Afghanistan: did you support this invasion but not Iraq?

[welshTerrier2]

so, were you for or against invading Afghanistan? many differentiate between the two invasions ... some who do see Afghanistan as justified do so because 1. the Taliban was barbaric and 2. they were providing support to Al Qaeda and we had a right to go after Al Qaeda ... Iraq, these people argue, was not justified ... there was no association between Saddam and Al Qaeda ...

does the above description fit you views?

i opposed both invasions and still do ... why? because i see no difference between either invasion ... Big Oil wanted an oil pipeline in Afghanistan ... they wanted permanent military bases in Afghanistan to house US troops to guard the pipeline ... bush never gave a damn about chasing Al Qaeda or catching bin Laden ... might it be reasonable to support the invasion of Afghanistan had bush gone there to weaken Al Qaeda? perhaps ... but that was NEVER THE OBJECTIVE ... i opposed the invasion because bush's objective was oil and greed; not a strategic attack against Al Qaeda and certainly not promoting democracy in Afghanistan ... now that he has his permanent military bases and his oil pipeline, he doesn't give a damn about anything else ...

and Iraq, same old same old ... been there; done that ... Big Oil has pressured the Iraqi government into signing numerous Production Service Agreements (PSA's) that will essentially steal most of Iraq's future oil revenues from new oil fields ... could a case have been made that genocide was going on in Iraq and we should invade Iraq for humanitarian purposes? ... again, perhaps ... but that was NEVER THE OBJECTIVE ... it may have been noble to invade Iraq to "rescue" the Iraqi people from a tyrant like Saddam ... but it was insanely naive even if that had been the real motivation for the invasion ... it's clear to everyone now that toppling Saddam has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians ... you can't just topple a regime without having something positive to offer in its place ... and therein lies the rub ... bush never had something positive to offer and never gave a damn about what happens to the Iraqi people ... again, it's all about the oil ... the agreements have already been signed and bush has achieved his real objective in Iraq ... the permanent military bases to house troops to guard the stolen Iraqi oil have already been built or are being built now ...

recently all eyes have been distracted by Israel and Hezbollah and Lebanon ... but don't take your eye off the ball ... bush needed to change the focus from "all Iraq all the time", which was killing his party, to anything but Iraq ... and he cannot afford to have the situation in Afghanistan highlight yet another failure ... bush's true colors and his true motives are on display now for all to see ... he got his oil pipeline; he got his BIG OIL PSA's; he got his permanent bases ... he and his Big OILY friends are very, very happy ... the same cannot be said for the countries he promised to "save" ...

btw, if you did initially support the invasion of Afghanistan, have you changed your mind or do you still believe it was the right thing to do?

source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0722-04.htm

Afghanistan Close to Anarchy, Warns General
· NATO commander's view in stark contrast to ministers'
· Forces short of equipment and 'running out of time'

The most senior British military commander in Afghanistan yesterday described the situation in the country as "close to anarchy" with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.


British General David Richards, the most senior British military commander in Afghanistan yesterday described the situation in the country as "close to anarchy" with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.

The stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of NATO's international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that western forces there were short of equipment and were "running out of time" if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people. <skip>

[movonne]

1. I never supported the Afghanistan...I felt sick over it...

[catmother]

2. yes. i supported the invasion of afghanistan but not iraq. even

though i did not like bush i gave him my support on that one. i think many in the country did. but i was totally against invasion of iraq. did not believe WMDs and the rest.

i was totally pissed after 9/11 and wanted to see the culprits brough to justice.

[NJ Democrats]

3. Yes, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan

The problem was Bush focused his attention and our military on Iraq which I didn't support

[TheFarseer]

4. The Taliban is evil in a special kind of way

There is a huge difference between these wars. First of all, Al Queda was actually in that country acting in concert with the Taliban. Their views were identical, where as Saddam's views and goals hardly mesh with Al Queda. If 9/11 didn't convince you we had to do something about Al Queda, I don't know what would have. Second of all, there was already substantial resistance on the ground in Afghanistan so we would not be doing all the fighting. It was a much better situation for us to be successful and the people we fought in Afghanistan were a real threat to our country. I'm sorry some don't see it that way.

[welshTerrier2]

8. "some don't see it that way"

perhaps this misses the point i was trying to make ... perhaps not ...

you said "If 9/11 didn't convince you we had to do something about Al Queda, I don't know what would have." ... that's fair enough ... but that's not the point ... if the US had actually invaded Iraq to destroy the Taliban and destroy Al Qaeda, there was certainly a case to be made for the invasion ...

HOWEVER, and you really didn't respond to this point, my view is that this was NEVER bush's objective ... if destroying the Taliban and capturing bin Laden was important, why is the Taliban growing so much stronger again ... they are gaining control of more and more territory in Iraq ... and bin Laden? who's that? bush doesn't talk about him anymore ...

to me, the objective you cited, had it been the real purpose, might have been valid ... but the goal of eliminating the Taliban will never be realized because bush doesn't give a damn about them ... the Taliban provided a very convenient excuse to move into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline and military bases to defend it ... look at a map of where the bases are located ... every one of them is immediately adjacent to the new pipeline ... go figure ...

[welshTerrier2]

15. correction to my post above

reply #8 above referred to Iraq when i meant to refer to AFGHANISTAN...

again, the main point of the thread is to ask NOT whether invading AFGHANISTAN was a good idea but whether it was a good idea GIVEN BUSH's REAL OBJECTIVES ...

i AGREE a reasonable case could be made that the Taliban was providing support to Al Qaeda and we had to remove them from power ... HOWEVER, the question remains whether bush has actually removed them from power at all ... the initial invasion obviously did but the purpose appears to have been to install an oil pipeline ... the reason bush's real purpose matters is that we can now see the return of the Taliban and what has really occcurred with Al Qaeda in the region ...

[Sparkly]

5. I did think an invasion of Aghanistan was necessary

to oust the Taliban (as one part of breaking up Al Qaeda).

I agree with you that BushCo wasn't as intent on that as they were about their oil interests, and I believe they were already determined to invade Iraq when they took office, so they saw 9/11 and Afghanistan as both a distraction and a new opportunity for leverage...

The Taliban was, no doubt in my mind, a terribly oppressive force on the people of Afghanistan AND were in bed with Al Qaeda. They had to go, and our allies agreed.

Had BushCo continued the Clinton/Gore policies and heeded their warnings, the Taliban and Al Qaeda might have been dealt with in a different way BEFORE we were attacked, preventing it.

Had they dealt with it as THE priority after 9/11, Afghanistan would be in a better place today, and Al Qaeda would be weakened.

But it was their long-standing plan to invade Iraq that screwed up everything -- strengthening Al Qaeda, weakening Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to resurge, motivating hatred and recruits, and of course, turning Iraq into complete chaos and now potentially destabilizing the entire region...

So I was for invading Afghanistan, but not in the half-assed, self-interested way BushCo handled it. I was NEVER for invading Iraq.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Ditto n/t

[catmother]

10. i agree with you. bush knew he was going into iraq before he

even took office. it was discussed right after his inauguration. i also remember him saying "saddam tried to kill my daddy". maybe he wanted to make poppy proud. all he did was make a mess of everything.

[ima_sinnic]

6. I never supported Afghan invasion b/c I knew * wasn't sincere

--I knew he just wanted to be a war monger and was not sincere about busting up al Qaeda &/or Taliban. He was "lucky" 9/11 happened to give him an excuse but he would have been blowing the place up anyway in his greedy, blood-soaked quest to be the next Attilla the Hun with his invading barbarian hordes.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. I was extremely suspicious of Afghanistan, and...

didn't like the idea of going in like that. True, the Taliban are horrific and al-Qaeda used the place as its base, but it seemed we went in too fast and too furiously. We were in what was essentially a police action against al-Qaeda, and they preferred to call it a war.

My suspicions were confirmed when we let bin Laden go at the last minute-- this wan't about 9/11, but about little kids wanting to blow things up.

Reading the PNAC docs at the time, and learning about Afghani tribal warfare, it started to become clear that this was all part of some insane master plan that belongs in a bad novel, not the policies of the world's superpower.

Iraq? I thought from the beginning even more insane. And far more dangerous than any adventure we've ever been in.

[catmother]

11. it was quick. he did while the american people were still in shock

from 9/11.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

It seemed like a no-brainer at the time. Our country was attacked, and the attackers were based in Afghanistan, and supported by their leadership.

I agree with all the points that you make in post#8. In retrospect it's clear that it was never Bush's objective to get bin Laden or to truly remove the Taliban. But I am not a mind reader, nor did I have the capacity for time travel. At the time, I could not imagine that even the worst president we could come up with would be so indifferent to the ostensible aims of that invasion. I do admit to having grossly underestimated Bush.

At this point, I would be opposed to his even doing something that I would be in favor of someone else doing. He couldn't be trusted to wipe his own ass, let alone deal with an international threat. I do think that under any other president, the invasion of Afghanistan would have been the right thing to do under the circumstances.

I never favored the invasion of Iraq. It was always clear to me that Bush was lying and misleading, and that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11, and was not aligned with Al Qaeda. The human rights abuses in Iraq did not reach the level of genocide, and there were many places where the humanitarian situation was much more grave where we should have focused on first, if that had been our objective. When you've just been attacked is not the time when you should be tying up your military resources going off on unrelated humanitarian crusades though.

[welshTerrier2]

16. i agree

while i am not a "mind reader" either, the view you now have, i.e. "I would be opposed to his even doing something that I would be in favor of someone else doing.", is pretty much the point of view i held prior to the invasion of Afghanistan ...

with a reasonable administration in power, i might very well have supported the invasion ... but with bush? never!

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. My answer is similar to Crunchy Frog's

Also I will add this. I was well aware of the civil war being fought inside Afghanistan before 9/11, and already had sympathy for the Northern Alliance there. That is the other difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, there was an active civil war already being fought inside Afghanistan prior to direct U.S. military involvement. We had actual allies inside Afghanistan who were already fighting the Taliban, and in fact most of the ground forces that defeated the Taliban came from the Northern Alliance.

Of course had it not been for 9/11 my having sympathies for the Northern Alliance would not have equated with my agreeing with sending the U.S. military into Afghanistan, but 9/11 changed the equation dramatically. Among the many deeply tragic elements of Bush's haste to push on into Iraq and leave the real reasons for entering Afghanistan unresolved is this irony. The United States for the most part was welcomed into Afghanistan, and for the most part the Taliban was unpopular. Unlike Iraq, the people of Afghanistan were already exhausted by over a decade of virtually continuous internal warfare there. They were by and large willing to accept an external force helping them reestablish a civil society. Traditional Tribal councils inside Afghanistan cooperated with U.S. efforts to form a new central government there. I concede that the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan in this regard is a relative one, not a total one. Yes war lords in Afghanistan worked to promote their own interests etc. etc.

Still, it was Afghanistan, not Iraq, that offered the United States it's best chance to showcase how the interests of a traditional Islamic people and the West do not have to be antagonistic. It was Afghanistan that welcomed help in establishing schools and medical clinics. Iraq once had functioning Schools and heath care before U.N. sanctions crippled them, but to Afghanistan they were potentially a gift, one that could bring gratitude in return. Although an invasion of Afghanistan to promote Democracy and western ideals would NOT have been justified on those grounds, ironically that is where Bush could have had his "Democratic showcase", not Iraq, had he put just 1/20th of the resources into Afghanistan that he blew up in Iraq in one year. Had the U.S. shown good faith, continuity and resolve in helping the people of Afghanistan rebuild their nation after being devastated by a dozen years of war, the view of America being fiercely anti-Islamic might not have taken such strong hold in much of the muslim world.

[welshTerrier2]

25. well said ...

as usual, that's an excellent analysis ...

and yet, if i read between the lines correctly, there is still one point where i may not be in full agreement ...

you raised issues like in Afghanistan we had "actual allies" and that the US was "welcomed" ... both good points ...

even a formal invitation, however, does NOT mean (not clear if you were suggesting this) that the US invasion was right ... people in Afghanistan could well have been just as wrong about bush's motives as many Americans were ...

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. That's why I said my answer was similar to Crunchy's

Under the circumstances which she more than adequately described to represent my perspective, I supported the U.S. military actions against the Taliban inside Afghanistan (invasion, while an accurate term is also potentially misleading when one element of a civil war supports intervention. Did the French invade America during the American Revolution? Depends on whether you talked to the Tories or the Rebels).

So yes I think Bin Ladin being based inside Afghanistan called for the American response that was made. It is almost impossible to mold one's concept of how a government should react to a host of issues around the belief that it is being led by one of the dumbest most arrogant jerks conceivable. By that logic we shouldn't fund a Justice department either because the money that will be spent there will only undermine the American Constitution. The only sane course is to never allow such an abomination to ever gain power, and to remove him as quickly as possible should that somehow happen. Every dollar of tax money that the Bush administration controls can be used against the American peoples and/or the worlds interests. Health agencies start becoming religious fronts to push chastity. Foreign aid becomes a cloak for missionary work. The EPA becomes a den of thieves funding special lawyers who figure out how to most efficiently relax environmental controls.

[Cosmocat]

28. It absolutely ...

was the right thing to do, IF they did it right ... Just because these tards never intended to get OBL, and never intended to do right by the country does not mean that it was not the right thing to do ...

Look ... OBL WAS behind the 9-11 attacks and WAS in Afganistan ... The right thing to do was to go into afganistan properly ... Get between OBL and the Afgan border out of the chutes, cut off his ability to slither into Pakistan, then put enough of OUR troops into the country to get him ...

THEN, secure the country and do what they said they were going to with Iraq ... Talking point 29, build a model democracy ... It COULD have been done in Afganistan if there was no Iraq, and we put 1/10th of the resources into Afganistan as we are going to end up putting into Iraq ... I mean, REALLY go after it with money and resources ...

[Slaughtermeyer]

13. Yes, but that was before I found out Bin Laden was framed by neocons

Yes, I supported it but that was before I found out that Bin Laden was framed for 9/11.

The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
For details, see http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

[welshTerrier2]

17. "FBI: no mention of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11"

welcome to DU, Slaughtermeyer !!

that's an excellent find and a very disturbing point ... you might want to make the point again in its own thread ...

[underpants]

14. Yes

[leesa]

18. Invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. It was completely wrong to

carpet bomb a country for 10 months in an (unsuccessful) attempt to get the ALLEGED criminals responsible for planning the 9-11 crime. We do not know who did 9-11. We only know who the liars in the White House TOLD us did the 9-11 attack. On the strength of their say-so, we bombed a nation for 10 months and murdered thousands of innocent civilians. Our FBI states they STILL do not have sufficient evidence to link OBL to 9-11.

Most Americans are unaware that in July of 2001 we had threatened the Taliban that if they did not accept our offer for the proposed gas pipeline right-of-way we wanted to put across Afghanistan that we would bomb them "when the snow flies", which is around October in Afghanistan. They refused the offer, and lo-and-behold, we are bombing them in October. People also forget that the Taliban offered to hand over OBL if Bush provided evidence of his culpability, Bush refused.

[mtnsnake]

19. If you didnt support it, then how would YOU have responded to 911 attacks?

Since you say you didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan, then what do you think an alternative response to 911 should have been? I'm not justifying our response to 911, but I'm curious as to what the people who don't support the Afghan invasion think we should've done instead.

[gratuitous]

20. We should have prosecuted it like any other crime

Like the first World Trade Center bombing: Evidence developed, perpetrators and planners identified, warrants issued, trial, conviction, and imprisonment. Or like the Murrah Building bombing: Evidence developed, perpetrators and planners identified, warrants issued, trial, conviction, and imprisonment.

I'll admit it's kind of boring, and doesn't produce riveting teevee pictures like invading another country and lighting up the night sky with billions of dollars worth of bombs, but then we didn't waste thousands and thousands of civilian lives, betray our national identity, shitcan our personal and societal rights and freedoms, and spend a trillion dollars doing it, either.

[welshTerrier2]

26. thank you for asking this critically important question

just to be clear, i didn't support going into Afghanistan BECAUSE bush and the neocons were running the show and i did not, and do not, believe that anything they do is for the reasons they advertise ...

i hope you read the article linked to in the OP ... the reason i included it was to point out to those who felt Al Qaeda was a threat or needed to be punished or killed or captured and that the Taliban had to be destroyed because they were Al Qaeda allies that bush DID NOT DESTROY Al Qaeda and the Taliban is returning with a vengeance ...

now, to answer your excellent question ...

my first answer is to say that we had no right to install a BIG OIL pipeline in Afghanistan ... nothing could clearly show the US's true colors more than that ... and we had no right to build permanent military bases right along the pipeline to protect BIG OIL's investment rather than really protecting the very weak Afghani government ...

second, i must say that it was never fully clear to me just how involved the Taliban were with Al Qaeda ... what exactly do we believe to be true about this? if the sovereign Afghani government had no involvement with Al Qaeda or did not have the ability to push them out of the country, what right did the US have to topple a sovereign government? before i could define a policy, i would need to see more compelling evidence ...

but, assuming the allegations against the Taliban were true, and assuming we had an administration that was genuinely concerned with justice for 9/11, protecting the US from terrorists and helping Afghanistan rebuild itself, only then would i have considered the use of force ...

and perhaps most importantly, if i were "king of the forest", maybe i wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place ... the most troubling aspect of all this "war on terror" is that we seem to fail to ask the question about why anyone wants to attack the US in the first place ...

is it all about Israel? perhaps ... is it all about US occupation on Muslim lands? perhaps ... is it all about the projection of western influences, western materialism, western weaponry, western domination of oil markets, western propping up of tyrants? perhaps ... is it that they "hate us for our freedoms"? ... ummmmm, well, no!!

my real answer to what to do about 9/11 is really much more involved than asking "whom should we attack next or should we just accept these attacks" ... my real answer is that the truth about US foreign policy, a hideous, imperialistic foreign policy, has been hidden from Americans for far too long ...

as citizens, we need to understand that the greedy conduct of Big Oil and the military-industrial complex is what has put our nation at risk ... i'm perfectly willing to be called part of the "blame America first" crowd because we Americans do not really understand what horrors are being perpetrated on other countries and other cultures in our good names ... there is nothing at all wrong with the ideals on which the country was founded; we should honor the core values of America ... what we should not honor, however, is anything being done to violate the spirit of America by corrupt administrations who serve only the greedy pursuits of their corporate friends ...

without understanding the role of empire and WHY others seek to attack us, the "little answer" to the question you asked will be essentially meaningless ... the big answer to what i would do about 9/11 or anything else is that i would seek to educate the American people about US imperialism and seek to radically alter American foreign policy ... to quote Pogo, "we have met the enemy and they are us" ...

[Skittles]

37. how about going after Saudi Arabia

where most of the hijackers came from?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. I never supported Afghanistan.

And history indicates I, and everybody else who didn't, was right not to.

[alvarezadams]

22. Always against the invasion

on the basis of international law.

According to the UN Charter and the usages of international law, every diplomatic recourse must be exhausted before war takes place. Also, the principle of proportionality can never be overlooked. We did NOT exhaust all diplomatic recourses, we did not apply proportionality. Ipso facto, the invasion was illegal and was only possible because of widespread sympathy for the US (long since burned out through abuse) and the absence of any opposition to the hegemonic power.

SINCE the invasion we have been truant with regards to our responsibilities as an occupying power.

--------

War must always be the ABSOLUTELY LAST OPTION. No war has solved nearly as many problems as it created.

[boolean]

23. I supported Afghanistan because of 9/11

Unfortunetly, many of us were duped after 9/11. We all thought bush was serious when he said he was going to go after the terrorists. He fucked that up and I'm sorry I ever fell for it. Never AGAIN.

[paulk]

29. I was opposed to both invasions

In Afghanistan - I was afraid that Bush would just go in, blow the place up, and then leave. Which is pretty much what happened .

They even let Bin Laden get away....


In retrospect, I may have been wrong about Afghanistan - if the mission had been carried out properly - the Taliban overthrown, Bin Laden captured, and Afghanistan set back on it's feet - I would totally admit to being wrong - but the results of that invasion so far certainly can't be characterized as a success.

[KoKo]

30. Yes...supported Afghani Invasion...but protested Iraq before it started

along with MILLIONS all over the World who though if we "took to the streats" the UN would NEVER APPROVE Bush's ILLEGAL INVASION!

I get Pissed off to Hell when folks try to paint those of us who were okay with going afgter Taliban in Afghanistan but NOT OKAY with Iraq Invasion and calling us "ANTI-WAR PROTESTORS!"

I'm not against ANY WAR...(Bush might need a Coalition of folks to Remove him from Office) but I'm PRO-PEACE AND DIPLOMACY! As are many other DU'ers who are lumped with our very admirable Pacificts.

The MSM want's to lump folks together. I would be a Pacificist...but I understand that there are times when one must do something...it's just that the "something" would be so "restricted" in my mind (and many others) that we are close in spirit and hearts to our Pacifist neighbors. But...to paint those who see WAR AS LAST RESORT with PACIFISTS fits in with the MSM's "black and white hat" Busholini/Faux News View of World Politics.

[distantearlywarning]

31. I supported the Afghan invasion.

Unfortunately, we've completely screwed that country up as well as Iraq. Too late, I realized that Bush is the King Midas of Turdland - everything he touches turns to absolute s***.

I'm not a pacifist in general and feel that there are times when the use of force is necessary. However, as one poster said upthread, I wouldn't support anything anymore that came from the current administration, even if I would support it if it came from another person and their advisors.

[Vidar]

32. 16/17 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia--the only country that should.

have been invaded.

[Solon]

33. Nope, it was a tactical as well as moral failure...

we LET Osama get away, and this has NOTHING to do with conspiracies, if he was actually HEAD of the government there, it would have sort of made sense, however, he wasn't, so he slipped out from right under us because of the invasion. Stupidity run amok!

[welshTerrier2]

34. conspiracies?

there are times people toss around the term "conspiracies" in a way that seems to me to be just a wee bit dismissive ...

is it a "conspiracy" to observe the installation of an oil pipeline that the Taliban had refused to allow? is it a conspiracy to recognize bush's very close ties to Big Oil? is it a conspiracy to recognize that the installation of permanent US military bases falls in a pattern immediately adjacent to the new oil pipeline? is it a conspiracy that the US projects its imperial power by occupying more than 700 military bases all over the world?

and in Iraq, is it a conspiracy to acknowledge that the war and occupation of Iraq has resulted in all time record profits for bush's buddies in the oil industry?

bury your head in the sand if you want to but these are not "conspiracies" in the sense that they are "theories" ... imperialism has been the core of US foreign policy for more than one hundred years ... what the neocons did in Afghanistan and in Iraq to line their pockets may well have been a conspiracy; it also was a reality ...

[Solon]

35. I was only talking about this ONE instance...

To be honest, I think Bush would have given his left nut to capture Osama, what I WAS talking about is "Fog of War" nobody is omnipresent, and I knew, as soon as the decision was publicized that we were invading Afganistan, that Osama wouldn't be found, ever.

As far as the War itself, along with Iraq, etc. hell yes those were conspiracies, to enrich Halliburton, control Iraq's oil fields and build a pipeline in Afganistan. Hell, those aren't even theories, they have been proven, so there you go.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I had real mixed feelings about Afghanistan

If it had REALLY gotten rid of the Taliban and the Bush administration had spent the money now being wasted in Iraq on rebuilding Afghanistan (giving people jobs and reducing the motivation to raise opium poppies), I would have said, "Surprise, surprise, the Bushies did something right."

However, the Taliban and AlQaeda were both creatures of the Reagan, Bush Sr., and yes, Clinton, administrations' desire to harrass the Russians.

It was under Clinton in 1996 that the CIA threw its support behind the Taliban, on the grounds that they were the only force in the country strong enough to provide "stability."

If the U.S. had just let the Soviets come in and suppress the Islamic militants so that the Afghan leftists could establish a modern government (Communist-leaning, but nowhere near as oppressive as the Taliban, and far better on women's rights), there would probably be no Taliban and no AlQaeda today.

Blowback is a harsh mistress.

[Raksha]

38. Your first paragraph describes my POV pretty well.

Re >>many differentiate between the two invasions ... some who do see Afghanistan as justified do so because 1. the Taliban was barbaric and 2. they were providing support to Al Qaeda and we had a right to go after Al Qaeda ... Iraq, these people argue, was not justified ... there was no association between Saddam and Al Qaeda ...<<

How naive I was...I actually thought that besides going after Al Qaeda, we were actually going to liberate the Afghan women from the brutal theocratic oppression of the Taliban and make it possible for the Afghans to establish a democracy. I realized Bush was an incompetent but I had no idea what a liar he was. I didn't know it was all talk and that he's never had any interest in establishing democracy anywhere, including the United States.

I wished I'd known then that Shrub shouldn't be trusted with a water pistol, let alone be CiC.

[Disturbed]

39. No.

I would have supported the Rangers, Seals and Delta Force going after al Q.