Nazz wrote:
I don't really think much of the original justifications, that might have been argued, really stand up now.
Then why go back in? See, I'm hearing language like "we can't afford to fail" against "our enemies", or "we must defeat those who would do us harm", etc., etc. I don't hear this escalation sold so much as global altruism, but more like we must go back and get the bad guys who want to hurt us. It all sounds very Iraq to me at this point. The Taliban either pose a real threat to us now or they don't. Which is it? Or are we convinced the war has to be fought on some higher, more abstract ideological level, such as "spreading democracy and freedom" and "liberating" the Afghanis? Again, that all sounds very neo-connish Iraq to me.
I used to have an elderly aunt, when faced with political contradictions who would just shrug and say "Politics is politics..."
I wrote in another thread, before I even found this thread:
"There are only two options in politics, there is the party that offers you more of the same, and there is the party that offers you less of the same, which is more of the same, but just less of it.
If you vote for the party that offers you less of the same, upon being elected and faced with the reality of the machine, they modify their position to give you more of the same, and if you vote for the party offering you more of the same, because they've invariably run out of steam, they actually end up offering you less of the same, which is more of the same, but just less of it.
The only real positive change that has come about in the last 60 years has been brought about by people who have opted out of this system, and those who did facilitate change, and then later joined, or re-joined the sytem, invariably spent the remainder of their careers underming all they did whilst outside of the system, which can lead us to only one conclusion, and that is that it is the system that is wrong.
The system that exists is one, where a vote for anyone, is a vote for more, or less, the same, whether it be more of the same, or less of the same, which is more of the same, just less of it."
Maybe I'm the oldest, and most cynical teenager ever to set foot on the planet, but I do really see very little difference between the current right and left, they are only slight variations within a tiny spectrum, so I'm really not surprised when offered change to find more, or less, of the same.
we didn't attack the Taliban because they blew up Afghanis, beat women, exported opium, or stoned people to death for playing soccer, just for saying no to the west.
I thought it was because at one point in time they allegedly harbored al Qaeda, most notably the 9/11 attackers.
Yes, and no, yes, we attacked because they harbored Al-Qaeda members, but not so much because they harbored them, but more because they refused to surrender them.
Which they claimed was justified as there is, strictly speaking, no Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda like to describe themselves as a "movement" that acts as an "umbrella" for many sunni mulsims (yes, we kicked out the Shia in Iraq, to put the Sunni's in power, I too see the irony), and the Talibans claim was that they couldn't just hand people over, with no justification, for subscribing to a "movement".
Some people may argue that's justified, after all, how would you feel about your government, handing you over to another country, because you were a Democrat, and some members of the Democrat party, (like some members of the Weathermen, for example) had commited terrorist acts, or, because you were a Republican, and some members of the Republican party, (like some of the Brüder Schweigen) had commited terrorist acts?
Others would argue that virtually every member of Al-Qaeda was, at the very least, an extremist, so there was no justification in refusing to co-operate.
Chose your poison.
The Taliban chose not to co-operate, and so America rolled into town.
If that no longer is true, which you seem to suggest in your comments, then why is it necessary to re-invade for security reasons?
Widely speaking it's accepted that the main cells of Al-Qaeda are no longer in the region, although some exist on the Pakistan border, and in west Pakistan, but, if security, from terrorists was your prime concern you'd probably be in North Africa, or Indonesia right now, so... well, make of that what you will, I'm sure 9/11 will be cited as a factor, for any further activity, but if I had to rate it as a "genuine" reason I'd rate it fairly low.
And if it's not so much about any sort of imminent threat per se but more about international altruism and justice, possibly even in the world's best interest to stabilize or "fix" Afghanistan somehow, then why can't we at least try to get a more legitimate and true international coalition together to do the job?
Because just about no one else is going to buy that now?
Maybe in the early days, you might of, and did have, some degree of international sympathy, but today, in reality, you'd probably get a greater international consensus on Iraq, than Afghanistan, and a) You ain't going to get that, and b) The only reason Iraq is a player, is because of the turmoil caused by the US invasion.
I guess "victory" could come when America can diplomatically withdraw, without looking defeated, whilst claiming they've made the place more "peaceful", and more "stable", and when they don't need a "strategic" presence in the region?
Yes, but I think it's more than a fair question to ask if "saving face" should, in effect, be the primary driver in this redeployment.
In my opinion, saving face should never be a driver in any action that leads to wide spread death, and misery, but sadly I'm sure it is a major motivator in all this.
And "needing a strategic presence in the region" is of course a loaded question. Hawks and defense contractors never met a strategic presence they didn't lust after.
Indeed, which is why "profitability" along with "saving face" are probably much more likely contributing factors, with regards to answering your question, than any "human" answer.
It does sort of bring us hurtling back towards being on topic, because it's really more of the same, and brings up a few of the points already raised, not least the ability to blame anyone, for anything, should you wish to.
As long as people WANT Afghanistan to be a going concern, it will be, and they will always be able to find a reason, even if it's tenuous at best.
As long as there is reasonable suspicion, that at least one person, might harbor extremist views, in Afghanistan (and there's plenty that do) you have all the political firepower you need, to carry out your actions, for whatever reasons you're really carrying them out for.
