Ah wait, if you’re trying to get technical- no there wasn’t a “UNSC resolution authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan” since the UN didnt recognize the Taliban. Thus, there couldnt have been.
There were UN demands that the Taliban stop the violence and drug dealing and turn over bin Laden “or else”. The US had tacit approval before and a full Resolution after.
[QUOTE=Tamerlane]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Again, inaccurate. The rise of the Taliban in 1993-1994 caught the Pakistan Government completely by surprise, indeed the ISI’s assessment was that they were a transient phenomena. The decision to support them was not taken until late 1994/early 1995, and the lead was taken by BB and her Interior Minister, Naseerullah Khan Babur, while the ISI had was betting on Hekmatyar (as an aside, it is one of the ironies of history, the Taliban were supported by a female, Shia PM and a socialist, nationalist Minister).
BB wanted a all parties government is Afghanistan, and hoped to get that once the Taliban were in Kabul, but her own government fell shortly after Kabul did (September 1996 and November 1996). The elections took place in Pakistan in Feb 1997, and by then the impetus had been lost.
Both of you also seem to be confusing ISI role in Kashmir with Afghanistan.
A good read is an interview with Gen Babur himself in April 2001 (
The invasion was in Oct 2001. You claimed “The USA came in with the full support and authority of the UN”, neither of which is true.
BTW, I know we like to think that most everyone all over the world supported our invasion of Afghanistan (at least at the beginning), but that simply isn’t true.
“International public opinion** is **largely opposed to the war in Afghanistan. A 47-nation global survey of opinion conducted in June 2007”
That’s six years after. Sez nothing at all about support in 2001. Support for the USA was very high in 2001, but dropped sharply after Iraq in 2003.
Now it’s true that a very limited poll did find that most nations in 2001 " preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack". But since “extradition and trial of suspects” was something the UN and USA had been demanding from the Taliban and the Taliban was refusing that’s like saying “Well, I’d *prefer *to pay my Income taxes in Peeps candy rather than US funds”. It’s not a option, so that choice is invalid on the poll. Hell, I would have “preferred” that also. I am sure the Allies would have “preferred” the “extradition and trial” of Hitler in WWII. Just as likely.
Not to mention- the wiki site has been a POV warzone and is thus of dubious validity as it’s very likely biased after a long edit war. The Link it goes to is a biased website with a anti-war agenda.
The US and NATO did not need UN Security Council approval for the initial invasion in Afghanistan. Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves the right of self-defence for all member nations, provided they report to the Security Council, as the US and NATO did. Since the Afghan government was sheltering bin Ladin and al-Quaeda, which had carried out an attack against the US, the US and NATO were relying on that authority for the initial steps.
[QUOTE=UN Charter]
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think we disagree on the dates or ISI having previously backed Hekmatyar. But while Mullah Omar first seems to have conceived of his organization as far back as 1991, he really only began to build up from 1994, which in turn attracted ISI support. It has been argued ( and is arguable, this is all hazy ) that it was only ISI support that allowed MO to rebuild after some early defeats in the civil war.
Regardless if ISI was important or not, I still argue as above that cross-border Pushtun solidarity and the substantial genesis of Taliban ideology in Pakistani madrassas is enough to cast the Taliban as a regional problem, even if a primarily Afghanistan-centric one ;). I also don’t think it is a critical point. It really doesn’t matter if the Taliban was entirely homegrown or not - Pakistan is involved by simple geography and conflict spillage, if nothing else.
I am not going to get into a debate about whether we needed UN authorization or not. If you’d like to have that discussion, open a separate thread. Suffice it to say that there was never a UNSC vote on the invasion either before or after. I’m simply stating that Dr. Deth’s claims are factually incorrect.
We are saying different things:
The USA came in with the full support and authority of the UN= true
There was no UNSC resolution authorizing the invasion of Afghanistan= also true.
And Resolution 1386 was a vote, wasnt it?
There was no “authority” to invade Afghanistan. Period. The US put together an international coalition for the invasion, but this was not directed by the UNSC. Period.
The fact that there was a UNSC vote after the invasion to stabilize the region is neither here nor there wrt to the actual invasion.
This is what “full authority” of the UN looks like wrt an invasion of another country.
The authority came directly from the UN Charter, under art. 51. The Charter recognises the right of self-defence upon an attack, and thus authorises responses, without the need for a specific authorisation from the Security Council.
That is different from the first Gulf War, since the US had not been attacked.
Except that was not an attack by the government of Afghanistan. It was an attack by the stateless group, al Qaeda. It’s not so cut and dry that one can claim there was “full authority” from the UN. That authority is debatable.
Ok, the US had 'authority" but the '*full *authority" came after. OK?
It’s debatable. Now, since we’re the biggest, baddest kid on the block, nothing is going to happen to us. We break the rules all the time. And I think Americans tend to be a bit blind about that, since we are (supposedly) The Good Guys.