offered to hand him over (as well as a load of other intel) in the 90's.
The problem was always image, the US didn't want to look like it was making agreements and concessions with people, instead it was always the "World police". It's the same reason Iran will go nuclear, assuming they have the guts. America doesn't do reasonable compromise.
Plans to attempt to kill him in Afghanistan were also drawn up in the late 90s. The US government fecked up, anyone involved at the time carries that blame. The CIA also didn't pass on information to the FBI about a part of the hijackers that they'd tracked in Indonesia when they moved to the US.
Why does any of this change what should've been done after 9/11?
Right after 911, The Taliban offered to hand OBL over to Saudi Arabia. You should have took that offer and then demanded the Saudi's extradite him to America.
Alternatively you could have recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, established relations with them, provided them with the evidence and then extradited him from there directly.
Maybe you could have also then negociated a scenario where Al Queda would be prohibited from operating from Afghanistan. Instead you refused the Taliban offer, you threatened them, you waged war, and then you lost the war.
Exactly.
Right after 911, The Taliban offered to hand OBL over to Saudi Arabia. You should have took that offer and then demanded the Saudi's extradite him to America.
Alternatively you could have recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, established relations with them, provided them with the evidence and then extradited him from there directly.
Maybe you could have also then negociated a scenario where Al Queda would be prohibited from operating from Afghanistan. Instead you refused the Taliban offer, you threatened them, you waged war, and then you lost the war.
If we could separate dimensions so you could go live in your multi-polar world with every authoritarian out there angling for his next power move to go 100% unopposed, so I didn't have to join you in it, I'd wish you all the best in it.
The US shouldn't be world police because they don't have the moral authority to do so, and more importantly they don't have the literal ability to oppose everything, everywhere, all the time. That said, when the USSR crumbled and nuclear/missile scientists there and others were starving and starting to sell themselves to any bidder (mainly Iraq & Iran at the time), it wasn't my native Brazil (I'm not American) that pledged millions of dollars and tracked this issue to at least attempt to mitigate the proliferation risk, which is a global concern. Just one example.
When faced with an answer to your question, you change the subject.
Post 911, the US wanted OBL and Al Queda. The government of Afghanistan (Taliban) offered to deport him to his country of origin (Saudi Arabia). The US should have accepted that and then ask Saudi Arabia (a very close US ally) to deport him to the US for trial.
It was that simple, but for Bush it wasn't enough - only blood would win him the next election.
If the attack had been on your country, you would've seen that as reasonable?
What link is that offer in?
Seriously?
And how exactly would the Taliban have done that?
We did? Tell that to OBL.
They're directly linked. On the one hand, it was impossible to rationalise the type of changes thought to be needed for Iraq before implementing them first in Afghanistan, the place from which the attack emanated. It was a project aimed at the Muslim world as a whole, so how could Afghanistan be excluded? And it was obvious in the short time between 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan that more fundamental changes were at the heart of the operation - how much propaganda did we hear about the plight of women under the Taliban in those weeks?
On the other hand, Afghanistan could never be enough for the type of statement America felt they needed to make in the Muslim world. It's not regarded a whole lot differently by Muslims as it is by Westerners - a barren, semi-barbarous land where renegades go to hide out. And the Taliban were regarded more as a curiosity than as symbolic of anything. So the ultimate target had to be Iraq and Saddam, the greatest symbol of anti-American defiance in the heart of the Muslim world.
We can agree to disagree on that. I’m at the polar opposite to you on the cause of that war.
My country (1 of 2 I'm a national of) Pakistan has suffered 70,000 dead people at the hands of terrorists, many of whom operate from Afghanistan. To this day we've not invaded Afghanistan, we've fought a war against terrorists on our own land, we've worked with several un-cooperative Afghan governments, we've even mined and fenced the border out of our own pocket, despite the objections of Afghanistan.
My other country has also suffered at the hands of terrorists. Britain has suffered dozens of terrorist attacks and we've not felt the need to invade different countries after each one. Unfortunately our leaders like to follow the US everywhere they go like a lovesick puppy.
This one right here - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11
Here it is reported in the Guardian again a few days earlier - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
this is october 2001 we're talking about.