Do you, in retrospect, support the afganistan war?

[sweetheart]

Poll question: Do you, in retrospect, support the afganistan war?

After seeing the results of the afganistan war, what is your
position on that intervention?

[dave123williams]

1. Hell, I wanted us to NUKE Afghanistan.

But, I still don't see what connection there was between Iraq, a secular state, and the religious nutjobs in Khandahar.

Iraq...Iraq is a bogus war, a tarbaby.

[DrWeird]

6. Did you want to nuke the midwest after OKC?

Just curious.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. Or Buffalo, NY?????

Wasn't McVeigh originally from around Buffalo?

[lightbulb]

10. Excellent metaphor, DrWeird - eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. And the more we're starting to know about the action in Afghanistan....

...the more we're coming to the realization that attacking an entire country based on the possible actions of Al Qaeda was wrong.

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. War in Afghanistan = totally justified...

War in Iraq = complete opposite.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

63. So, the entire country of Afghanistan was behind the attacks on 911?....

How come not a single hijacker was from Afghanistan?

How come Osama initially denied any involvement in 911?

And who is the guy that the U. S. government claims was Osama in the video where that individual admits to planning 911? How come that guy looks nothing like the before and after pictures of the REAL Osama Bin Laden?

[Zhade]

123. A visual reference for those who haven't seen the obvious disparity...

(Preemptive note: please, no one bother to flame me for the source. I Googled "fake Osama confession tape", this just happened to be the first link.)

I dare anyone to look at that collage and tell me, with a straight face, that there isn't something wrong with this picture - and believe it in their heart.

That's just not the guy.

[Alpharetta]

3. What war? (I voted "Other")

You mean support when we backed the Northern Alliance? Sure.

But support what happened since? No.

We abandoned them. We failed to help them establish a government that could curtail Taliban and Al Qaeda activities. We still permit Taliban and Al Qaeda to move freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan is still ruled by warlords and the Taliban. Our forces and aid cannot travel the highways because they are ungoverned and mined by various factions. The election in Afghanistan will be a charade of democracy.

We also pretended like Afghanistan was the ONLY government to be implicated in 9/11. What a sham. We know that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia governments had factions supporting Al Qaeda.

There was no war. All we did was establish some small bases and then surrender to entropy.

[bigwillq]

4. It made more sense to go there then to

Iraq.

Although, I still don't think we need to have an all-out war in Afghan in order to track down Osama.

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. Never, ever.

The majority of those who are dying for that were innocent Afghanis. How many? How can we know? The US Army doesn't do body counts.

[Kanary]

11. Once again, you're right. We created *MORE* terrorists with that revenge

We just don't get it....... terrorism isn't a "conventional" war, and won't be resolved the same way we're gone after things in the past.

How many people have to die before we "GET" that?


Kanary

[antigone382]

9. I support it, but am embarrassed by the results

I realize that the Bush cabal had an interest in the invasion of Afghanistan, but given that Afghanistan was harboring Osama bin Laden, and refused to cooperate with us in capturing him, I feel that we were justified in invading, regardless of whether those in power benefited from it or not. Also, we had a true coalition of many major world powers, including France and Germany, helping us in the prosecution of the war.

However, The piss-poor result of our invasion of Afghanistan, due to Bush's preoccupation with Iraq, renders the entire operation useless, and that angers me. Because of that I would not be willing to fight in either country, at this point; had we devoted the necessary resources to the operation in Afghanistan, I would accept being called to serve there, and would be willing to die to support a cause that I thought was just, and that I thought my leaders were truly doing everything in their power to ensure the victory of. But the B*sh Administration is misusing our military in a way that is conducive to failure in both countries, and I am unwilling to give my life, the ultimate sacrifice, for any cause to which my Commander in Chief is unwilling to donate the full resources at his disposal.

[Djinn]

14. everyone says "because the Taliban refused"

but it's actually not true, they said they wanted proof that he was involved - which is more than reasonable - if the US was being asked to extradite someone for a capital crime they'd also ask for proof, they also wanted him to face trial in a neutral country (the International Court could have been arranged) Some people respond to this by saying that the US government could not have dealt with the Taliban what with them being nutbags - but they WERE dealing with them prior to 9/11 anyway.

The US admin's response to the request for proof was:

"There is ample proof that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were behind previous acts of terrorism and every indication is that they are responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11."

If that was the case then they could have provided it and got their man - that's not what they wanted - control (in a highly dubious way) of Afghanistan was always preferable to capturing Bin Laden. The "proof" that Bin Laden was involved (if he actually was) would also likely have brought up some "uncomfortable" connections with Saudi and the Pakistani ISI which the US needed to keep schtum, for example what pressure has there been to shut down the madrassas and training camps in Pakistan's Baluchistan province - there were always more there than in Afghanistan.

The Afghan people did not vote for the Taliban yet they suffered not Osama. They continue to suffer, as as well as dealing with ALL the same problems they had under the Taliban they now have to cope with bombs, high levels of crime (not so prevelent under the Taliban they tended to take a somewhat hardline approach to law and order) and the possibility of being arrested and if they're lucky getting sent to Gitmo - if they're unlucky not making it out of custody alive all because someone with a grudge accuses them of being "Al Qaeda"

[Eye and Monkey]

48. Nicely put.

[geek tragedy]

55. Oh please, what a load of crap.

I'll give you one guess why there were sanctions on Afghanistan in the first place.

They were bin Laden's allies, supporters, and loyal followers. Anyone who thinks that they were seriously interested in proof rather than stalling, quite frankly, is a damn fool.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres1267.htm

<snip>
Strongly condemning the continuing use of Afghan territory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Deploring the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations,

Noting the indictment of Usama bin Laden and his associates by the United States of America for, inter alia, the 7 August 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and for conspiring to kill American nationals outside the United States, and noting also the request of the United States of America to the Taliban to surrender them for trial (S/1999/1021),

Determining that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to the demands in paragraph 13 of resolution 1214 (1998) constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
<snip>

<snip>
1. Insists that the Afghan faction known as the Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, comply promptly with its previous resolutions and in particular cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take appropriate effective measures to ensure that the territory under its control is not used for terrorist installations and camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice;

2. Demands that the Taliban turn over Usama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice;
<snip>

The "we were unfair to the Taliban" meme is a pile of horse shit.
It's one thing to be opposed to Bush, it's another to push dishonest pro-Taliban propaganda.

[Eye and Monkey]

58. Not very nicely put.

Actually both your post and Djinn's have elements that ring true. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it propaganda.

In case you're wonderin', yeah, I actually do know a little something about it. It's more complex than black and white, one view or the other.

[Swamp Rat]

67. HAHAHA!

"Not very nicely put." - there's great comedy in the titles your last two posts!... or it might be something else... time for a huge bowl of Capt. Crunch and the Daily Show re-run. :smoke:

[Eye and Monkey]

72. thanks. just...don't bogart that crunch, my friend.

:smoke:

[geek tragedy]

69. Do you really think that the Taliban

would have handed bin Laden over if the US had offered proof?

After they had refused to turn him over for the embassy bombings--which AQ was clearly responsible for. And had been sanctioned by the UN for allowing him to run amok there.

And taking his money and allowing AQ to run the country as a partner.

Bin Laden had declared war on the US. The Taliban were his supporters and protectors.

In retrospect, the US should have invaded Afghanistan in 1999.

[Eye and Monkey]

80. You're going overboard again.

Question: Would the Talibs ever handed over OBL?
Simple, incomplete answer (as they all are in this circumstance): I don't know. From what I know of the situation, from at least '97-forward, the US rarely if ever approached contact with the Taliban from a perspective that might have been productive.

Statement: The Taliban were his supporters and protectors.
Simple, incomplete answer (as they all are in this circumstance): In a black and white world, that's one view. In the real world, it doesn't hold up as an absolute.

Statement: In retrospect, the US should have invaded Afghanistan in 1999.
Simple, incomplete answer (as they all are in this circumstance): Not possible and not plausible. And I think you know that already.

[geek tragedy]

82. Bin Laden had been indicted in the US for the embassy bombings

and had declared war on the US. He had bombed the Cole and the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The Taliban's response to the world community in response to its demand that they stop sheltering bin Laden and AQ: Drop dead.

There was no point negotiating with the Taliban--they were barbarians and had to be destroyed. Bush's main fault in Afghanistan was not finishing them off.

[Eye and Monkey]

83. I guess you've negotiated with the Talibs? eh? I have.

Successfully, in a small but significant way.

You write - "Taliban--they were barbarians and had to be destroyed." Not only does that sound pretty barbaric, but I think you're using the wrong tense. It reads like you think that they've actually been destroyed.

[geek tragedy]

84. I said Bush didn't finish the job.

Somebody has to finish them. John Kerry has promised to do so. I will support his efforts to that end.

Again, they defied the entire planet in sheltering bin Laden before 9/11. Considering the considerable power and influence he had assumed there--the destruction of the Buddhas was an AQ idea or at least involved AQ personnel--it is astonishing to see people suggest that negotiations were warranted or even possible.

Bottom line: they were sheltering a deadly enemy of the US, and to do so would have been an act of war, had the Taliban been a legitimate government.

[Eye and Monkey]

89. You understand the word "hyperbole", right?

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince with your use of hyperbole, could it be yourself?

I'd be happy to discuss some of what I know of the situation, but hyperbole's not my style. If you care to tone it down and discuss, that's one thing. But what you're doing isn't discussion.

[geek tragedy]

91. What part is hyperbole?

The fact that the Taliban defied an order of the UN Security Council?

The fact that bin Laden had issued his fatwa declaring war on the US?

That bin Laden was responsible for the embassy bombings?

These are all uncontroverted facts.

[Eye and Monkey]

95. well, among other examples - is it REALLY astonishing?

"it is astonishing to see people suggest that negotiations were warranted or even possible."

You seem to want to skip right over any other possible option and go straight to war, invasion, "finishing them". When you can recognize the fallacy you embrace, let me know and we'll go from there.

[geek tragedy]

99. The Taliban had given shelter to bin Laden after he declared war

on the US and launched the Cole and embassy bombings.

They were willing to suffer crippling economic sanctions to protect him.

AQ assassinated the Taliban's #1 opponent the day before 9/11.

The request for proof was a delaying tactic--the US owed the Taliban no proof, and doing so would have very possibly compromised the sources of that information. And, given all of the information available at the time, it certainly was reasonable to assume that any negotiations would be conducted in bad faith by the Taliban and ultimately counter-productive.

The US gave the Taliban one month to do what they were legally compelled to do on September 10, 2001--stop supporting and sheltering Usama bin Laden and his organization. They continued to shelter and support the AQ terrorist organization, and they paid the price.

And to be honest, the Taliban should have been destroyed to make an example out of them. There is nothing wrong with the policy of declaring war on states/quasi-states that actively aid AQ and refuse to stop.

Of course, the benefit of that example was lost when the US went after Saddam, who had not killed any Americans or helped anyone to kill any Americans.

[Eye and Monkey]

103. Yes, you say it, but you don't back it up.

Delaying tactic - that assumption meets common sense, but to what end? Delaying for what?

"reasonable to assume that any negotiations would be conducted in bad faith by the Taliban" - based on what grounds? is it likewise reasonable to assume that negotiations would be conducted in bad faith by the US?

"make an example out of them" - you don't have any direct experience of the situation, you're basing this on what you've read, and you're in grave danger of losing your humanity.

"benefit of that example was lost" - there never WAS a benefit. That illusion is part of the fallacy you've embraced.

[geek tragedy]

108. Answers:

Delaying for: a chance to dig in, disperse, prepare a guerilla war, conduct a scorched earth campaign, a chance to wait out the winter, etc etc.

Bad faith assumption: They knew he was an international terrorist who had declared war on the US, and were being sanctioned for sheltering him. And they continued to support and shelter him. What did 9/11 do to change those facts? They were already behaving in bad faith. As far as bad faith negotitiations by the US are concerned--that is a spurious point. The US refused to negotiate on that which should not have been subject to negotiation. The Taliban were obligated to turn over the terrorists and stop protecting them. If they refused to do so, fuck them.

"In danger of losing my humanity." Spare me the condescending psychobabble. The best way to discourage states from sheltering terrorists is to punish those who do. The US had the power to send a clear, simple message: Those who aid AQ do so at their own risk.

Benefits: Nations that despise the US and have a history of supporting other terrorist groups nevertheless cooperate when it comes to AQ. See, e.g., Syria.

[Eye and Monkey]

114. Your repetition of quaint myths is not enlightening.

Your reasoning behind possible delaying tactics is breath-taking in its ignorance.

Your reasoning behind your bad faith assumption shows a complete lack of the pre-text - the events pre-2001.

Call it psychobabble if you care to, but you are the person here who is demonizing and then "finishing off". If "losing your humanity" is psychobabble, what is "finish 'em off"?

And about benefits - you've devised a significantly one-sided balance sheet. That you don't see the liabilities - well, I suppose those are not well-spelled out in your daily reading.

[geek tragedy]

116. Please enlighten me. Your condescension reveals someone with a

great deal to share.

I'm eager to see how I'm such a stupid, ignorant, and evil person for having prejudged the poor, misunderstood Taliban.

Please provide facts, however. Your rhetoric will no longer be sufficient.

[Eye and Monkey]

121. I didn't say you are stupid or evil. But you are ignorant of many issues.

And quite a few facts.

Yes, I do have a great deal to share. You probably won't run into too many folks who have actually worked in-country and in the region. Still, you don't seem to be very open to sharing, but who knows, maybe it's just bluster.

About enlightening you - I don't see it as my place to tell you what's what, I'm only interested in pointing you in the right direction. I think if you read mine and other posts here, you can determine your next steps to understanding the situation.

[geek tragedy]

122. Please, then, provide facts.

I'm going to bed now, so go ahead and lay it out. I will view what you post in a considerably less cantankerous mood.

[Djinn]

62. completely disengenous to suggest I said we were unfair

to the Taliban.

How come those "sanctions" didn't stop US energy companies (with high level government support) dealing with the Taliban??

How come if sheltering terrorists and their training grounds was reason enough to bomb them - Pakistan and Saudi weren't included?

Oh and btw I don't simply oppose Bush - I oppose imperialism and war for profit

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

71. That is a L - I - E

"Energy companies wanted to deal with the Taliban after the embassy bombings, but the UN sanctions prevented it."

Seriously - do some research you're WAY out

"Did the UN find that there were AQ training camps in Saudi-occupied Arabia and Pakistan? "

well you're own government seems to belive so - Mamdouh Habib was arrested in PAKISTAN (flown to Egypt for torture) and then to Gitmo where he's been for years - he was looking at schools in Pakistan - the US admits he never set foot in Afghanistan yet somehow was training with Al Qaeda?? I'll let his wife know he can come home now coz geek tradgedy says Al Qaeda aren't in pakistan

[geek tragedy]

74. You're the one saying they had deals in place.

Your obligation to prove it. I say there were sanctions (fact) and that such sanctions prevented energy deals (logical conclusion).

The burden is on you to prove fact and logic wrong.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. Speaking of "damn fools", you do know that the major oil and gas....

...corporations were negotiating with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghanistan right up to the last month or two prior to 911, don't you?

You do know that we gave the Taliban $43 million in early 2001, don't you?

Now who's "pro-Taliban"?

I have a lot more examples, but it's late and I fear that I'm dueling with an unarmed opponent.

[Swamp Rat]

70. Wazn't there sumthin' about a carpet of bombs or sumthin'?

Remember the "Black Knight" from Monty Python's "Holy Grail?" :D

[geek tragedy]

76. Some guys wrote a book that said that.

But, I generally require more proof than some guys writing a book saying something with no live witnesses to corroborate it.

[Swamp Rat]

79. Don't vote for Bush geek tragedy! He's an alien lizard!

[geek tragedy]

81. David Icke, I presume?

[Swamp Rat]

133. Who is David Icke?

I've heard people mention his name before. I figured it was an obscure, Dennis Miller type reference.

You're not in league with the reptiles are you? Are you gonna vote for the alien lizards AKA the Bush administration?

[geek tragedy]

134. I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat.

David Icke thinks that certain Jewish families which control the banking system and the world are actually lizards from outer space.

Literally. He thinks they are really from outer space.

[Swamp Rat]

140. He's right.

Better watch out though, Rove has been working hard to discredit the truth with espionage and disinformation (ex. Dan Rather and "Memogate"). I'll bet this Icke guy is one of the human sellouts... does he make money from his reporting? If he does, that means he's one of 'em. The REAL human rebels NEVER try to make money when telling the truth.

[geek tragedy]

75. We didn't give the Taliban $43 Million.

Most reasonably educated people know that. Why don't you?

And what ever happened to that pipeline? Construction still hasn't started on it.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

112. Your apology is accepted in advance.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html

<snip>
An overview of Scheer's writing reveals that one of his favorite tactics is to create a politically potent trope and repeat it over and over until it seems true. When faced with criticism, Scheer simply dismisses his critics without addressing their arguments and continues to repeat his idea, as if the more he says it, the truer it becomes.

An excellent example of this tactic can be found in what my co-editor Brendan Nyhan has labeled the "Taliban aid trope." Scheer created this trope in May, when he attacked a "gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan," saying it "makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that 'rogue regime' for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God."

Drawing on work by Bryan Carnell of Leftwatch, Brendan pointed out that the $43 million was not aid to the Taliban government. Instead, the money was a gift of wheat, food commodities, and food security programs distributed to the Afghan people by agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Secretary of State Colin Powell specifically stated, in fact, that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

Since the US began focusing on the Taliban for harboring Osama Bin Laden, whose Al-Qaeda network is the primary suspect in the September 11 attacks, Scheer has repeated this false assertion about U.S. aid to Afghanistan, and in fact twisted it even further. In a September 17 column, he says that the aid was a tacit endorsement of Bin Laden:

This is typical of the mixed signals we've been sending. Call it what you will, even humanitarian aid, and funnel it through the United Nations, but the effect is the same: to send to the Taliban a signal that its support of Bin Laden has been somehow acceptable.

Note how Scheer takes note of his critics' points by prefacing them with "Call it what you will," as if these points were arbitrary labels and not facts. They are facts, however, and Scheer is simply trying to avoid them.

Scheer wasn't done spreading this trope, or with his irrational dismissal of critics, however. Two weeks later, on October 1, he spun humanitarian aid for the Afghan people as some sort of a fairy tale:

Believe that , and you can believe that the $43 million in aid that Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that same week--to help the Afghans, "including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome"--was simply humanitarian aid and not really a reward to the Taliban for helping the U.S. in its drug war.

Again, Scheer does not explain to readers how humanitarian aid funneled through the U.N and NGOs can be considered a gift to a government that never receives funds or controls any food aid. Notice also how he selectively quotes Powell, avoiding the statement mentioned earlier in which Powell explicitly notes that the aid will bypass the Taliban. Even more disturbing, however, is a fact brought to our attention by Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix in an email: Powell's statement was made in response to a question about future aid and had nothing to do with the $43 million aid already provided. Once again, Scheer is twisting the truth to fit his argument.
<snip>

You're not going to win this one, so you might as well admit you're wrong.


I do thank you for making it easy by using a hack like Scheer as your evidence.

[geek tragedy]

115. Here's more with which you can reasonably educate yourself

http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/200106-3.html#12a

<snip>
n the article, Scheer condemns Bush for a "recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan", which he alleges is intended to reward the theocratic regime for its recent crackdown on opium production. He calls the US the "main sponsor" of the Taliban, extensively condemns the very real repression and human rights violations of the regime and then blames the US for supporting the perpetrators of those acts.

Reading this without any context, you might be outraged. That's because you have no way of knowing that it's a wild factual distortion, as Bryan Carnell of LeftWatch.com points out. The US did not give a "gift" to the Taliban. In fact, it was widely reported by CNN and others that the aid consists of $28 million in surplus wheat, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs intended to help alleviate a looming famine. Moreover, as Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his announcement of the aid, it will be distributed through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations, not the Taliban. Powell specifically added that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."
<snip>

[Zhade]

125. Game, set, match. Nicely done.

That was fun to watch!

[geek tragedy]

126. Read the responses.

That poster is still wiping the egg off their face.

[Zhade]

128. Not that I can see. You should check your own face. He was right.

NT!

[Character Assassin]

130. Citing Robert Scheer is almost assures that one is wrong.

One might as well come out and say, "I was wrong, but I'm spinning for time." Or, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

[geek tragedy]

132. Robert Scheer and patriotism--the last refuges for scoundrels.

But, then there are people who are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between "Afghanistan" and the "Taliban." I pity such people.

According to their warped logic, a donation of food to poor people in the US should count as a contribution to the Bush campaign.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

135. Your source quotes LeftWatch.com - hardly a reliable source.

So, I'm pretty sure you have failed to discredit the fact that we did, indeed, grant the Taliban $43 million.

Have you even read the front page of LeftWatch.com? If you had, you wouldn't rely on a source quoting from it to "debunk" something you haven't.

Again, sorry if you dislike that you got served by MLD. If you'd know what you were talking about, it wouldn't have happened. Tough break.

[geek tragedy]

136. Do you understand that "Afghanistan" and "Taliban" are two different

things?

He didn't cite Leftwatch for any facts--only giving the site credit for discovering the lie.

Try this from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/index.html

"Powell said the U.S. aid is administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it.""

Please, try to approach the question honestly.

[Character Assassin]

137. You ask the impossible

Please, try to approach the question honestly.

Those who have argued with you on this topic have yet to prove capable of such.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

141. Here's a debunking from a progressive website

http://www.alternet.org/story/11629/

<snip>
According to commentators of all ideological stripes -- from the Nation's Christopher Hitchens on the left to the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg in the center to the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly on the right -- the US gave $43 million to Afghanistan's Taliban government as a reward for its efforts to stamp out opium-poppy cultivation. That would have been a shockingly inappropriate gift to a government that had been sanctioned by the United Nations for its refusal to hand over international terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Would have been, that is, if it had really happened. It didn't.

The truth is contained in the transcript of a briefing given by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on May 17 announced the $43 million grant; it was aimed at alleviating a famine that threatened the lives of four million Afghans. Far from handing the money over to the Taliban, Powell went out of his way to criticize them, and to explain the steps the United States was taking to keep the money out of their hands.

"We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations," Powell said. "We provide our relief to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's ruling factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."
<snip>

<snip>
Most media reports of Powell's announcement got it right. Within days, though, the commentators began making hash of it. Among the first was Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer, who on May 22 criticized the Bush administration for its "recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today." Scheer did not respond to my requests for comment, so I can't be sure where he got his information. But his Web site credits a New York Times article of May 18 that, though accurate, glosses over the matter of who precisely would receive the $43 million. Scheer apparently drew the wrong conclusion.
<snip>

[Alpharetta]

145. I didn't know that.

I consider myself reasonably educated and was not aware of Scheer's incorrect assertion.

I will start reading Spinsanity. Thank you for introducing me to that website.

And thanks for introducing that word, "Trope". I looked it up in Dictionary.com and found 2 even more incisive words: "metonymy" and "synecdoche". Too bad I'll never be able to use them on a bumper sticker. :)

[G_j]

78. yep, and the US would have at least known where

Bin Laden was. But you know, bombing the shit out of people is so much more fun!

I saw right away they were 'war horny', when they had a chance to bring their charges against Bin Laden but refused.

[Pastiche423]

52. The plans to invade Afghanistan were on whistle ass' desk

BEFORE September 11, 2001.

[Still_Notafraid]

12. I was for

Where ever Osama was we needed to go if the people there would not turn him over.we should have finished that job then with diplomacy defeat Al-Qeada around the world,with the help of the world along with a liberty sensitive homeland security plan that is tough but respectful of human rights

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Happy days for warlords, opium growers and the Taliban.

I'm glad to see the Taliban removed from power - at least from governmental power- but the rest of the occupation has proven to be a sad reminder that Afghanistan has been unconquerable and ungovernable since the days of Alexander the Great.

Hell, my grandfather, as a Brit soldier, chased Pathan bandits around in Afghanistan in the 1890's.

[JanMichael]

15. I was railing about the Taliban well in advance of 09-11-01. However...

...I disagreed with invading the entire country because, as it appears to have happened, when you telegraph you're moves like we did the targets can simply vanish. Bury their weapons and till a field. Then wait for us to get bored as we're prone to do.

I was supportive of sending in Special Ops to, for lack of a better term, kill the killers in their kitchens.

EDIT: I was opposed to the invasion and occupation but not opposed to "police-like" actions.

[Cleita]

16. I was in favor of it then to get the terrorists who had

perpetrated 9-11. I thought we were going to help them rebuild their country too, and take power from the religious fanatics and put it into the hands of their moderate and educated leaders.

If I had known just how blatant the lies were that the Bush administration told about this, I would have been against it altogether.

I think Afghanistan could have been the start of the democratization process of the states formerly under the hard yoke of the Soviet Union. We could have helped them help themselves if our elected President Al Gore had been in the Oval Office. But then, maybe there wouldn't have even been a 9-11.

[DrWeird]

17. For the people supporting it...

are you now in favor of invading Pakistan?

Or were you just hysterical after 9-11 and are embarassed to admit your mistake?

[Cha]

18. I, in my naivite, thought it was what they had

to do..but NOw, I totally see it was wrong.

I have a friend at work who was against it..I'm going to have to tell him what I think now on this, thanks!

[Minstrel Boy]

19. The war was NEVER meant to capture bin Laden

A deal to hold bin Laden under house arrest in Pakistan and face an international tribunal had been hammered out in late September by Pakistani politicians and the Taliban, and bin Laden agreed. The plan was vetoed by Musharraf, under US pressure, who said he couldn't guarantee bin Laden's safety.

The US didn't want the deal, and it didn't want bin Laden. An official said "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort to overthrow the Taliban if by some lucky chance bin Laden was captured." (as cribbed from Paul Thompson's timeline.)

And remember the "battle" of Tora Bora? He was surrounded on three of four sides, and the path of obvious retreat was left clear. Then, US special forces were forced to stand down and watch as bin Laden was airlifted to the safety of Pakistan.

From The Fayetteville Observer, August 2, 2002:

A Special Forces soldier says that troops had Osama bin Laden pinpointed in Afghanistan in November, but leaders took too long to decide to go after him and he slipped away.

...

The soldier, who said he was on the ground at Tora Bora when bin Laden was located, agreed to talk about the incident on condition that his name not be used.

...

...a Special Forces team captain on the ground would not give approval to go after bin Laden because there was no specific mission order to do so, the soldier said.

While the Army was deciding what to do, Special Forces soldiers saw two Russian-made helicopters fly into the area where bin Laden was believed to be, load up passengers and fly toward Pakistan.

"I said, 'There he goes,'" the soldier said.
http://www.fayettevillenc.com/story-archive.php?Template=terrorism&Story=37935

Osama has ALWAYS been the PRETEXT for America's resource wars. Opium, as much as oil and gas.

[Cha]

28. But, Why didn't they want obl?

Wouldn't it have made the murikens very very Happy?! Or do you think they're saving him for the ol' late October surprise and flackys like matlin are bluffing when they say "obl is contained in a cave"?

[Cleita]

51. Methinks it would have made our Saudi overlords very

unhappy. Too bad we didn't have the information we needed then.

[Minstrel Boy]

146. Because OBL = Emmanuel Goldstein

The answer is in the question, How is he more valuable to Washington's perpetual war machine?

[sweetheart]

32. Yes, but not for oil, containment of russia

The pentagon, secdef, NSA and secstate all have institutional
groupthink about russia and containment. Evidence is emerging that
that war was concocted to gain bases in the region, that no other
excuse could have created, so that the empire could expand in to
russias underbelly.

Here is a source for this. I notice nobody on this thread brought
this up, rather the unsupported F911 reason of unocal's mythical
pipeline.

http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/moore3.htm

One truth i have noticed is that we are all supposed to "forget"
about afganistan... "it never happened" is the new subliminal
message. It opens a suspect question, as only military people
do this "erasing" of history, and they only do that when it is
strategically important.

It concerns me the most that we're provoking a nuclear war by
putting nuclear weapons on russia's border.

As dave123williams said, nuking afganistan was the emotion of the
time... and it was coopted to do someting altogether dangerous that
even the media do not discuss.

I am curious what D123W seriously thinks he would have achieved
with nukes beyond metaphor, and maybe that is all those wooly
weapons mean anymore... a grand poetic gesture.

[Eric J in MN]

20. I supported the Afghanistan War, but I wonder if the US should

have tried harder to get The Taliban to turn over Al Qaeda members first, such as negotiating with them.

[geek tragedy]

56. No.

The Taliban were sanctioned by the UN for sheltering bin Laden while Clinton was president.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres1267.htm

Those who say that the Taliban would have turned him over had there been evidence presented are lying.

[Djinn]

64. sanctions

ignored by the US government and corporations.

Any chance you could explain why the Northern Alliance affiliated thugs in control now aer any better?

The entire foly was about private profit and geo-political posturing -why do you think the US wont call the Chechens that the USSR is dealing with "terrorists" but are happy to call the SAME group operating in (US friendly) Georgia terrorists. This is about domonance in a region that was formerly a Soviet playing field.

[geek tragedy]

73. Ignored by the US?

Please provide proof for your tinfoil theory. Please. That would mean legitimate sources discussing actual deals/agreements reached between the Taliban and oil/energy companies. Humanitarian agreements don't count.

The Northern Alliance aren't allies of bin Laden. Works for me.

I'm sorry, but you're living in a mirror image of Bush's fantasy land--the one where the Taliban and AQ weren't threats to American security, and the one where 90% of the US supported the invasion because we're a bunch of greedy imperialists and morons.

The "US invaded Afghanistan for energy" conspiracy theory is crap. Never proven or even supported with any real evidence--just far leftists with their heads in the sand.

[Djinn]

86. well given you're happy to support

female apartheid as long as it's not Osama run...

"The Northern Alliance aren't allies of bin Laden. Works for me."

leads me to think it's not really worth bothering - you're supoprting Islamic fundamentalists and criminals if you're OK with supporting the Northern alliance

I'm actually getting a bit tired of you ranting about what I beleive by twisting what I've said, please point out where I said that

"90% of the US supported the invasion because we're a bunch of greedy imperialists and morons."

I think most people supported it because they were angry and they were lied to by their government (more than 50% of Americans believed the WMD/Iraq crap too - or was that not a lie either geek??)

[geek tragedy]

88. Hypocricy.

You accuse me of supporting gender apartheid because the US had to choose the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan, and then whine about me "twisting what I've said."

I think bin Laden, his organization, and his supporters were responsible for 9/11. The logical course of action was to destroy his organization and those who would protect him. Bush would have been impeached had he not gone into Afghanistan. The civilized world supported the US action in Afghanistan, so this crap about it clearly being a war for profit is as vain as it is incorrect.

Now, if you want to go all tinfoil on 9/11, we just have to agree that we live in different realities.

[Djinn]

90. you said the Northern Alliance are OK with you

you said it - they sure as shit aren't OK with me - they're fascists.

I can not argue with someone who thinks they are the "lesser of two evils" they are no less evil than the Taliban a quote from RAWA:

Under the Taliban if a woman showed her ankles she would be whipped - under the NA they'll be raped.

I actually said this was about profit AND geo-political positioning and as far as 9/11 goes if you think that was entirely orchestrated by men in caves YOU'VE got the tin foil hat on - I guess you think that video of "Osama" claiming responsibility was credible as well

Guess Karzai being "pres" is just a neat coincidence

[geek tragedy]

93. So, you would prefer the Taliban being back in power?

The Taliban were/are evil misogynists AND they provided material support and aid to the people who slaughtered 3000 people in my city. So, yeah, even the NA are a lesser evil compared to them.

The NA are a bunch of nasty fuckers, but they do not govern the entire country, are not an international threat, and do not possess the same level of power and control that the Taliban did--their political position is much weaker than the Taliban's was.

[Djinn]

96. so in other words

fuck the Afghan's I'm OK? You're right the NA don't govern teh entire country - the Taliban controls much of it.

[geek tragedy]

101. I fault the US for not doing enough to help establish a civilized society

in Afghanistan. Not enough security, not enough reconstruction, not enough commitment, etc etc.

The US sided with one evil government--the USSR--in fighting an even more evil government--Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean that Harry Truman was indifferent to the depradations of Stalin.

Similarly, one can recognize that the NA was a bunch of thugs, but that they were not the threat to international peace and stability that the Taliban were and that they did not pose as great a barrier to progress (though they certainly still were such a barrier).

As I said, the lesser of two evils. And, in my reality, the prime motivation for going in was not to advance human rights in Afghanistan, but rather to destroy the enemy who had killed 3000 people in New York.

[Djinn]

105. so you would have been OK

with the UK bombing residential areas in Boston given a majority of IRA funding came from the US - particularly Boston.

Why is it that it is OK, in revenge for 3000 deaths, for the US to kill MANY more? does this mean that one day in the futire if Iraq can manage to strike the US in revenge for their 10,000+ dead that you'll be OK with it?

[geek tragedy]

110. Not about vengeance.

Not about body counts. It was about destroying/degrading AQ's ability to wage war against the US. If the Taliban had been a legitimate state, the US would have had a valid causus belli.

The US should have done more to prevent financing of the IRA from Boston. However, that is not the key question. There were no IRA training camps in Boston. The US government was not an explicit partner of the IRA. The US was not facing international sanctions for sheltering the IRA and providing it material support.

[Djinn]

147. Al Qaeda has the ability to wage war against the US??

now I'm pissing my pants - 9/11 was a CRIMINAL act, and act of TERRORISM not war, men in caves versus the strongest military in the world - yep whatever.

[Zhade]

127. "The Northern Alliance aren't allies of bin Laden. Works for me."

What about Dostum? Have you seen Afghan Massacre?

[geek tragedy]

129. Dostum is a pig.

Both sides were nasty, brutal Hobbesian goons.

The NA was just a little bit less bad than the Taliban.

[AntiCoup2K4]

21. Guess I'm somewhere between options 1 & 2

So I went with #2.

Initially I was supportive of the Afghanistan bombing invasion because there certainly was the historical link of Bin Laden & Al Qaeda to Afghanistan, therefore, at the time (and with the entire country still pretty much in shock) it was easy enough to buy the assertion that Osama was there.

Of course then they didn't catch him. Some reports say he escaped at Tora Bora. Some say that he was helped to escape. I say he wasn't there to begin with.

And after reading the full story of the CentGas/UnoCal pipeline deal, I'm now fully convinced that Afghanistan was just another imperialistic land grab for resources (oil & gas, as well as the BCE's favorite flower, the one that gave George Sr his nickname, POPPY)

[gratuitous]

22. Another bottomless sinkhole

To pour Treasury dollars, men, goodwill, and our nation's prestige. Whatever we were supposed to be doing in Afghanistan, we've merely whomped the living daylights out of another defenseless country, bombed a whole bunch of people who can't shoot back and can't get away, and earned ourselves a buttload of bad karma.

Bush was supposed to be giving us all regular updates on Afghanistan and Iraq. Anyone seen them?

Another shameful failure of American imperialism.

[mmonk]

23. other

Even though Karzai used to work for Unocal and there is the pipeline issue, and even though the country hasn't been rebuilt as promised, I see no reason to have let al Queda and its bases exist nor do I have a problem with removing the Taleban since clearly they allowed them to stay as guests. I still hold to this even if it wasn't al Queda that attacked on 9/11 should it be proven they didn't. They have attacked us before (embassies and Cole).

[toddaa]

24. Other explanation

The "war" in Afghanistan was about nothing more than getting rid of the Taliban, who were becoming increasingly difficult to work with. That "war" was in the works long before 9-11, at the behest of Unocal, who wanted their precious pipeline running through the countryside, but didn't want to pay kickbacks to a bunch of opium traders. What I supported then, and still support now is an international police force going after criminal terrorist groups whereever they me be found. Let's be done with this "war on terrorism" nonsense and get back to business of rounding up a bunch of quasi-religious criminals.

[H2O Man]

25. I voted "other" for two reasons:

First, if we look at the 9-11 attack, it is foolish to say "they hate us for our freedom." To paraphrase the author of "Imperial Hubris," the forces we call al Qaeda did not fly airplanes into buildings because they are upset by the McDonald's in Chicago, the voting booths in Philly, or the new Paris Hilton tape. They hate us for what we are doing in the Muslim world. And so I would suggest that the discussion should be in that context.

Saying that, I will make point #2, which is that if 9-11 did indeed justify or demand a military response in Afghanistan, it should have occured as a series of air strikes against specific al Qaeda targets which were very well known, and those strikes should have occured on the evening of 9-11, before the targets had disappeared into Pakistan and Iran.

[toddaa]

26. Tying the Plame and Taliban threads together

Forgive me for not completely following the many MBytes of your Plame threads, but has any discussion come up tying together the Taliban with the CIA and the Unocal pipeline. Have you read Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's book _The War on Freedom_?

[H2O Man]

29. I have not read

Ahmed's book. I believe that the group who broke away from the Plame threads focused some on the Taliban and the pipeline. One of my son's books has a couple chapters regarding this subject, although with less focus on the CIA than on the oil interests from Texas. (He's not here at the moment, and I can't think of which book it was.) I'd be interested in your opinion?

[toddaa]

36. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's book

The War on Freedom asks many of the same questions Cynthia McKinney brought up after 9-11. Ahmed never outright answers them, but the evidence he presents is pretty damning. What sets him apart from other LIHOP/MIHOP theorists is his extensive research in Afghani politics going back to the Soviet invasion. Some of his theories surrounding 9-11 have been more convincingly fleshed out by people like Michael Ruppert and Paul Thompson. Still, his detailed account of the CIA's involvement in establishment of the Taliban movement and the increasing disenchantment with its members makes for very interesting reading. The important point Ahmed convincingly argues is that the invasion of Afghanistan was planned as far back as late 2000 and was drawn up completely independent of 9-11.

My sense of the Bush strategy is to keep Afghanistan in turmoil so that there is no central government for Russia or China to negotiate with over its coveted planned oil pipeline. To outsiders, the US support of Karzai may appear to be just another Bush regime failure, but I suspect that Russia and China are complicating matters and nobody affiliated with PNAC wants anyone negotiating with Karzai behind our backs.

[H2O Man]

42. Interesting

During the period in which the members of the original Plame threads were experiencing the divorce (grin) I noted that the US had an operational plan to invade Afghanistan which pre-dated 9-11. A number of people ridiculed the idea, because it does not follow that the post 9-11 invasion was the same plan. Rather, there is reason to believe that American IC plans were compromised, and the leadership of al Qaeda - aware of this plan - struck first.

Karzai may well be a decent man. But as Michael Schever points out, he lacks the support that would allow him to last a week if the US left Afghanistan.

I'm not sure that the American public appreciates the significance of the position we are in, in Afghanistan today. I'm not even speaking on should we have invaded or not.... we did, and now we are in a tough position.

[toddaa]

45. Russia makes it even tougher

Nobody seems to grasp just how important Afghanistan is geographically speaking. Putin's grab for power has made the US position even more tenuous. Don't think for a moment that Russia still doesn't covet this prized territory. The Bush regime's only hope is to keep the country as messy as possible to keep Russia from attempting another invasion. That's becoming more difficult with a increasingly despotic Kremlin.

[H2O Man]

46. I agree.

I think that the American position in Afghanistan will become far more costly in the next 14 months. You know that the IC had enough background to recognize that the initial invasion would be successful, but that there was inadequate planning for occupation/post occupation. There are elements in the State dept etc that have an unfortunately limited grasp of the Afghanistan's history or current socio-political realities. It should be taking a central role in this year's presidential election, but our country is ignorant of the realities we face.

[Character Assassin]

102. That won't happen

There won't be another attempt to invade AFG by the Russians.

[mediaman007]

27. Our fight was not with the Taliban,

that just made the problem bigger than it had to be.

Our special forces and air power could have made a huge imprint on Omar's forces. I doubt that the Taliban would have been much of a force to deter us.

Since no one is really giving Afghanistan any money to rebuild, we could have been more surgical. Our military can be like a bull in a china shop.

[Disturbed]

31. Goddamned LIES!!!!

The American people were lied to about Afganistan and the Neo Fascists have gotten away with that lie.

Afghanistan invasion was a pure colonial op. Al Q. and the Taliban were supported by a major faction in Pakistan. Deals were made by the US and Pakistan. The Taliban were given $43 Million by Powel, personally but they still refused to allow the piopeline across their ocuntry to be built. They had to be toppled in the Multi-corps view. It's all about Multi-corps Intl. and resources. Another lie and a bungled war on poor people. It is a real shame about Afghanis;they mostly live in abject poverty but have $trillions in natural gas under their soil.

[mediaman007]

41. Amen!

Better yet!

Saddam may be the winner in the end. He suckered Bush*/Cheney into the Iraq quagmire. Daddy Bush was smart enough to hold back, but junior* spent our young people, the military and our treasury.

Surely, Saddam knew his army couldn't match ours face to face. Instead he suckered the NeoCons in, and makes us pay in dollars and lives.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[geek tragedy]

77. Again, people need to stop circulating the myth that the US

gave the Taliban $43 Million.

It. never. happened.

Michael Moore said it, and has now retracted it.

People interested in maintaining their credibility should do the same.

[Djinn]

87. they should also stop pretending the Northern Alliance are

anything but theocratic right wing thugs

[geek tragedy]

94. Never said they weren't.

Just not quite the evil and the threat that the Taliban were/are. Just like Stalin wasn't quite as evil as Hitler.

[Djinn]

106. why's that

Stalin killed many more people than Hitler? what criteria are you using there?

[geek tragedy]

111. Stalin had a lot more time to do his damage, and many died because

his policies were grotesquely harmful but not truly genocidal. Many died of starvation through is misguided and horrific economic plans.

Hitler's goal was the extermination of different cultures, peoples, races. He sought to destroy what makes us human.

Stalin also didn't have quite the taste for world conquest that Hitler did. Can you imagine if Hitler had conquered Africa?


P.S. I'm not sure about the final numbers--the Soviets did not keep as accurate records as the Nazis.

[Djinn]

118. Stalin would ahve been more than happy to

have the USSR "cleansed" of Jews too - also wasn't to keen on differentiation.

[geek tragedy]

119. I'm not going to defend Joe Stalin.

Hitler just represents the apex of evil. Stalin was an evil, evil man, but he could be contained. Not so with Hitler.

[eridani]

30. We were wrong in Afghanistan from the beginning.

US policy, summed up, was to bomb the hell out of a civilian population for the purpose of replacing one gang of thugs (the Taliban) with a marginally less nasty gang of thugs (the Northern Alliance) and an imposed ruler who puts the interests of his sponsors first and his people second. Scattering terrorists is useless, rather like thinking you have solved your wasp problem by smashing the house containing the nest with a bulldozer. They just fly away and regroup.

What were the other options? On October 27, 2001, a group of more than 1000 anti-Taliban leaders from Afghanistan met in Peshawar, with a very different strategy (see below). Also, the Loya Jirga met the following summer, only to have its overwhelming favorite, the former king, shown the door--presumably because he too thought that the bombing campaign was stupid and counter productive. Bottom line--on two significant occasions, natives of Afghanistan who disliked the Taliban and Al Qaeda far, far more than people who have not had the experience of living with them could possibly do, were consulted in the formation of plans for getting rid of those two forces. And on both occasions, official America told them to go straight to hell.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/warafghanistan.htm

We might begin with the gathering of Afghan leaders in Peshawar, some exiles, some who trekked across the border from within Afghanistan, all committed to overthrowing the Taliban regime. It was "a rare display of unity among tribal elders, Islamic scholars, fractious politicians, and former guerrilla commanders," the New York Times reported. They unanimously "urged the U.S. to stop the air raids," appealed to the international media to call for an end to the "bombing of innocent people," and "demanded an end to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan." They urged that other means be adopted to overthrow the hated Taliban regime, a goal they believed could be achieved without slaughter and destruction.(21)

Reported, but dismissed without further comment.

A similar message was conveyed by Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq, who condemned the air attacks as a "terrible mistake."(22) Highly regarded in Washington, Abdul Haq was considered to be "perhaps the most important leader of anti-Taliban opposition among Afghans of Pashtun nationality based in Pakistan."(23) His advice was to "avoid bloodshed as much as possible"; instead of bombing, "we should undermine the central leadership, which is a very small and closed group and which is also the only thing which holds them all together. If they are destroyed, every Taliban fighter will pick up his gun and his blanket and disappear back home, and that will be the end of the Taliban," an assessment that seems rather plausible in the light of subsequent events.

Several weeks later, Abdul Haq entered Afghanistan, apparently without U.S. support, and was captured and killed. As he was undertaking this mission "to create a revolt within the Taliban," he criticized the U.S. for refusing to aid him and others in such endeavors, and condemned the bombing as "a big setback for these efforts." He reported contacts with second-level Taliban commanders and ex-Mujahidin tribal elders, and discussed how further efforts could proceed, calling on the U.S. to assist them with funding and other support instead of undermining them with bombs.

The U.S., Abdul Haq said, is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world. They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose. And we don't like that. Because Afghans are now being made to suffer for these Arab fanatics, but we all know who brought these Arabs to Afghanistan in the 1980s, armed them and gave them a base. It was the Americans and the CIA. And the Americans who did this all got medals and good careers, while all these years Afghans suffered from these Arabs and their allies. Now, when America is attacked, instead of punishing the Americans who did this, it punishes the Afghans.

20. For review, see my Deterring Democracy (New York: Hill & Wang, 1992, 2nd edition), "Afterword."
21. Barry Bearak, "Leaders of the Old Afghanistan Prepare for the New," NYT, Oct. 25. John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari, "Traditional leaders call for peace jihad," FT, Oct. 25; "Afghan peace assembly call," FT, Oct. 26. John Burns, "Afghan Gathering in Pakistan Backs Future Role for King," NYT, Oct. 26; Indira Laskhmanan, "1,000 Afghan leaders discuss a new regime," BG, Oct. 25, 26, 2001.

22. Barry Bearak, NYT, Oct. 27, 2001.

23. Anatol Lieven, "Voices from the Region: Interview with Commander Abdul Haq," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted Oct. 15. See Lieven, Guardian, Nov. 2, 2001. Quotes below from this interview.

http://threehegemons.tripod.com/threehegemonsblog/id54.html

The Warlords Win in Kabul

By OMAR ZAKHILWAL and ADEENA NIAZI

ABUL, Afghanistan — On the final night of the loya jirga, more than 1,500 delegates gathered for the unveiling of the new cabinet. Our hearts sank when we heard President Hamid Karzai pronounce one name after another. A woman activist turned to us in disbelief: "This is worse than our worst expectations. The warlords have been promoted and the professionals kicked out. Who calls this democracy?"

Interim government ministers with civilian rather than military credentials were dismissed. Mr. Karzai did not announce the minister for women's affairs, prompting speculation that Sima Samar, the popular current minister in that post, will be removed once international attention shifts elsewhere.

As the loya jirga folded its tent, we met with frustration and anger in the streets. "Why did you legitimize an illegitimate government?" one Kabul resident asked us.

The truth is, we didn't. While the Bonn agreement and the rules of the loya jirga entitled us to choose the next government freely, we delegates were denied anything more than a symbolic role in the selection process. A small group of Northern Alliance chieftains led by the Panjshiris decided everything behind closed doors and then dispatched Mr. Karzai to give us the bad news.

This sentiment quickly grew into a grass-roots movement supporting the former king, Mohammed Zahir Shah, as head of state. The vast majority of us viewed him as the only leader with enough popular support and independence to stand up to the warlords. But our democratic effort to nominate Zahir Shah did not please the powers that be. As a result, the entire loya jirga was postponed for almost two days while the former king was strong-armed into renouncing any meaningful role in the government.

After that announcement, the atmosphere at the loya jirga changed radically. The gathering was now teeming with intelligence agents who openly threatened reform-minded delegates, especially women. Access to the microphone was controlled so that supporters of the interim government dominated the proceedings. Fundamentalist leaders branded critics of the warlords as traitors to Islam and circulated a petition denouncing Women's Affairs Minister Samar as "Afghanistan's Salman Rushdie."

Why could we have not at least allowed them to choose their own leader instead of cramming ours down their throats?

For a perspective from an organization of feminists from Afghanistan, see
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/testiomny.htm

With a government that actually had popular backing, our hunt for Al Quaeda would almost certainly have been more successful.

[HEyHEY]

33. Still support it - even though it's being run by fuckeheads

[Disturbed]

37. "They don't care about the suffering of the Afghans ."

The Multi-Corps and the Neo Fascist only care about profits. People are only objects to either be eliminated if they resist or used as cheap labor if the comply to being serfs.

It is so fuckin' obvious that the US and it's Allies are only plunderes. The only acceptable govt. is a US Puppet Govt. Anyone that is in the way of that will be murdered.It is sickening and repugnant that these murderers and thieves get away with their crimes against the people.

[goodhue]

34. It was a longstanding civil war.

After 9/11 we switched our support from Taliban to Northern Alliance. Supporting Northern Alliance over Taliban was correct, but bombing of innocent civilians was not.

[Djinn]

39. you know the Northern Alliance

really aren't that different from the Taliban don't you, that many alliance warlords are JUST as fundamentalist when it comes to women's right criminal "justice" etc

[H2O Man]

47. Very important point.

The Northern Alliance was held together by one charismatic leader, who had an understanding of the power of the media. His appreciation of media attention led to his death, of course. But besides Masood, the Northern Alliance seemed a pretty unattractive group.

[Djinn]

68. the "Lion of Panjshir"

was more palatable than the Taliban however his views would be considered fairly Islamic fundie to most people here. He was also in partnership (enemy of my enemy and all that) with outright criminals and warlords just as funamentalist in outlook as the Taliban - he was not exactly the Che Guevara figure people make him out to be.

RAWA is about the only organisation untainted by religious fundamentalism - see their opinion of Masood.

[Character Assassin]

97. Who is making him out to be Che Guevara?

No one I've heard.

[Djinn]

100. I've worked a lot with hundreds

afghan refugees now - many people I've worked with (australians not afghans) make him out to be a freedom fighter - would you like their names and contact details??

there was quite a strong push for a posthumous nobel prize

I'm just making teh point that he too was not in favour of a secular state

[Character Assassin]

113. Way to not answer

Sure. Let's have their names and contact details.

I'm just making teh point that he too was not in favour of a secular state

You failed.

[Djinn]

117. right

so you think he WAS in favour of a secular state.

forgive me if I'm not too crushed that someone's who's contribution is a couple of one liners thinks I failed

[Character Assassin]

124. No, I don't think that at all.

But I do think you assume way too much.

[H2O Man]

142. Do you have a point

that you are trying to make? Any insight of even marginal value to share? You are disagreeing with what the other person is saying, but you don't explain why, and don't give your position and something to back it up. From reading the exchange, it appears that you either did not understand what he was saying, or else you purposely distorted it simply to disrupt the conversation.

[Djinn]

148. whereas you assume

that because YOU havn't heard anyone paint Masood with revolutionary types colours then it hasn't happened...maybe if you're contribution here was a bit heavier on INFORMATION rather than sarcasm it'd carry a little weight, as it is you come of as pretty ignorant of the situation in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

[UdoKier]

35. I supported it, but not as carried out.

I never wanted us to unseat the Taliban, but to go in, disarm them, and destroy any possible Al Quaeda forces, then get the hell out.

Having a Unocal shill as a "president" and control of only Kabul is pretty pointless, unless you're a Bush crony with financial interests there...

[robbedvoter]

38. Results only proved its foolishness. Police action, not war.

[rumguy]

40. I supported it - Gore would have done the same thing

Of course then * dropped the fucking ball like the chump he is...

[Zhade]

138. 9/11 wouldn't have happened under Gore. He wouldn't have ignored warnings.

NT!

[LSdemocrat]

43. I would have supported war on Afganistan just for its human rights record

[drumwolf]

44. Quick reply for now, I might elaborate later

I support our troops fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan. But as usual, Bush and the neocons have fucked it up just like they've fucked up everything else they touch.

Iraq is a different story. I opposed that war from day one and marched in several of the big antiwar rallies in SF before the invasion.

[wabeewoman]

49. Not just illegal

but shameful. The mightest nation in the world bombing a third world country back into the stone ages-and they were nearly there. I think there were much better options than harming the afgan people who were mostly victims in this whole situation. It was typical of bush-be a bully, laugh at the weak, bomb the bejesus out of the helpless. What a MAN (sarcasm).

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. Clinton didn't need to invade a Country to catch the terrorists who

bombed the WTC in '93. It's all about the oil! With bushco* it always will be. Bushco* needed a reason to invade Iraq and he got it. Why did bush* give the Taliban 43 mil prior to 9/11? Nothing adds up! And it's not suppose to! Americans need to seriously wake UP!

[Lerkfish]

53. Difficult to categorize, but here goes...

I am morally against any war...no matter the justification. However, I'm realistic enough to recognize they exist and happen for the most capricious or fraudulent reasons. Therefore I personally hold any country to an extremely high standard before I think they are "right" to pursue a conflict. I felt Afghanistan was close to that standard at the time, so I grudgingly assented it might be an appropriate decision for others to make.
BUT I still reject the notion that war is the only solution, nor should it be the first approach considered, nor the 3rd, nor the 25th, etc. It should ONLY be the absolute last resort, because wars almost never achieve anything remotely comparable to the costs.

IMHO, of course.

Also, I look at results and Afghanistan and especially Iraq are not producing results that sway my decision to hold America to the highest standards of provenance, justifications, and moral intent. Bushco has held itself to the lowest standards possible.

[mitchum]

54. I would have wholeheatedly supported the Saudi Arabian war...

for obvious reasons

[Taverner]

57. I supported special ops forces going in

and taking out Bin Laden, the Training camps and the Taliban. Too bad none of that ever happened.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

59. The entire country was not to blame for what we have been told were...

...the actions of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Killing innocent civilians should NEVER have been acceptable as a by-product of the action we took.

Additionally, the full-blown military plan we implemented in Afghanistan has created yet another enemy for us in the Middle East.

[TexasBushwhacker]

98. Yeah, I always had misgivings

Some kind of retaliation seemed appropriate, but only if you hit the RIGHT TARGETS. That didn't happen and all we did was turn it into more of a parking lot than it already was. I hear the opium poppy crop is back in fine form though. Geez, what an awful part of the planet to live.

[NoPasaran]

61. I supported the idea

I was dismayed that we relied on air power and unreliable Afghan factions to do most of the fighting and so only weakened Al Qaida and drove it into Pakistan instead of destroying it.

[nefarious]

85. I would support an Afghanistan war...

if Bush* Co. would have openly provided damning evidence to the public that proved bin Laden conspired to make the events of 9-11 happen. The CIA-made video tape does not cut it for me.

As far as we know, that evidence does not exist.

My conspiracy theory is they wanted military bases to provide forward launch points and logistics for an attack on Iran. Massive quantities of sweet crude and an intact distribution mechanism for oil company campaign contributors.

It's like a dirty greedy rotten sumbitch JR Ewing plot from the TV program Dallas, only it's real.

[Darranar]

92. I supported it then, but have since changed my mind. n/t

[Lexingtonian]

104. initially supported it

The Bush people used a Clinton Adm. plan to knock out the Taliban, and that was the part that actually worked.

The way the Bush people went about declaring war on the Taliban and the grotesque mess they made of the situation afterwards- Afghanistan's not an utter disaster simply because the Pakistanis, Russians, Germans, and other allies didn't let it implode as it would have if the Bush people hadn't been forced into doing better- was about as stupid, pointless, and indefensible as their Colonial Adventure with Iraq. The whole Tora Bora story is the epitome of the Bush peoples' actions in the country- clueless, brutish, inept, hostility-generating, incompetent, cheap, and too late.

[Gregorian]

107. Love thy enemy. It's the only thing that works.

I don't need to explain. The world will bear it out. Bicker about whether it's weak. But had we done that, take a hard look at where you think we'd be today.

[Zhade]

120. OTHER: Never had enough info to support or denounce it at the time.

Since we've never seen the evidence promised us that ObL was behind it, and since the videotape "confession" is embarrassingly fake, I never was convinced the standards of justice that would have justified invading Afghanistan had been met.

I'm STILL not convinced. I'm open to the possibility that al Qaeda was indeed behind 9/11, but since there's been no evidence besides "we say they did it" from b*shco, and there are a thousand holes in the Official Story, the jury's still out (literally and figuratively).

That said, even ObL's personal command to strike us down would never have justified massacring thousands of innocent civilians, or the murder of prisoners of war like those depicted in the Afghan Massacre documentary.

[Dangerman]

143. They should have caught bin Laden when they have the chance...

BUT NOOOOOO. Bush has other plans with another Mideast country, and now bin Laden is doing cartwheels!

If Gore would have been president and 9/11 happened on his watch, he would have concentrated on Afghanistan and capturing bin Laden, and rebuild the entire country. Oh, I forgot, the GOP would throw him out first.

[LWolf]

144. No. I do not support war as a solution to any problem at any time. n/t

[ismnotwasm]

149. All I know is

My daughter is over there. And I want her home. I looked up the history of Afghanistan, and it's been taken over and retaken for so much of it's history it's basically a thorough fair for invading nation/religions/crackpots what have you. I'm not sure we are going to change that. She tells me stuff that is her opinion of what she sees, she thinks they have very little of their own culture left because of continual conquest. Since we ARE there, I wish we could provide the Afghani peoples a way to have autonomy. But since we've been sidetracked with Iraq, we most likely have lost the chance to do what we could have. Sick, and sad, like everything this administration has touched. I voted other.