US war on terror has killed 500,000 people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq

Silva said:
also of course the people involved won't accept a blowback thesis, the americans want no responsibility and the militias need to adhere to a holy warrior narrative to motivate recruits
Click to expand...

The blowback thesis is valid IMO, but shouldn't be focused on bin Laden and al Qaeda. The US did support Haqqani, Hekmatyar and others who would go on to become involved with the Taliban in the post 9/11 years. And while we don't know much about the life of Mullah Omar, the Mujahidin faction he fought with in the 80s almost certainly received some form of US support.

The bigger point is that US involvement in Afghanistan in the 80s and subsequent abandonment following the Soviet withdrawal helped turn Afghanistan into a failed state, which is the context in which the Taliban emerged and what made it an attractive destination for bin Laden in the mid-90s when he returned. However, obviously other factors besides US involvement need to be considered when analysing why Afghanistan became a failed state.
 
KM said:
How about reacting in a proportionate manner rather than killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Also let's not paint US as some kind of heroes when they intervened in Iraq during Saddam's regime.
Click to expand...

This isn’t an eye for an eye, you kill one of us we kill one of you scenario. The US, along with their allies were trying to snuff out terrorism so no more 9/11 type events occurred.

I think the reaction was somewhere in the middle on a reactionary scope. US tried to put a dent in terrorist cells and there were some unfortunate casualties that came along with that. The ends of the spectrum would be doing nothing and living every day wondering if another attack is immenent or kill everyone and everything that was/is or could be associated with terrorism.

If the US would have done nothing or done more - we’d be reading shite threads about how we refused to help, or destroyed entire populations.

I didn’t support our action in Iraq, but I am very happy Saddam is not around any longer.
 
bpet15 said:
This isn’t an eye for an eye, you kill one of us we kill one of you scenario. The US, along with their allies were trying to snuff out terrorism so no more 9/11 type events occurred.

I think the reaction was somewhere in the middle on a reactionary scope. US tried to put a dent in terrorist cells and there were some unfortunate casualties that came along with that. The ends of the spectrum would be doing nothing and living every day wondering if another attack is immenent or kill everyone and everything that was/is or could be associated with terrorism.

If the US would have done nothing or done more - we’d be reading shite threads about how we refused to help, or destroyed entire populations.

I didn’t support our action in Iraq, but I am very happy Saddam is not around any longer.
Click to expand...

Like you are doing in Yemen. I would buy this protector of the innocent act you are doing if you would acknowledge the genocide in Yemen which you conveniently ignore.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Who 'doesn't care about the civilian deaths' ? That's a pretty big accusation to throw about.

Civilian deaths are just a very sad inevitability of modern warfare. I don't think portraying the U.S as some evil empire which deliberately targets or gives zero fecks about civilians is helpful, because the situation simply isn't that simple.
Click to expand...

It’s not deliberate in that sense but it’s more that the government is willing to risk collateral damage for greed/supremacy.
 
bpet15 said:
I think the reaction was somewhere in the middle on a reactionary scope. US tried to put a dent in terrorist cells and there were some unfortunate casualties that came along with that. The ends of the spectrum would be doing nothing and living every day wondering if another attack is immenent or kill everyone and everything that was/is or could be associated with terrorism.
Click to expand...

The case that some have made - and I think it has a lot of validity - is that the US completely misread 9/11 as a show of jihadi strength, when in fact it should have been interpreted as evidence of the growing weakness of the jihadis.

The argument goes that the natural first targets of the jihadis following the anti-Soviet jihad were the corrupt/secular governments of the Islamic world. Over the course of the 90s the jihadis came to dominate or play a significant role in the insurgencies/conflicts in Algeria, Egypt, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Bosnia (probably to a lesser degree), Tajikistan and elsewhere, but completely failed in overthrowing any of those regimes. It was only in a completely failed state like Afghanistan that the jihadis could operate - they never came close to taking any Arab capital (still haven't). So attacking America was a Plan B after failure, and 9/11 should have been viewed as a spectacular but basically lucky sucker punch which represented a movement that had been pushed to the most backward periphery of the Islamic world.

It's interesting to speculate on how an American government which interpreted 9/11 in this way might have responded. If we accept this interpretation, then we have to conclude that the US response - and especially the Iraq War - basically breathed new life into a declining movement.
 
2cents said:
It's interesting to speculate on how an American government which interpreted 9/11 in this way might have responded. If we accept this interpretation, then we have to conclude that the US response - and especially the Iraq War - basically breathed new life into a declining movement.
Click to expand...
I still would believe that we would go into Afghanistan in this case.

We just wouldn’t have the “axis of evil” BS that drove us to Iraq after that.
 
2cents said:
The case that some have made - and I think it has a lot of validity - is that the US completely misread 9/11 as a show of jihadi strength, when in fact it should have been interpreted as evidence of the growing weakness of the jihadis.

The argument goes that the natural first targets of the jihadis following the anti-Soviet jihad were the corrupt/secular governments of the Islamic world. Over the course of the 90s the jihadis came to dominate or play a significant role in the insurgencies/conflicts in Algeria, Egypt, Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao, Bosnia (probably to a lesser degree), Tajikistan and elsewhere, but completely failed in overthrowing any of those regimes. It was only in a completely failed state like Afghanistan that the jihadis could operate - they never came close to taking any Arab capital (still haven't). So attacking America was a Plan B after failure, and 9/11 should have been viewed as a spectacular but basically lucky sucker punch which represented a movement that had been pushed to the most backward periphery of the Islamic world.

It's interesting to speculate on how an American government which interpreted 9/11 in this way might have responded. If we accept this interpretation, then we have to conclude that the US response - and especially the Iraq War - basically breathed new life into a declining movement.
Click to expand...
That's a bit too generous. If the pentagon had really just misread the attack and really thought jihad was on the ascendancy they would have gone after the funders and terror havens, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan not Iraq and Afghanistan. A more realistic reading based on their actions is that 9/11 gave them all the justification they needed to expand their military strategy and set up permanent bases in new territories.
 
Silva said:
That's a bit too generous. If the pentagon had really just misread the attack and really thought jihad was on the ascendancy they would have gone after the funders and terror havens, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan not Iraq and Afghanistan. A more realistic reading based on their actions is that 9/11 gave them all the justification they needed to expand their military strategy and set up permanent bases in new territories.
Click to expand...

These two theories are not mutually exclusive.
 
2cents said:
These two theories are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
I think they are. The US government has maintained and built new relationships with governments and military groups that are and fund jihadi extremists. They have also consistently supported jihadi groups when fighting anti-American governments in the region. That doesn't happen if the eradication of jihad was the major goal in the region post 9/11. It's pretty obvious, considering everything from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria that the war on terror is a marketing ploy, not a political or military goal.
 
practically anyone in Libya who wanted to pop Gadaffi, anyone in Syria who crossed their fingers and promised not to side with ISIS

more recently Mattis restarting talks to normalise the Taliban on the condition that they let the Americans have permanent bases there, because that's more important to the pentagon than fighting people they designate terrorists

the US military will put with any ideology and extremism as long they're pro-US
 
Carolina Red said:
I still would believe that we would go into Afghanistan in this case.

We just wouldn’t have the “axis of evil” BS that drove us to Iraq after that.
Click to expand...
This may well be the decisive distinction. Although the questions remain how intervention in Afghanistan would have looked like in that scenario, what the chances for success would have been without the Iraq War, and what "success" would have meant in the first place.
 
Silva said:
I think they are. The US government has maintained and built new relationships with governments and military groups that are and fund jihadi extremists. They have also consistently supported jihadi groups when fighting anti-American governments in the region. That doesn't happen if the eradication of jihad was the major goal in the region post 9/11. It's pretty obvious, considering everything from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria that the war on terror is a marketing ploy, not a political or military goal.
Click to expand...

People/governments/whatever are capable of holding multiple, often contradictory ideas and objectives on any given matter. And I've no doubt there were individuals in the Bush administration who saw both a major threat and a massive opportunity in 9/11. I agree that the response - a massive show of US power through the eradication of the greatest symbol of anti-American defiance, Saddam - conveniently lent itself to the logic of imperial expansion in the region. There's no argument from me there, I'm not trying to mount an "innocent America simply got it wrong" defence here.

The eradication of jihad in the region can be one goal in the post 9/11 era without necessarily shaping the entire response. And in certain contexts it will be subjugated to more pressing, immediate goals. There's no real mystery there.
 
Synco said:
This may well be the decisive distinction. Although the questions remain how intervention in Afghanistan would have looked like in that scenario, what the chances for success would have been without the Iraq War, and what "success" would have meant in the first place.
Click to expand...
I definitely think we’d have had more success, even with the same goal of taking out AQ and the Taliban.

Afghanistan became our 2nd priority once we went into Iraq, removing any chance of momentum we had built in the year leading up to that. We faced chronic shortages of men and air support throughout Op Enduring Freedom because it was constantly diverted to the Iraq War. On top of that, half of our Special Forces units were sent to Iraq to battle the insurgency instead of AQ and Taliban forces.
 
MJJ said:
Like you are doing in Yemen. I would buy this protector of the innocent act you are doing if you would acknowledge the genocide in Yemen which you conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...

I’m not ignoring/denying anything. It was a relatively simple statement I made.
 
2cents said:
People/governments/whatever are capable of holding multiple, often contradictory ideas and objectives on any given matter. And I've no doubt there were individuals in the Bush administration who saw both a major threat and a massive opportunity in 9/11. I agree that the response - a massive show of US power through the eradication of the greatest symbol of anti-American defiance, Saddam - conveniently lent itself to the logic of imperial expansion in the region. There's no argument from me there, I'm not trying to mount an "innocent America simply got it wrong" defence here.

The eradication of jihad in the region can be one goal in the post 9/11 era without necessarily shaping the entire response. And in certain contexts it will be subjugated to more pressing, immediate goals. There's no real mystery there.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to argue the outcomes of the invasions and involvement in the region, but the military and political reasoning. I realise that they're capable of contradictory stances and actions, but American foreign policy has been consistent for a long time and didn't go through any intellectual changes post 9/11. The primary goal is still an expansion of military and political presence and to install favourable governments anywhere they can. All other stated goals have been consistently ignored and trumped by it to the point where they frequently fund the things they rail against.
 
Carolina Red said:
I definitely think we’d have had more success, even with the same goal of taking out AQ and the Taliban.

Afghanistan became our 2nd priority once we went into Iraq, removing any chance of momentum we had built in the year leading up to that. We faced chronic shortages of men and air support throughout Op Enduring Freedom because it was constantly diverted to the Iraq War. On top of that, half of our Special Forces units were sent to Iraq to battle the insurgency instead of AQ and Taliban forces.
Click to expand...
That is one factor. But what I've also heard (cannot confirm this myself or anything, though) is that the invasion of Iraq has dealt a decisive blow to the US-installed post-Taliban political order in inner-Afghan dispute over its legitimacy/acceptability.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
I'm not trying to argue the outcomes of the invasions and involvement in the region, but the military and political reasoning. I realise that they're capable of contradictory stances and actions, but American foreign policy has been consistent for a long time and didn't go through any intellectual changes post 9/11. The primary goal is still an expansion of military and political presence and to install favourable governments anywhere they can. All other stated goals have been consistently ignored and trumped by it to the point where they frequently fund the things they rail against.
Click to expand...

Then we're not really in disagreement - see the back-and-forth on this here - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/afghanistan.392369/page-11

I'm just not really sure what you objected to in the first place. The broad logic of American foreign policy can remain consistent while the details remain subject to a degree to the ebb and flow of events and their interpretation - and of course, their interpretation is also subject to a certain degree to the logic of American foreign policy.

Since I doubt you'd argue that the invasion of Afghanistan and war on Iraq would have happened regardless 9/11 or not, we can probably agree that this particular event produced certain actions that otherwise would probably have not been taken, and that absent 9/11, the logic of American imperialism would have produced alternative actions and results in the Middle East.

So the more interesting question may be - could the US have interpreted 9/11 in any other way than it did?
 
When we talk about the US going to war in other countries for gain, do you ever wonder how stark they are when discussing it (I suppose 'they' would be those very high up in gov/military)?
Do you reckon they're just brazen and clear about the reasons in private meetings, or skirt around it and just hint at it even with each other?
 
VeevaVee said:
When we talk about the US going to war in other countries for gain, do you ever wonder how stark they are when discussing it (I suppose 'they' would be those very high up in gov/military)?
Do you reckon they're just brazen and clear about the reasons in private meetings, or skirt around it and just hint at it even with each other?
Click to expand...

I think certain assumptions about the way the world works and about the proper role of the US in shaping things have become embedded in the discourse prevalent in official institutions over a long period of time. For example, the need to maintain US authority over the Persian Gulf - you just won't find anyone with any influence in DC willing to question this assumption. So I think a hell of a lot - the big, broad questions really - goes without saying.
 
The war of terror was just American blood lust and political opportunism. America fights wars where the people at home are never hurt (bar a few thousand troops who become "heroes"). These wars help keep arms manufacturers in money, it helps oil companies get free oil around the world and helps American leaders look hard.

Before it was communists, then it was terrorists and no doubt tomorrow it'll be someone else.

It had nothing to do with terrorism or security, if it did they wouldn't have destroyed Iraq, Syria and Libya.
 
Zlatattack said:
The war of terror was just American blood lust and political opportunism. America fights wars where the people at home are never hurt (bar a few thousand troops who become "heroes"). These wars help keep arms manufacturers in money, it helps oil companies get free oil around the world and helps American leaders look hard.

Before it was communists, then it was terrorists and no doubt tomorrow it'll be someone else.

It had nothing to do with terrorism or security, if it did they wouldn't have destroyed Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Click to expand...

Well communism was a problem wouldn't you say ?
 
Raoul said:
Well communism was a problem wouldn't you say ?
Click to expand...

'Communism' was often used as a convenient moral excuse by the US though when in reality they were primarily concerned with defending their own interests, economic or politically. The US didn't oppose communist dictatorships because of their inherent opposition to dictatorial regimes - indeed they were friendly to plenty of dictatorial regimes so long as they followed US interests. Similarly in conflicts like Vietnam the US made the mistake of reducing a complex conflict which largely had national interests and issues at its core to one which was simply a battle between capitalism and a conflict. A mistake which caused untold amounts of human misery and suffering during said conflict and in the years that followed.
 
Raoul said:
Well communism was a problem wouldn't you say ?
Click to expand...

I'm sure all the dead Koreans, Afghans and Vietnamese fixed it right?

Communism isnt a problem, capitalism isn't a problem. The problem is white men trying to rule the world.
 
Cheesy said:
'Communism' was often used as a convenient moral excuse by the US though when in reality they were primarily concerned with defending their own interests, economic or politically. The US didn't oppose communist dictatorships because of their inherent opposition to dictatorial regimes - indeed they were friendly to plenty of dictatorial regimes so long as they followed US interests. Similarly in conflicts like Vietnam the US made the mistake of reducing a complex conflict which largely had national interests and issues at its core to one which was simply a battle between capitalism and a conflict. A mistake which caused untold amounts of human misery and suffering during said conflict and in the years that followed.
Click to expand...

I see it as a simple play to remain the dominant world power. It was either going to be the US or the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Pakistanis say it's the Americans. Americans say it's the terrorists. Terrorists say it's the Jews. Jews say it's the Germans. Germans say it's the Russians. Russians say it's the Christians. Christians say it's the Muslims.
 
Zlatattack said:
The war of terror was just American blood lust and political opportunism. America fights wars where the people at home are never hurt (bar a few thousand troops who become "heroes"). These wars help keep arms manufacturers in money, it helps oil companies get free oil around the world and helps American leaders look hard.

Before it was communists, then it was terrorists and no doubt tomorrow it'll be someone else.

It had nothing to do with terrorism or security, if it did they wouldn't have destroyed Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Click to expand...
Get free oil all around the world? You can't be serious. These conflict zones represent gigantic risk with indifferent margins relative to the Permian, Bakken, or Marcellus/Utica (and soon the Eagleford).

If anything, it's more about security of the flow of oil. Which is an entirely different subject, especially now.
 
The Firestarter said:
It's irrelevant who did the killing, the question is : Would ~500k people have lost their lives had the US not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq ? And the answer is no, they wouldn't have.
Click to expand...
If they didn’t fly airplanes against our buildings believe me most of the older dictators would be in power still
 
barros said:
If they didn’t fly airplanes against our buildings believe me most of the older dictators would be in power still
Click to expand...
Yep. If SAUDI terrorists didn’t fly planes into the WTC then all those countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 wouldn’t have been obliterated.

Just as well they taught those Saudis a lesson and stopped them from covertly propping up Wahhabist terrorists.

Oh wait...
 
Terrorists trying to kill terrorists?
 
Carolina Red said:
AQ flew planes into our WTC and our Pentagon and our field in Pennsylvania, not the other way around.

It’s one thing to say we contributed to it, but to say we created it? No. Not having it.
Click to expand...

Come on now man. The US (and UK) spent the best part of a century fecking up the middle east and exploiting it at every opportunity. We overthrew democratic governments, supported brutal dictators and inadvertantly fueled religious extremism at every turn. The US turned Iran into a religious theocracy, propped up Saddam in Iraq, cemented the House of Saud in SA, and countless other stupid, stupid feckups. So then some religious whackjobs fly a few planes into US targets and THAT'S when it supposedly started? How many millions of people died because of the west's actions in the ME before 9/11 do you think? Do those people just not count?
 
Kentonio said:
Come on now man. The US (and UK) spent the best part of a century fecking up the middle east and exploiting it at every opportunity. We overthrew democratic governments, supported brutal dictators and inadvertantly fueled religious extremism at every turn. The US turned Iran into a religious theocracy, propped up Saddam in Iraq, cemented the House of Saud in SA, and countless other stupid, stupid feckups. So then some religious whackjobs fly a few planes into US targets and THAT'S when it supposedly started? How many millions of people died because of the west's actions in the ME before 9/11 do you think? Do those people just not count?
Click to expand...
Contributed: yes; Created: no. And I’m not moving from that.

There was a great deal of screwing the place up done by us (mainly after WW2) and by countries other than us (mainly after WW1). A great deal of things contributed to the beginning of this war, just like a great many combatants contributed to the deaths referenced in the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.