Was the US war against the Taliban of Afghanistan the right thing to do?

[welshTerrier2]

[msongs]

1. the "job" was left unfinished, like all bush projects...

like that invasion or not, the work of taliban removal and afghanistan helping was left incomplete by bush's war on the american military (oops, the invasion of Iraq).

had the US spent a few years actually helping the afghanis, we might be in a better way.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/6for2008.htm

[LincolnMcGrath]

8. I agree

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. That particular war will still be in progress 20 years from now.

[maxsolomon]

3. THAT was our laboratory of muslim democracy

and we had the support of the rest of the planet.

[uppityperson]

4. Idea was good, followthrough bad

If they would have focused on actually doing what they were supposed to be doing, in actualilty as well as theory, it would have been the right thing to do. Going in, deposing the Taliban and then not having the support of the administration to actually help nationbuild there, bad. Taliban have a lot of problems, but they were preventing worse problems there. Now, ???

[Pirate Smile]

5. There is a difference between being anti-war in general and anti-Iraq

war.

The "anti-war" term is generally used too broadly in the current press regarding Democrats.

[nealmhughes]

6. I hate the Taliban and their al Qaeda stooges.

They are a wart on the asses of all Arabs and Afghans. Their little regime set back human rights over 1000 years. Only people want to play games with the Taliban. Screw 'em. They're Nazis in disguise. It's time for a real de-Talibanization program, not playing games with Kabul and Islaamabad...

We know from where the Taliban gets its money, and it ain't the Alliance Francaise or the Goethe Institute. It comes straight out of the Saudi pipelines.

The only selling points for the Taliban were a rudimentary education in madrashas -- yeah, Afghans really need to know how to read the Koran in Arabic, much more important than basic Farsi texts. Some clinics and a whole lot of bullets.

Blown up Buddahs, converts from Islam getting tried in capital cases, corporal punishment and the burqa is back...

And still Old Sammy is on the lam...has anyone tried a palace in Mecca or somewhere near Saana or even Karachi? The US played with fire when they played footsie with the Taliban, and the result: al Qaeda bringing down our World Trade Centers filled with innocent people at work.

I would support Afghans right to choose their government, but not a Taliban government or presence.

[leesa]

7. Absolutely not. You don't apprehend a handful of SUSPECTED

criminals by carpet bombing a country for 10 months and murdering thousands of innocent civilians. We don't even have the slightest clue who did 9-11 because it has never been investigated, yet we murdered thousands on the say-so of the liars in this administration.

The war in Afghanistan was yet another crime. Maybe we should find out who did 9-11 someday and then arrest them and put them on trial like a civilized country.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. It rather clearly failed, didn't it?

So no. The pacificists were right about that one too.

[welshTerrier2]

10. kick - hoping for more votes in the poll

interesting analysis on this poll coming later ...

[guidod]

11. NO! An attack with an army

was not the way to do it, just like it wasn't the way to do it in Iraq. COVERT OPERATIONS BY SPECIAL FORCES.

[welshTerrier2]

12. hmmmm - still need more votes ...

maybe i should repost this in GD ...

[Guaranteed]

13. Yes, it was. But it should have been done right,

and the invasions should have been left at that.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Taliban were committing genocide against own women and children.

[Donna Zen]

15. I would love to chime in on your poll, but....

I always thought that bombing of Afghanistan was inevitable. With the emotional charged political atmosphere at the time, I saw no profit in trying to challenge it. Besides, I had already written in protest to my senators earlier in the year when the US had sent $45 million to Afghanistan. I don't like the Taliban.

Nevertheless, if there is a war in Afghanistan, we haven't fired the first bullet. We dropped plenty of bombs turning rubble into gravel, but that was never the war. The war is one of ideas. All wars are political, which is why Sun Tzu says that the greatest generals can win every one without ever fighting. Tribal Afghanistan is a place of great poverty. In 1951, a very beautiful Afghanistan asked Eisenhower for money...not much...something like $51 million. Eisenhower refused...ta da...Stalin and Mao filled the gap. Well, you know the rest of the history.

Today warlords and Taliban are still taking care of business. Sure the business is growing opium, but it puts food on the table.

bush failed in Afghanistan as he failed in everything he has ever done. If the mission is a renewed and democratic country, that is a failed mission. We have never resourced the soft-power that can actually win hearts and minds. When people go to eat food provided by the warlords, it is highly unlikely that they will buy into any ideas about self-government and freedom if it means starvation.

Our country is so brainwashed that they do not grasp that "foreign aid" money can mean fewer failed states and fewer wars even though it is much cheaper. The private militias understand how to win on the ground. I don't approve of private armies having the power of lethal force, whether we are talking about the Hizbullah, Al Qaeda, or Blackwater. This is very dangerous territory. But Sadr knows, like the Taliban, how to provide for the poor in Baghdad, and thus, his army grows.

You might say: Well, if these private/theocratic organizations can provide for the poor, why not support them? Which brings us back to the unstable and radical nature of theocracies. I don't like the Taliban. Legitimate governments cannot govern with private armies harbored within their borders.

I support a soft-power war that brings jobs, schools and hospitals to the people of Afghanistan, but we don't seem ready or willing to fight that fight. All wars are political, to win this one, we must give up guns and start talking butter.

Okay...I vote for the butter war in Afghanistan.

[Popol Vuh]

16. No

Because the Taliban did what we would have done in their place. They agreed to give Osama to us provided we show the evidence against him.

I don't like the Taliban no more than any other person. However, there's no evidence that the Taliban had anything to do with Sept 11th, and they agreed to hand over the person we accused of being responsible provided we show the evidence.


That's the way I remember it....

[Placebo]

17. Absolutely.

:patriot:

[Donna Zen]

18. No link although there may be soon:

Just posted at NYT.com


"Filed at 7:20 p.m. ET


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Taliban militants seized two towns in tumultuous southern Afghanistan, forcing police and government officials to flee, officials said Monday.
Large numbers of militants chased out police after a brief clash in the town of Naway-i-Barakzayi, in Helmand province near the Pakistan border, a local police official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment.
Scores of Taliban forces overran police holed up Sunday in a compound in the nearby Helmand town of Garmsel inthr. The security forces and a handful of government officials fled, a local government official said.
The official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because he did not have permission to speak to the media, said Taliban forces were now ''moving freely'' around the Garmser and the surrounding district."

[welshTerrier2]

19. thanks, DZ !!

here's your link: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghanistan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

check this one out too: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/welshTerrier2/56

[Donna Zen]

23. No simple reason; no simple answer

WT2, there are so many players, each with their own motives and levels of stupidity.

Within the groups that bush likes to cite with his mouth full of soft-white rolls, Al Qaeda, etc., are some people who thrive on their own bile. Of course there are also the usual hangers on, but without the sympathy of the general populous, they could be isolated. In your article from Tunis, it is mentioned that there were promises made by the West (or someone) that were never kept.

If bush, or whomever is pulling the strings, were serious about wanting to defeat an extreme theocratic ideology, they would be acting to present an alternative. Some pie-in-the-sky deomocracy dump heaven ain't going to do it. All of this is known, so why don't understand rudimentary psych is beyond me. I must assume that they just don't care...they are not trying to defeat anything.



Ideas about democracy come at the top of the pyrimid not at the bottom. Of course the militants will never permit the people to come close to the top, but they do take care of the bottom rung. I don't like the Taliban or any of these groups.

The only way to have fewer enemies is to make more friends.

The pipelines reminded me of many days of collecting pipeline data. These are complex wars, but from the point of view of the West, they are resource wars being conducted by dying empires. The empires don't have to die, they could switch to the next age of resources...alternative power; however, with the current demented leadership (including many ego-centric Dems) it is not looking good. If they can make that switch, the ME and Gulf states could get on with its religious "reformation." They might even be able to have that reformation more peacefully if we weren't constantly bombing them. Today it would seem that India and China will just go about the business of moving forward, while we take ourselves out.

Back on topic: I remain convinced that we never fought the Taliban, we bombed them, two different things.

[jonnyblitz]

20. wow, look at all the war mongers. this place HAS moved to

the right. :(

[mmonk]

21. It was fine in that we used

the northern alliance or worked in conjuction with them. Tactically though, we didn't follow through correctly with aid and infrastructure but the aim of getting rid of the al Queda base was the correct action. The motives were not pure enough in my estimation (pipeline) and leaving immediately to attack Iraq without establishing what we promised Afghanistan was immoral and a blunder.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. I voted 'yes' ... but have a qualifier

I do think we were justified to go into Afghanistan to both unseat the Taliban and to get Al Quaeda and bin Laden.

That being said, we also needed to finish it and we didn't. So, while I think we were right, that applies only as far as the literal wording of the question goes 'was the war against the Taliban of Afghanistan the right thing to do?' We fail miserably on our follow through.