Yes, but was is justified by real actual danger from the training camps?
Thanks. What role did the Taliban have in 9/11? Were the terrorist training camps Taliban or Al-Qaeda?
The Taliban as the functional government-in-being sheltered and provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda, who trained and organized the terrorists. buddy431 more or less laid it out:
Taliban: Pretty much a local Afghan/Pakistan phenomenon. They are very parochial and inward looking, very much ethnic-based ( overwhelmingly Pushtun ) and most heavily influenced by south Asian Hanafi Deobandism. They never got to the point where they really gave a shit operationally about what happened in the rest of the world, though perhaps that may have changed in time. I doubt it though.
Al Qaeda: Internationalist, multi-ethnic and pan-Sunni salafists, borrowing most heavily from Hanbali Wahhabism, but not exclusively so.
The Taliban for the most part can be equated with just being the winning militia faction in Afghanistan’s post-Soviet civil war. Al Qaeda is the octopus-like terrorist group that was loosely friendly with them as the Taliban was at the time the closest thing to a revolutionary ( and non-Shi’a, Iran being anathema to the salafists ) Islamist state.
ok, thanks, I understand now
The Taliban were and are mostly an Afghanistani phenomena. The Pakistan Taliban were and are a separate group.
I didn’t respond to the poll because there are at least two implicit parts to the question, making it something of an (unintentional) loaded question.
I think the US had to show the world, and its citizens, that it could and would hit back after 9/11. And any “hitting back” had to involve Afghanistan in some way, as otherwise it would overtly be a safe haven, and the whole thing would look (even more) ridiculous.
However, that doesn’t mean that I think that the actual actions taken were what we had to do, or should have done.
However, if they had prioritized getting OBL earlier, and if those actions had been successful…then we can imagine a situation where the public could accept just limited strikes against taliban leaders and training camps and virtually no boots on the ground.
But the OP I assume is talking about the situation as it was, not a what if.
Iran was actually looking into invading Afghanistan because of some issues but were too chicken and frankly had little experience in large scale troop movements.
Afghanistan maybe; I’ll say yes. Where I got lost was Iraq. I will insist to my last day that that one was mostly because “they tried to hurt my daddy”.
…And would have led to war against Pakistan.
I disagree. I think it’s unlikely the Taliban would have turned over al Qaeda. But if it had done so, I don’t think the United States would have invaded Afghanistan.
I think history has shown that the Bush administration had always had its eye on Iraq. That’s where they wanted an invasion. The 9/11 attacks forced them to divert the military into Afghanistan.
Then we just have an endless game of whack-a-mole, especially as Al-Qaeda gets better at concealing these camps. Better to cut off the problem at its source by outright occupation.
Are there really “terrorist training camps”? What do they learn there that they couldn’t just as easily learn in someone’s backyard? The first time I heard of these places was right after someone threw a hand-grenade into a disco in Athens (IIRC). The footage on tv was of the monkey bars of death.
Everyone knows it was the US government that was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Just kidding!! Yes, of course. But you can get rid of al Qaeda training camps without taking over the entire country. We’re just going to have to bomb them when they re-appear after we leave anyway.
There’s such a HUGE difference between Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, but since they are in the same area they tend to be conflated.
-
We did not invade Afghanistan. We came in as support for one “government” against another 'government" ie the Taliban. No legitimate nation recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
-
The USA came in with the full support and authority of the UN, and NATO and was widely supported by the rest of the Free World (and a good number of parts which arent so free).
-
The Taliban was sheltering Osama bin Laden and training and supporting al-Qaeda
**Afghanistan was moral, legal and widely supported by the rest of the world. **
As for IRAQ?
Well, the USA as well as Blix and the rest of the world *thought *Saddam had significant WMD, enough to seriously threaten Israel and perhaps even the USA. SH kicked out the UN inspectors and was shown to be trying to buy WMD. So, the USA had every right to threaten the use of force to make SH let Blix back in.
Which he did. And found basically nothing (there was very little to find, there was some old degraded Sarin nerve gas and a few other illegal weapons*). And there it should have stopped. But instead the Shrub launched a immoral and unethical invasion of a sovereign nation, and* lost *the support of most of the free world.
**IRAN was immoral, possibly illegal and supported by only a couple die hard allies.
**
*50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media
The Afgan Taliban was kick-started and funded by the Pakistanis. That is, the Pakistani government (and Benezir Bhuto is not blameless in that even if it was more the actions of the Intelligence Service). Saying it was “an Agfanistani phenomena” ignores the critical role that Pakistan played in its formation and support.
You are of course absolutely correct in the differentiation between the two groups - they have different leaderships and organization. The Taliban sensu stricto is very much a nationalist Afghan organization.
Still as John Mace noted, Pakistan was somewhat instrumental in the formation of the Afghan group. Not just in the grooming by ISI, but also as a source of ideology and insomuch as the Taliban were and are heavily Ghilzai probably at least some manpower as well, as that tribe ( like so many ) crosses the border.
ETA:
Well, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Regardless of other issues, they are legitimate governments with UN representation.
That’s technically true but it’s a legalistic argument. Most of the world may not have recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan but the reality is they controlled almost all of the country. They were a de facto government with a de facto military force. So what happened was a military invasion.
Nope. There was no UNSC resolution authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan.
They controlled more of the area than any other group, sure, but their control was tenuous and under constant attack by other groups and local warlords. In fact it was estimated that the Taliban had firm control over less than 40%. And the invasion was a joke, with the Taliban putting up almost no real forces- it took about a month for them to fall.
"The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001 by Resolution 1386 as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[1][2] "