Lesson from Afghanistan, who carries water and who does not.

[woolfe9998]

Sorry, I didn't read a lot of this but enough to respond:

So, your whole position/argument is based on evidence found AFTER the fact about October 2001 that wasn't published until 2009 after 8 years of investigation? Everyone has 20/20 vision when they can take the time to sift thru everything, specially when it's evidence found AFTER the time has come and gone. I guess it's time we invent the hot tub time machine so we can go back in time and give them the known evidence learned after the fact, so they can correct there decisions, even though it's only circumstantial evidence and not hard concrete evidence.

This quote, all though it's from someone defending their decisions, sums it up quite nicely:



What if he wasn't there, and we did go in there heavy as you claim we should. Even the report says we had the forces, but there would have been heavy casualties because of the physical terrain (some thought it was worth the risk). When someone says it's worth a risk, they are banking on them being right without having any actual evidence that fully supports that conclusion. Hence, why it's a risk. Would your solution be, that we do that at all the other raids we conducted with the belief he was there, coming up empty handed? Which leads me back to "how do you supposed that would turn out?" If it is true, that we had a missed chance at taking him out at Tora Bora, that your report says a failure due to wrong decisions (even though that is all based off circumstantial evidence) why did it take 10 years to be able to track him down again if our intelligence was supposed to be so good?

On another note, I do find it hard to believe that anyone is going to stop and write a will while they are being bombed and attacked, as natural instinct is survival. But that is just my opinion.

I agree there is uncertainty about what would happen in a counter-factual situation where we took a different approach. But a stronger initial footprint and more aggressive use of our military had a better chance of not only taking out OBL, but further diminishing AQ forces and, of course, the Taliban itself. As I just said in another thread, about 1/3 of the Taliban escaped our grasp. Weakened, that remnant was able to use the US presence as a recruiting tool. A more aggressive initial approach would have diminished them further, and our getting out shortly thereafter would have made it very difficult for them to come back.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree there is uncertainty about what would happen in a counter-factual situation where we took a different approach. But a stronger initial footprint and more aggressive use of our military had a better chance of not only taking out OBL, but further diminishing AQ forces and, of course, the Taliban itself. As I just said in another thread, about 1/3 of the Taliban escaped our grasp. Weakened, that remnant was able to use the US presence as a recruiting tool. A more aggressive initial approach would have diminished them further, and our getting out shortly thereafter would have made it very difficult for them to come back.

I mean they offered to surrender and we could have just said yes.

 

[woolfe9998]

I mean they offered to surrender and we could have just said yes.

Because the Bush admin had this foolish idea about nation building which was not really possible and not justified in response to Afghanistan's role in 9/11. All we were really justified in doing, and able to do, was to kill and/or capture the bad guys.

 

[rommelrommel]

What a spin by a bunch of dishonest dirtbags. It shows my premise is correct.

They see it that way because it's exactly how they act and they can't conceive of anyone acting any differently.

 

[nickqt]

How so? Or are you saying that we should not have went after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden? That would have meant that Bin Laden would still be alive today, as our presence is what lead us to him on May 2011. Or did you both forget the purpose of our mission there, which didn't change until 2011 after Bin Laden's death?

It doesn't matter what US citizens were allowed to know up until 2009. The people who had access to the actual information knew by 2003 that bin Laden was likely not in Afghanistan anymore.

So, disrupt and destroy the terrorists who killed a few thousand Americans? Sure. Stick around and "rebuild" a country that has never actually been a country? Waste of time, money, and lives, ours and theirs by the way. If the people there aren't willing to fight the Taliban, then why should we?

And bin Laden wasn't some ultra important Al Qaeda mastermind. He was some shitbird with a bunch of money who wanted to be worshiped. All he became was Emmanuel Goldstein. Ooga booga, he's coming for you and your children. Great, he was killed in 2011, which prevented some terrible VHS copies of him making spooky faces or whatever. Sure as shit didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan or Iraq. The dog caught up to the car...and then just bashed its skull into the bumper for another decade.

The US is an Empire, capital E, and it's descent into catabolic collapse is going to be more profound and more steep than had it given up foolish imperial games decades ago and focused on improving its own infrastructure and its own people's quality of life. The US budget, and, let's be real clear here, the entire Earth's pool of resources, is a zero-sum game. The more oil we turn into glow-in-the-dark drinking straws and disposable frisbees, the less we're going to have later when we really really need it. There's that 20/20 hindsight, but, I'll go ahead and give it to anyone who cares with foresight. Prophets. "Truly I tell you no prophet is accepted in his hometown". No, I'm not calling myself a prophet, because you don't have to be a prophet to be able to read what experts have been screaming about for 50 years.

It's no surprise that we had AlGore talking about climate change and infrastructure 21 years ago and we ended up electing the guy "we could have a beer with" who was actually a dry drunk hellbent on proving to daddy that he was a real man, costing trillions in dollars and millions of lives in the process, while we look around 21 years later to see the past 200 years of industrial waste and pollution really catching up in an undeniable way.

Afghanistan is just a visible, recent and ongoing example of an Empire fighting the wars of the future the way it fought the wars of the past that made it "great". So fucking cliche. Embarrassing, really.

Yes. We should have gotten out of Afghanistan in 2002. Hell, you'll never convince me we wouldn't have needed to even go in had the Supreme Court let Florida run it's own state election 21 years ago, but I digress.

 

[pmv]

Because the Bush admin had this foolish idea about nation building which was not really possible and not justified in response to Afghanistan's role in 9/11. All we were really justified in doing, and able to do, was to kill and/or capture the bad guys.

At the time I felt I should oppose it on general principle, of opposing all US imperial adventures. People I knew went further, actively happy to anticipate the US encountering another Vietnam-scale disaster.

But to be honest I actually hesitated and had second-thoughts in the face of how unpleasant the Taliban actually were. I ended up feeling just let the two of them fight it out, but the rest of us (i.e. the UK) should stay the hell out of it. My hope/assumption was that the US would go in and blow up some stuff, hopefully get Bin Laden, and then get the hell out. I still don't really understand the motivation in staying, still less for invading Iraq.

I don't buy the 'oil pipeline' theory, I don't even entirely believe Iraq was about oil. I reckon it was a combination of institutional factors, that various factions and individuals were making a lot of money out of it all, plus some psychological thing, that the US ruling class let power go to their heads after the fall of the USSR and were overcome by a fantasy of remoulding the world like Gods.

The neo-con movement started with ex-communists, did it not, and it seems like it retained that Bolshevik love of grand top-down schemes for remaking the world according to abstract theories. I think there are similarities between the abject failure of the neocons and that of communism itself.

 

[NWRMidnight]

It doesn't matter what US citizens were allowed to know up until 2009. The people who had access to the actual information knew by 2003 that bin Laden was likely not in Afghanistan anymore.

So, disrupt and destroy the terrorists who killed a few thousand Americans? Sure. Stick around and "rebuild" a country that has never actually been a country? Waste of time, money, and lives, ours and theirs by the way. If the people there aren't willing to fight the Taliban, then why should we?

And bin Laden wasn't some ultra important Al Qaeda mastermind. He was some shitbird with a bunch of money who wanted to be worshiped. All he became was Emmanuel Goldstein. Ooga booga, he's coming for you and your children. Great, he was killed in 2011, which prevented some terrible VHS copies of him making spooky faces or whatever. Sure as shit didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan or Iraq. The dog caught up to the car...and then just bashed its skull into the bumper for another decade.

The US is an Empire, capital E, and it's descent into catabolic collapse is going to be more profound and more steep than had it given up foolish imperial games decades ago and focused on improving its own infrastructure and its own people's quality of life. The US budget, and, let's be real clear here, the entire Earth's pool of resources, is a zero-sum game. The more oil we turn into glow-in-the-dark drinking straws and disposable frisbees, the less we're going to have later when we really really need it. There's that 20/20 hindsight, but, I'll go ahead and give it to anyone who cares with foresight. Prophets. "Truly I tell you no prophet is accepted in his hometown". No, I'm not calling myself a prophet, because you don't have to be a prophet to be able to read what experts have been screaming about for 50 years.

It's no surprise that we had AlGore talking about climate change and infrastructure 21 years ago and we ended up electing the guy "we could have a beer with" who was actually a dry drunk hellbent on proving to daddy that he was a real man, costing trillions in dollars and millions of lives in the process, while we look around 21 years later to see the past 200 years of industrial waste and pollution really catching up in an undeniable way.

Afghanistan is just a visible, recent and ongoing example of an Empire fighting the wars of the future the way it fought the wars of the past that made it "great". So fucking cliche. Embarrassing, really.

Yes. We should have gotten out of Afghanistan in 2002. Hell, you'll never convince me we wouldn't have needed to even go in had the Supreme Court let Florida run it's own state election 21 years ago, but I digress.

Did they? If they knew where he was, why did it take 10 years to find him and kill him? Why didn't it happen in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005..... 2010?

2009 was about the Tora Bora attack in 2001 has nothing to do with 2003, and it was all based off of investigations done AFTER the attack. You are trying to apply 2 decades of investigations of the time line and everything we learned since then, AFTER the fact, and applying as if it was known at the time. If such information as known at the time, and it was 100% accurate, it wouldn't have taken 10 years to track him down. Also, we where not just in Afghanistan for Bin Laden, we where also there for the rest of Al-Qaeda. However, I did forget that Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan and not Afghanistan, that was my mistake. But it changes nothing, our intelligence at the time was not accurate enough to know where he really was. If it was, we wouldn't have take 10 years to get him.

As for Al gore, we actually voted for him, the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush.

 

[rommelrommel]

2-3 trillion dollars is an absurd price tag for killing bin laden and whatever other accomplices you could find.

I still support the war, it just should have ended in 2002. Leaving the northern alliance in place and allowing the rest of the country a chance to try something else than the taliban was the best we could have done. Seriously degrading the taliban for harbouring terrorists would have taught the lesson they appear to have learned without the losses of life, trillions spent, and decades of focus lost.

 

[rommelrommel]

The biggest lesson to learn here is to never enter into a conflict without a plan to win. The first thing the US should have done when it first went into Afghanistan would be to torch every last poppy field in the country and thereby cutting off at least one of their source of funding. Additional funding was probably coming from Saudi Arabia since that's where almost all of the 9-11 hijackers were from. The US could have, should have completely cut off any kind of aid to SA after 9-11.

I agree on SA, but as for the poppies, they should have bought all the heroin at a high rate, and agreed to buy it in perpetuity. It costs so little in Afghanistan, and burning fields is a one crop solution.

 

[NWRMidnight]

2-3 trillion dollars is an absurd price tag for killing bin laden and whatever other accomplices you could find.

I still support the war, it just should have ended in 2002. Leaving the northern alliance in place and allowing the rest of the country a chance to try something else than the taliban was the best we could have done. Seriously degrading the taliban for harbouring terrorists would have taught the lesson they appear to have learned without the losses of life, trillions spent, and decades of focus lost.

I am pretty sure the families of the 2977 people who lost their lives on 9/11 would disagree with you. Not to mention other terrorist attacks on US soil, that may have been stifled because of our presence. If we left in 2002, their may have been other attacks on the US like 9/11. (no proof of that, but just a theory).

 

[Jaskalas]

I am pretty sure the families of the 2977 people who lost their lives on 9/11 would disagree with you. Not to mention other terrorist attacks on US soil, that may have been stifled because of our presence. If we left in 2002, their may have been other attacks on the US like 9/11. (no proof of that, but just a theory).

As a side note, in the 20 years that followed, now it is our fellow Americans that chomp at the bit to cause far more destruction than any foreign attack ever could.

In our nation is a veritable legion of the insane, who propagandize more lemmings unto their fold. Who think elections were stolen (Democracy died) and that the vaccine will kill you. (Existential threat). America is ramping crazy up to 11, and I dare say it will not take long before fruit is borne from our labors. That we are become Taliban has never been more true. We do not need a foreign enemy when we have ourselves.

 

[rommelrommel]

I am pretty sure the families of the 2977 people who lost their lives on 9/11 would disagree with you. Not to mention other terrorist attacks on US soil, that may have been stifled because of our presence. If we left in 2002, their may have been other attacks on the US like 9/11. (no proof of that, but just a theory).

Yeah, I’m sure they would all demand that the USA bankrupt itself over a nearly entirely pointless eternal war that likely created more extremism than it prevented. I’m sure they would tell all of these people that their lives were worth less than the victims of 9/11:

American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448.
U.S. contractors: 3,846.
Afghan national military and police: 66,000.
Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144.
Afghan civilians: 47,245.
Aid workers: 444.
Journalists: 72.

I’m sure of these things because I think like a 14 year old boy.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yeah, I’m sure they would all demand that the USA bankrupt itself over a nearly entirely pointless eternal war that likely created more extremism than it prevented. I’m sure they would tell all of these people that their lives were worth less than the victims of 9/11:

American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448.
U.S. contractors: 3,846.
Afghan national military and police: 66,000.
Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144.
Afghan civilians: 47,245.
Aid workers: 444.
Journalists: 72.

I’m sure of these things because I think like a 14 year old boy.

This. The cost of the war was not just dollars. It costed hundreds of thousands of additional lives. It costed broken families, broken bodies, broken spirits. It costed missed birthdays, anniversaries, first steps, first words, and first children. It costed those involved - voluntarily or not - some or even all of their humanity.

In some ways I can see the whole war encapsulating the essence of "America first" - our willingness and eagerness to impose our will and values on some other far flung place in the world, to capture or kill 1 man, to defeat an idea instead of an identifiable enemy, for 2 decades, and all it really did was put us last in the end.

America is still a key global security partner. But any politician wanting a protracted conflict better think long and hard about what they're really signing us all up for. As a young man I was very eager to see Bin Laden brought to justice. Were another 9/11 to happen, I would absolutely oppose this kind of militaristic adventure.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Yeah, I’m sure they would all demand that the USA bankrupt itself over a nearly entirely pointless eternal war that likely created more extremism than it prevented. I’m sure they would tell all of these people that their lives were worth less than the victims of 9/11:

American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448.
U.S. contractors: 3,846.
Afghan national military and police: 66,000.
Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144.
Afghan civilians: 47,245.
Aid workers: 444.
Journalists: 72.

I’m sure of these things because I think like a 14 year old boy.

Bankrupt a nation? Lives lost in the war worthless in compared to 9/11 victims? Why are you throwing out manipulation and lies? Sarcasm or not, it's a childish untruthful response because that was never said, or implied by me or anyone else. You also know my response was about the money YOU mentioned about going after bin laden, nothing more. Basically you just moved the goal posts, manipulated the context of my response, to expand and continue the argument. However, on the note of 9/11 victims and the war casualties, The lives lost on 9/11 did not have a choice in putting their lives on the line, and dying. Every single one "categorized" as war casualties except the civilians made the choice knowing the risks. (the US service members made that volunteer choice when they enlisted, as they knew war, fighting, death was a risk) That doesn't make their lives/deaths, more or less valuable or important than the 9/11 victims, but it sure as hell makes them completely different in comparison. Not to mention losing 17 in a day (averaged over the 20 year period) Vs most of the 2977 in 1 day is a huge difference in lives lost in a single day.

Most of the Afghan civilian/military/police losses would have happened even if the US did not go to war there, that is demonstrated by looking at the mortality rate over the last 40 years in Afghanistan. Afghan mortality rate did not change at all for the most part until 2019. where the mortality rate decline (less people where dying each year) that had been taking place over the last 40 years, slightly slowed down (the decrease slowed down, but it was still declining). All the US presence did was change what conflict afghan lives where lost in. There where also accidental deaths that are "categorized" as war deaths that where nothing but an accidents. The only tie their death to the war, was they where in Afghanistan because the US was there. WE also don't know how many of those lives where tied to military's operations that took place in Pakistan going after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.

But of course, you believe that we should have pulled out in 2002 and said fuck it! Let Bin Laden live, let Al-Qaeda live. But of course that is going off of information learned years later. (backwards vision is always 20/20) And if we did pull out on 2002 and said fuck it, Bin Laden, and much of the Al-Qauda could possibly still be alive and well today, as it was all interconnected and tied together until his death in 2011. If that was the path we took in 2002, it most likely would have made US open season for Terrorist attacks on US soil, because it would have been take as a sign of weakness on a global front. We should have pulled out in 2011 when the mission of getting most of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden was complete.

The Lives lost in any war is tragic, heartbreaking, and many times, after years of examining with backwards looking 20/20 vision, considered a cost that could have been avoided had we done things differently, no matter if we succeeded or failed. People's lives will always be the highest price paid in any war, domestic or abroad.

 

[NWRMidnight]

This. The cost of the war was not just dollars. It costed hundreds of thousands of additional lives. It costed broken families, broken bodies, broken spirits. It costed missed birthdays, anniversaries, first steps, first words, and first children. It costed those involved - voluntarily or not - some or even all of their humanity.

In some ways I can see the whole war encapsulating the essence of "America first" - our willingness and eagerness to impose our will and values on some other far flung place in the world, to capture or kill 1 man, to defeat an idea instead of an identifiable enemy, for 2 decades, and all it really did was put us last in the end.

America is still a key global security partner. But any politician wanting a protracted conflict better think long and hard about what they're really signing us all up for. As a young man I was very eager to see Bin Laden brought to justice. Were another 9/11 to happen, I would absolutely oppose this kind of militaristic adventure.

The last sentence of my response above:

The Lives lost in any war is tragic, heartbreaking, and many times, after years of examining with backwards looking 20/20 vision, considered a cost that could have been avoided had we done things differently, no matter if we succeeded or failed. People's lives will always be the highest price paid in war, domestic or abroad.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Once again the catastrophe on Afghanistan proves people on the left maintain their integrity and evaluation a situation honestly. They don't lie, overly spin, deny, downplay this situation. People in this forum who tend left have given their honest opinions and have not spared criticism of Job Biden on how he handled the evacuation.

The media I generally watch for news has covered this story honestly in my opinion. CNN and MSNBC have spared no criticism for the President and his decision. They have also covered this history fairly accurately how we got here.

Let compare that to the way people in this forum who tend right. They too their cues from the right wing media. there was constant downplaying of the virus. They was outright lying on it's effect on the country. There were declaration not based on science but on political calculations. Take Fox for example, they were on the "hoax" train and it was "no big deal" train and the "it's no worse then a cold" train. Fox was one of the most egregious because the regulation for their on air staff was the complete opposite of what they were telling their minions.

Let's compare the Jan 6 insurrection. The right media and righties in this forum were trying to tell us what we see and hear right in front of us wasn't happening. They lied, overly spun, downplayed. In fact they changed their positions on police because police were attacked by Trump supporters.

Who carries water? Certainly it isn't the left. We stick to principles and evaluate what we see. The right will change their position and lie based on who's team is being effected.

I think it is unwise to promote the "liberal media" myth. There is a school of "objective journalism" and another school of "advocacy journalism". Those who cling to the distortions of the latter try to paint the former with a political taint and insist that the mainstream media is part of some political conspiracy.

We can continue to review and keep tabs on the advocacy elements -- there is basically one of them among television media -- the way CIA made a practice of analyzing Pravda and Isvestia during the Cold War. Or -- you can save time as an informed citizen and merely vet your media -- touching base occasionally with the unreliable organs so you can re-confirm your judgments.

To vet your media, you have to apply a higher and more fundamental standard. And that standard is simple. Who is telling the Truth? And who is not telling the Truth? You can gather facts from different sources, draw inferences, and pretty much make comfortable conclusions. If a media source consistently distorts or prevaricates, censors the presentation of facts or promotes arguments based on insufficient facts, then you can save yourself time as you pursue your personal acquisition of information as a citizen.

I've heard the most absurd balderdash coming from people on the Right. For instance, one high-school classmate ('65) I know still clings to the idea that the war in Vietnam was not a mistake, or that its failure is all Jane Fonda's fault. When I mentioned the very serious work of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz in assessing the cost of the Iraq War at beyond $3 Trillion, my classmate's response was "I don't believe any of those experts." In other words, an honest and thorough accounting -- accounting in the business sense -- must be dismissed because it points up the waste, folly and futility of an expensive and unnecessary conflict. He would probably deny the fact that ISIS would not exist in its current incarnations but for American intervention and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Eventually, like vetting your media, the only honest thing to convey to such people is your sense of their ignorance, and that failing to admit their ignorance makes them stupid. It is then a waste of time to have dialog with those whose thoughts are either prevarications or delusions. I told my classmate that I haven't the time, the will nor the patience to assist him further in catching up on his education, and that he'd fallen too far behind in his studies.

A person is either a Truth-Seeker, or they think human progress can legitimately go forward with the making of false and refutable arguments just for the sake of winning a debate. Don't waste your time with people whose sense of truth-seeking begins with their beliefs and ends with their beliefs, unsupported by facts and inference.