Afghanistan - a 'Just War'?

Great topic Raindog. I agree that Afghanistan is more justifiable than Iraq. That's where Al queda trained, and that's where the remaining bigshots are. (Or they are just over the border in Pakistan)

The problem is that after nearly 8 years there hasn't been much success. Sure some schools and roads have been built and there is a growing Afghan army, but it seems like some areas, including Kabul and other towns, are actually more unsafe.

And it seems that some of the coalition's tactics backfire. Destroying the Opium crop (their main source of income) just angers people and drives them into the the arms of the Taliban. Opium can also be used to make Morphine, of which there is a worldwide shortage. So why not use it for that?

And US bombs may be a lot more accurate, but they still kill lots of civilians, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not going to win hearts and minds that way.

So maybe we should cut our losses. Or at the very least change tactics.

You cant wage war against opinions, especially not ones you reinforce by waging said wars. That is, in my opinion and having given it quite some thought, the basic dilemma.
These "wars" have no defined enemy and no ending point. There is no attainable goal, because as its stated so frankly in "V for Vendetta", Ideas are bulletproof.

The problem is, not taking any action isnt justifiable in front of your own populace either, so basically, you guys went and did the play from your playbook you are familiar with, because there wasnt all that much more choice under that administration.
At this point its long since obvious you will not ever "win". You ll just come to the point where the results dont outweigh the costs anymore, or enough dust has settled you can withdraw quietly, leaving the next generation of victims to grow into enemies you cannot fight.

Stuff like this opium crop destruction are good examples of why it does not work out: We do not, and probably never will, understand all the intricacies of how these countries work. Time and again, such actions will be taken, and backfire, often ruining a dozen successful actions in turn.

War is one tool in the toolbox for solving conflicts, but its the wrong tool for this sort. War is a tool you use when fighting a certain kind of enemy. However, it may well be the USA, or actually any western country, does not have the right tool for Afghanistan at this point, or at least doesnt recognize it as such.

Where are you from, Khaunshar? You keep saying 'you guys' . Are you referring to the West or just the USA?

I also think there is a defined enemy: Al Queda. What they did on September 11th and other attacks was a criminal act and they must be brought to justice. You can argue the methods but they had to take action. What do you think Bush etc should have done after 9/11? Nothing?

I don't think the war in Afghanistan is about ideas or opinions at all. It was an action against a government that was willingly harboring an international terrorist and is so out of tune with the modern world it could not really be negotiated with.

The problem with places like Afghanistan is that we don't clearly define when it's time to get out, but you should understand that the reasons we got in well way more well defined and agreed upon with the rest of the international community (which wasn't the case with Iraq).

Justifiable? I don't know. It definitely makes a hell of a lot more sense than Iraq. In fact I was so pissed off after 9/11 that since I was already serving at the time I actually inquired with my commander about joining the ELDAF (Hellenic Afghanistan Force) and eventually going there. It didn't happen until my time in the Army was up, luckily enough, because the subsequent abandonment of the Afghanistan campaign in order to start the whole Iraq mess would have given me a stroke.

But even if it makes more sense than Iraq it is still fought the wrong way.

The enemies are also the Taliban. And if anything, they're more dangerous over there than Al Quaeda. Adding to the problem: Afghan and Pakistani corrupted to the bones officials and governments. Add to that all the myriads of tribal factions who act independently, shifting allegiance from one side to another in moments, and you have the same scenario that made this place impossible to conquer for hundreds of years. Pretty much everyone who tried broke their teeth over it.

Although it's worth remembering that the Taleban were once our friends and even offered bin Laden and his entire al-Qaeda cohort (the brains of it, anyway) to the US Intelligence services via Saudi Arabia under Clinton.

I am from germany. Also, I was in the army for 2 years from Sept. 2nd in 2001, so I basically served the entire time with this event hanging over everyones head, and had a lot of opportunity to discuss it with the guys from the US barracks (in germany there are a couple of joint German/US barracks, mine was one of them in southern germany).

I absolutely agree that the USA had to take some kind of action. And, as I wrote up there, I think this was the only action that could really be taken quickly and with enough force to actually accomplish something.... if a war ever accomplishes much in such a scenario.
I just think that we, as in the western world, are not capable of dealing with this in a fashion that produces results we need.

The basic foundation of islamistic extremism is an idea, not a structure, army or defined enemy. Unfortunately, this has evolved into a threat, but killing off a number of members of one terror network isnt actually accomplishing much.

You guys, as in the USA, pour resources into these wars that are beyond imagination, you sacrifice values, integrity, your image to the world, people, material, you even undermine your own country by creating a huge rift in the population.... and all that to buy you a few years of respite.

The 9/11 events were a calling card of a larger problem. They justify , in my opinion, retaliation and attempts at preventing more of these. But by now we all know it isnt going to work like that. Many people have realized that 9/11 is just a symptom, not even a major thing actually, and that what is so simply described as the Al Qaida terrorist network is actually not an enemy you can fight with normal weapons.

But it seems for the lack of a better idea, and because some people with power profit from it, the war goes on and on.

Afghanistan cannot be won, simply because there arent any conditions to winning there that can be met. Your enemy is not a bunch of guys in a cave with AK 47s and a bomb belt.

As was Al Qaeda against the Russians.

al-Qaeda didn't exist when the Russians occupied Afghanistan.

That's a detail. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

They're the descendants/same mudjaheeden that were funded/trained by the US to fight off the Russian invasion. I was over simplifying it, but essentially it's the same people.

US involvement in Afghanistan is a really sad story. It wasn't really on the map until the Soviets became interested in it. So then the US started started training and pumping money into the Mujahideen in order to lure the Soviets into a prolonged guerilla war. One of their more prominent leaders was Commander Ahmad Shah Massud a well educated moderate Afghani and he was seen as the West's big hope for a stable Afghanistan. Keep in mind that the Mujahideen where a very loose coalition (putting it mildly) and as prone to go after each other once the Soviets were out. Sadly post war Afghanistan was dropped like a hot piece of coal prompting Massud to make several appeals to the West. Basically saying that the situation was getting out of control and that the drug traffickers and the religious extremists were taking over. He was of course ignored. The story ended with him and other moderates getting either killed of chased out of the country and the Taleban taking over.

I know what you are saying, Martin. But it's an important detail and one that many people fail to recognise. To clear up any confusion - the Afghan Mujihadeen (native peoples and tribes - mainly Pashtun and Tajik) received support from America. Not directly and very rarely with US weapons (contrary to popular opinion - Stinger missiles were not weapon that "won the war"). The CIA - under Richard Casey - transferred money to Pakistan where it was used to buy foreign weapons and equipment (mainly - and ironically - Russian). The Pakistani SIS (a weirdly schizophrenic intelligence service that loves to meddle in the affairs of Afghanistan) covertly entered the country and, under the guidance of CIA "observers", began training the local nationalists.

What complicates the issue are the Jihadis - Wahabbi Muslims hailing from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria and so forth following the teachings of Sayyed Qutb who wrote - amongst other things - that there is no higher authority than the Koran and anyone who deviates from it - such as adherents to democracy - must be killed.

These groups (never under the leadership of any one authority) arrived in Afghanistan because various - mainly Saudi - clerics authorised intervention to save the Afghan people from Communism. One of these groups included a very young bin Laden - whose main purpose was to supply money. Almost all of them refused help from the United States since Qutb wrote that the US (which he visited as a teenager and was horrifed by) was the source of almost all Islam's problems. The CIA confirmed that they never financed the Jihadi groups. Indeed, CIA field agents were lucky to escape with their lives when they attempted contact. bin Laden certainly never sought help from othe US. He had no need to. He was rich.

Incidentally, before Gorbachov pulled his troops out of Afghanistan he warned the US that allowing the country to fall into the hands of the Jihadis would be extremely dangerous. The US ignored his warning and concentrated on convincing everyone it - alone - beat the Russians. It seems Gorbachov was right after all.

The Taliban was in power for a very long time before they killed Massud, who conveniently was killed 2 days before 9/11.

I'm not sure if Massoud was "ignored" either, he was fairly well known in Europe (just not the US).

Afghanistan is a "just war" but not for any of the reasons state above. It's a just war because the "West" should have gone in to stabilize the country after the Soviets left. To help them rebuild there society would have been a good thing. The mess made aftewards is because we turned our backs.

Much like is happening in Dafur now.

Massoud was regarded by the West as a moderate, but he remained broadly a supporter of political Islamism (recognising Allah's primacy over any other mechanism or institution) all his life.

Massoud was an interesting character. He arrived in Peshawar around 1979 as one of the first Jihadis (almost all of which were affluent graduates hailing from outside of Afghanistan) and worked alongside Burhanuddin Rabbani (a Tajik university professor who translated the writings of Qutb), Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (a bloodthirsty lunatic Pashtun nationalist who used both the religious hard-liners and the Pakistani SIS to gain as much power as possible) and a number of Deobandi militants to establish Islamist headquarters. Initially there were very few of them. Most of the freedom fighters in the medresses were born in Afghanistan and couldn't care less about a global Islamic cause. But Massoud and company had access to money. Tons of it. Wealthy Saudi Islamists, buoyed by their Shia cousins' success in routing the Shah and establishing the world's first Islamic state, decided to invest in a Sunni alternative. The Afghan rebels - whilst viewing the hard-line ideology with disdain - were only too pleased to accept the Islamists' money and used it to finance their guerrilla campaign. This was before the CIA started channelling money into Pakistan in 1980 (roughly the same time bin Laden arrived in Peshawar). Pretty soon the Islamists had all the men they needed and Massoud went on to become one of the biggest thorns in the side of the Russian occupation.

The CIA's BIG hope was Sheikh Abdullah Azzam. Initially he courted bin Laden for his money, but ultimately lost out to Ayman al-Zawahiri* (bin Laden's second in command today and the religious "authority" behind al Qaeda). As the years crept by the rift between Azzam and the Wahhabite radicals widened (his moderate views and considerable support among Afghans were a considerable threat). In 1989 he died in a car bombing. The identity of the killer(s) remains a mystery but many believe bin Laden had some involvement.

As for the initial question about a "just war" - as ethereal ideas go "Bring democracy to Afghanistan" is one of the most. Even if you accept that there can be such a thing as a just war - it would have to be based on precise and unequivocal objectives. Whilst the establishment of democracy seems pretty clear cut - the underlying minutiae (essential lest you end up without an exit strategy) are vapour thin. In an ideal environment you wouldn't entertain the question very long. In a politically, socially, ethnically and religiously complex country as Afghanistan you'd be forgiven for thinking it ironic.

Another key issue when you're talking about just war is proportionality: The balance between the desired end and the likely consequences of getting there. Military action must be expected to do more good than harm. The "good" - certainly for Bush - was ensuring Afghanistan could no longer be considered safe haven for Islamic radicals and granting "freedom" to the people and - perhaps - providing a safe environment for the pipeline the oil companies have clamoured for for years. But the "bad" could only ever be bad on a sliding scale between "very" and "extremely".

At this moment there are American, British and various other coalition forces' service personnel in Afghanistan, a substantial proportion of which I'm willing to bet (on the strength of conversations I've had with friends who've toured there) , can't tell you why they are there. Given that Bush said it could take ten or more years for the "plan" to be realised, the potential for another Vietnam is staring us in the face. That said, Vietnam was a far less complicated conundrum than the one before us.

Yes, the Afghans have tolerated manipulation by foreign powers such as America, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - but only because they were getting something out of the deal (the misguided notion of Independence). But step into their country whilst bearing arms and they will fight to the last breath. Over a hundred years ago Kipling (who knew a thing or two about the folly of pursuing ethereal ideas abroad) wrote:

The significance for the soldiers of today is as chilling as it was for the British back then.

* Ayman al-Zawahiri wasn't born a radical Islamist as some might have us believe. As a young man in the seventies he was committed to the peaceful pursuit of a free Egypt, which was held in the vice-like grip of another stooge (first Russian, then American) – Anwar Sadat. When Sadat chose to alienate himself from the entire Islamic world by signing a peace deal with Israel (bought by the CIA) he angered the Egyptian Islamists in his own country (moderate and radical) too. They felt they had been betrayed. In 1981 Sadat was assassinated and al-Zawahiri - who was not involved – as well as hundreds of other political Islamists were rounded up, found guilty of spurious charges and thrown into prison where they - like Sayyed Qutb a decade earlier - were tortured using methods the CIA approved. In Afghanistan he provided the ideological authority for the radical Islamists. Middle East experts have long theorised the possibility that al-Zawahiri wooed bin Laden away from Azzam with the chance to become leader of his own faction (the proto-al Qaeda). In truth neither could function without the other. bin Laden had the money but no religious authority whereas Zawahiri had little money but did have extensive expertise in Koranic study and was a powerful writer and orator.

Interesting discussion.

So when everyone says America funded Al Queda and 9/11 was the past misdeeds coing back to haunt us they are talking shit.

And in Rambo 3, John J. did not fight with Al Queda, but the native Afghan fighters who would eventually form the Northern Alliance.