|
PittTheElder posted:Sort of, but yes, even before 9/11. The offer was to turn him over to a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to stand trial, but the US had little interest in that. Especially after 9/11 where America has one hell of an axe to grind, and ol' GW wants to show off how powerful Neoliberalism can be at forging a new empire. The Taliban also had no control over him, barely knew where he was, and didn't have the capability to arrest him and deliver him anywhere anyway. The offer was a stall at best, it was not made in any sort of good faith.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
How are u posted:Nah, we needed to do something. Virtually every last American wanted to do something. Were you old enough to remember 9/11? something had to happen, the public would not have accepted nothing at all. However we could have simply cratered every known training camp and brought in a ton of people for public trials and that likely would have eventually been enough. i'm not saying that is the morally correct response, but that would have been infinitely better than what was done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
How are u posted:Nah, we needed to do something. Virtually every last American wanted to do something. Were you old enough to remember 9/11? I'm sure what most Americans wanted after 9/11 wasn't a war in Afghanistan as much as just a bunch of dead Muslims, but hey both sides got their wish!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:something had to happen, the public would not have accepted nothing at all. However we could have simply cratered every known training camp and brought in a ton of people for public trials and that likely would have eventually been enough. i'm not saying that is the morally correct response, but that would have been infinitely better than what was done. Oh I agree. Sticking around and pretending to play at nation building for 20 years was a terrible idea. We needed to do something, but Bush took it and ran his own direction to the detriment of all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:As Ebrahim Raisi got sworn in four days ago, I anticipate a shitstorm of bullshit coming out of Iran this month. Speaking of which, Hamid Nouri's trial started today in Sweden!  For those who don't know, he's accused of working as a lawyer in political trials in which at least 110 political prisoners, who are named in the indictment, were executed in the 1980's. Raisi is also claimed to have been involved. How did Sweden happen to arrest Nouri you ask? Well, one witness and former political prisoner named Iraj Mesdaghi and other Iranian refugees in Sweden came up with a cunning plan: they sent him an invitation to a luxury cruise. Turns out you shouldn't believe random e-mails claiming you have won in a lottery! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Taliban also had no control over him, barely knew where he was, and didn't have the capability to arrest him and deliver him anywhere anyway. It would have been easier to do than fighting a war with the US for 20 years. Even if they'd hand delivered him I'm not sure we wouldn't have invaded though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It would have been easier to do than fighting a war with the US for 20 years. Even if they'd hand delivered him I'm not sure we wouldn't have invaded though. the invade question really hinges on GWB's desire for war. maybe we could not have invaded, but even if the nations bloodthirst demanded it, we could have invaded and left akin to the gulf war in the early 90s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Speaking of which, Hamid Nouri's trial started today in Sweden! Baby boomers man. A miracle and a curse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Another alternative would have been to go all Operation Wrath of God and just use all the special forces and CIA resources to specifically seek out Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for death/capture without military invasions. But it would have been difficult due to the US's humint deficit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:the invade question really hinges on GWB's desire for war. maybe we could not have invaded, but even if the nations bloodthirst demanded it, we could have invaded and left akin to the gulf war in the early 90s. Bush was a neocon so war and bloodlust was always going to be his particular nature, but he was also puppet of people bigger than he. All the wars were planned for back when the towers were still smoldering, and no neocon POTUS would ever stop that train. https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/ quote:While the Bush White House promotes the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, a tantalizing passage in Wesley Clark's new memoir suggests that another war is part of a long-planned Department of Defense strategy that anticipated "regime change" by force in no fewer than seven Mideast states. Critics of the war have often voiced suspicions of such imperial schemes, but this is the first time that a high-ranking former military officer has claimed to know that such plans existed. USA was interested in empire and money, and used the revenge angle to indoctrinate and propagandize to hundreds of millions of Americans to make us accomplices to the entire scam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Lost Time posted:Bush was a neocon so war and bloodlust was always going to be his particular nature Hmm, not quite! At least, he played the dove in comparison to say, John McCain, who the neocons wanted, in the 2000 primaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
W got elected on a platform of but l not being the cop or the world and, explicitly, not nation building. How ironic. As far as the plan to invade Iraq that was being discussed days after 9/11, would someone care to post more details about it? That same "it's worse than that* passage from the same book had been posted on this thread several times this year. Do we know what the plan was aside from a list of countries?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
And were these actual plans they were expecting to execute or plans like the invasion of Canada which were basically elaborate thought experiments to make sure they'd never be caught with their pants down if any President got any particular notion?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Related: https://slate.com/podcasts/slow-burn/s5/road-to-the-iraq-war
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
It was a goal they wanted to accomplish - whatever rationalization they could construct to get there. Everyone in that administration was the loving worst
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Slow Burn is a very bad podcast because it frames US government actors as bumbling. incompetent, and themselves misled by the likes of people like Ahmed Chalabi in the lead-up to the Iraq War. This is tantamount to lying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
The correct Iraq War podcast Season 1 https://blowback.show/
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
I don't have quotes, but the Bush at War book by Woodward has people trying to bring up Iraq pretty much instantly and IIRC Bush telling them to focus on Afghanistan. Obviously the 'let's transform the region' side won the debate in the end, but it wasn't day 1 Bush decided to invade Iraq. The Iraq stuff didn't just spring up spontaneously either though, and we might have invaded Iraq eventually with or without 9/11. We were bombing them basically the whole time after the Gulf War, and Clinton had that major bombing campaign in 1998 that in retrospect seems to have been what ended Iraq's WMD programs. With the sanctions regime crumbling, the US was in a position to either watch Iraq's containment and isolation fail piece by piece, or to escalate. Obviously they chose to escalate, but I feel like a lot of people just forgot that we'd been routinely bombing Iraq for over a decade at that point.
Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Tweezer Reprise posted:Slow Burn is a very bad podcast because it frames US government actors as bumbling. incompetent, and themselves misled by the likes of people like Ahmed Chalabi in the lead-up to the Iraq War. This is tantamount to lying. Fair, I just listened to it while running for a couple of months and thought it was interesting. But I'm probably unusually receptive if I'm listening to pop history while running vice reading or on a web page. I also happen to believe in the Three Stooges model of history in that, while number of great men work very hard to convince us to charge headlong into our triumphs and blunders, a greater number of men must bumble along into them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Vaguely relayed, but the SSI / army war college study into the lead-up and first 8 or so years of the Iraq War is a pretty good read https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1066345.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
Tweezer Reprise posted:Slow Burn is a very bad podcast because it frames US government actors as bumbling. incompetent, and themselves misled by the likes of people like Ahmed Chalabi in the lead-up to the Iraq War. This is tantamount to lying. I think it's too simplistic to say they all got conned by Chalabi, but it's too simplistic to say the war planners weren't bumbling incompetents too. Like even if you think their motives were 100% cartoonishly corrupt, which I don't think was the reality (though I do think some of that was in there), I think there's a ton of evidence that most of them genuinely believed the whole thing was going to be a cakewalk. Maybe there were some who knowingly used Chalabi to make the case to the rest that the postwar situation would be easily resolved, but I think there was clearly a lot of hubris there and people largely believed Chalabi because he was telling them what they wanted to hear and because he'd developed a bipartisan fanclub over the last decade plus. The Bush admin and military were literally drawing up post-war plans on napkins on the eve of the invasion, so this isn't something anyone put a lot of real thought or effort into preparing for, and since we know the real chest beaters very much intended to keep going beyond Iraq into Iran and Syria and elsewhere, if they'd been competent they would have taken more seriously the need to secure Iraq after the invasion. There's a general tendency in politics to just assume politicians are stupid rather than evil (see the way people constantly made the excuse for Trump that he was too stupid and/or mentally ill to behave any better than he did, even though there's plenty of evidence of intentionality), but I think leftists sometimes go to the opposite extreme and assume evil masterminds behind everything even when the end result is total failure. Cognitive biases like groupthink explain a lot about how bad decisions at the top levels of government are actually made imo. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think it's too simplistic to say they all got conned by Chalabi, but it's too simplistic to say the war planners weren't bumbling incompetents too. Like even if you think their motives were 100% cartoonishly corrupt, which I don't think was the reality (though I do think some of that was in there), I think there's a ton of evidence that most of them genuinely believed the whole thing was going to be a cakewalk. everyone in the US military, intelligence agencies, civilian government, and media had their own reasons to justify the war to themselves and to the public. in my view, this is not 'incompetence', because that implies better personal scruples could have largely avoided the war, which i don't believe to be the case, not in this environment. because, crucially, this is the nature of empire, these are the dynamics by which an empire self-perpetuates. most of these people ended up getting what they wanted, material or otherwise. Tweezer Reprise fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
Tweezer Reprise posted:everyone in the US military, civilian government, and media had their own reasons to justify the war to themselves and to the public. in my view, this is not 'incompetence', because that implies better personal scruples could have largely avoided the war, which i don't believe to be the case, not in this environment. I feel like it's basically just tautology at that point. Like the bad men did the bad thing so we know they were only motivated by the evil they're a part of. I do think individuals become subordinated to the Washington consensus/Blob, and groupthink and the concept of 'where you stand depends on where you sit' can dovetail in with the whole instruments of empire thing, but I think it's too easy to just throw out a generality like that and expect it to sufficiently explain every conflict. As for the incompetent part, even if the war was going to happen no matter who was in charge (which I don't think is super clear), the war itself was run super incompetently. The diplomacy in the run-up was about as alienating as possible, and as I mentioned before, the total lack of planning ensured the failure of the big picture war aims. Maybe the war would have ultimately failed regardless, but we'll never know because that group didn't even put together a decent effort. If they'd wanted to just smash poo poo up and go, they could have done that a lot more successfully than enduring a years long occupation that dramatically reduced American wealth, power and influence. If they'd wanted to successfully occupy the place long term, knowing going in that Sunnis and Shia had issues with one another probably would have helped. And if geostrategic issues were at the forefront, having some idea that Iran might benefit from removing the hated Sunni leader of a neighboring majority Shia country seems like something a competent administration would have figured out. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I think it's too simplistic to say they all got conned by Chalabi, but it's too simplistic to say the war planners weren't bumbling incompetents too. Like even if you think their motives were 100% cartoonishly corrupt, which I don't think was the reality (though I do think some of that was in there), I think there's a ton of evidence that most of them genuinely believed the whole thing was going to be a cakewalk. Maybe there were some who knowingly used Chalabi to make the case to the rest that the postwar situation would be easily resolved, but I think there was clearly a lot of hubris there and people largely believed Chalabi because he was telling them what they wanted to hear and because he'd developed a bipartisan fanclub over the last decade plus. I'm not saying they're evil masterminds, sometimes power is just power in the right time and place for their schemes to be heard and delivered. And speaking of failure, they're all richer, more successful, and still living consequence free despite being criminally incompetent on a global level, so that alone deserves a look at. 20 years and they're still mucking around the planet with an enormous black hole of money given to them by American taxpayers. And the threat of more forever wars with the forever targets of Iran and the entire ME remain present and lucrative for them in spite of 20 years of failure with the War on Terror and trillions of dollars down the drain. They even now have a bipartisan Space Force for more money to drain to. Those people got exactly what they wanted. There's really no need to be masterminds for this. We're not talking Lex Luthor assholes here, just typical Ivy League, old money opportunists for the most part. The corrupt system here guarantees a decent amount of success, no matter the gently caress ups, especially when dealing with American hegemony. So yeah, they probably had some cocaine-filled talks in cigar rooms over the years about the need for American supremacy the planet over, and then they filled in as many holes as they could while knowing full well if they just committed fast and hard, no one could stop them nor have the will to. They're just opportunists with easy access to the world's greatest propaganda machine when it comes to military expansion. And as far as I can tell, they're still winning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
The Taliban now have 9 provincial capitals under their control and are threatening several others, including Mazar-e-Sharif. Also the finance minister just quit his job and fled the country. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/11/afghanistan-provinces-city-taliban-ghani-mazar-i-sharif-live-news Its actually remarkable how badly the ANA/central government is fighting this war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 11:26
|
|
|
quote:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/11/afghanistan-provinces-city-taliban-ghani-mazar-i-sharif-live-news Got to love the tut-tutting, need to try harder attitude from the folks who've just pissed off and abandoned Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1425165577056817152
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
That's just dishonest. No attacks of this scale would be possible if the US was still bombing any significant attempt at Taliban movement between cities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/8/11/afghanistan-provinces-city-taliban-ghani-mazar-i-sharif-live-news What would you suggest we do? Invade again? Air strikes alone clearly are not enough. The writing was on the wall that this would be the outcome of pulling out for like the last decade, at least. It was always going to end like this. What I'm upset about is the Biden admin's so far failure to adequately take care of the thousands and thousands of Afghans who put their lives on the line to help us over the past 20 years. That blood will be on their hands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
People are saying the rate of advance was unexpected, but was it really? I kind of expected the central government to depart right on the tail of US state department personel. This seems like the moment that the Taliban had been planning and training for for years.
Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:People are saying the rate of advance was unexpected, but was it really? I kind of expected the central government to depart right on the tail of US state department personel. This seems like the moment that the Taliban had been planning and training for for years. In theory the Afghan military had also been planning and training for this moment for two decades, with the benefit of US equipment and NATO training
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Yeah we all knew that once the US military was no longer there that the Afghani army would fold like wet paper
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
It's only surprising for those who haven't been paying attention. The government has been fighting a losing civil war for the better part of the last 7 years, with dramatic up-ticks in internal refugees just the last few years. This was all before the US withdrew their military support/taliban recruitment drives. EDIT: Like any deportation of refugees to Afghanistan in the last five years makes a mocking of the concept of asylum. The writing has been on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BhittaniKhannnn/status/1425395785303302145 You got to love all these military toys that keep falling into the wrong hands. There probably should be some sort of accountability or something, but everyone involved already got their money so yolo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Lost Time posted:https://twitter.com/BhittaniKhannnn/status/1425395785303302145 I highly doubt the Taliban have the expertise to fly and maintain these choppers. But all the rockets and guns will be useful for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I highly doubt the Taliban have the expertise to fly and maintain these choppers. But all the rockets and guns will be useful for them. I would assume that a bunch of Afghan army personnel have been switching sides. The average Taliban commander probably knows a guy who knows a guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
I think it's very unlikely that the helicopter will be in one piece a week from now, one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:People are saying the rate of advance was unexpected, but was it really? I kind of expected the central government to depart right on the tail of US state department personel. This seems like the moment that the Taliban had been planning and training for for years. The speed is a bit surprising. When the Soviets withdrew it looked like a similar situation. Yet there the central government held on for more than a year, only falling when the USSR stopped supporting them. The government this time, while still weak, looked like it had at least a few things going in its favour. Remember this is Afghanistan. Its a hard place to conquor-- this applies to rebels, too. The Taliban number what, tens of thosuands? in a country of millions. The terrain is very challenging in most of the country with few roads and those of poor quality. Taking the countryside is one thing, but cities? Those could, on paper, hold out for some time as they could have supplies, weapons, and a lot of people that may not like the Taliban. Plus the ANA has access to a lot of US hardware, and its troops US training. If you asked people 6 months ago how long they thought the government in Kabul would hold on, you'd get answers like 6 months, a year, 2 years. Counting from when the US had withdrawn. Turns out they should have started counting from when the withdrawal began, not ended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
From what I understand, a lot of these places Taliban captured were barely under government control in the first place. Like there'd be one guy sitting behind a desk in a village somewhere and a dozen Taliban would show up and chase him away. It's now theoretically under Taliban. Things might go differently in Kabul or other important places... Or they might not. Sinteres posted:I think it's very unlikely that the helicopter will be in one piece a week from now, one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 12:05 |
|
|
Count Roland posted:Remember this is Afghanistan. Its a hard place to conquor-- this applies to rebels, too. The Taliban number what, tens of thosuands? in a country of millions. The terrain is very challenging in most of the country with few roads and those of poor quality. Taking the countryside is one thing, but cities? Those could, on paper, hold out for some time as they could have supplies, weapons, and a lot of people that may not like the Taliban. Plus the ANA has access to a lot of US hardware, and its troops US training. I mean under normal circumstances, yes. But not when everyone is retreating and/or surrendering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 20:52
|
|