WTC: A Hypothetical Question of War and Alliances

Great Debates
1

This is a purely hypothetical question. We don’t yet know who was responsible for these terrorist attacks, and it is far too soon to think that a war will ensue. But this is a question I’ve been pondering for a while.

Assume that we:
a. Get evidence that Osama bin Laden’s groups were responsible.
b. Get evidence that he is in Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan knowingly provided him with “harbor.”
c. Declare war on Afghanistan.

Which countries will immediately jump in as our allies?

Which countries will immediately ally themselves with Afghanistan?

Which countries will stay out of it. And under what circumstances would they join the war.

2

In with USA: UK, and the rest of NATO, immediately.

In With Afghanistan: Don’t know of any off hand, but would any be STUPID enough?

Stay Out: Definitely Ireland and Switzerland, these are neutral countries, and would only enter a war if they were directly invaded, not attacked mind you, just invaded. Ireland was attacked by Hitler’s Germany and stayed out of WW11.

IANA War Expert, if anyone can come up with a deailed list, maybe that would shed more light on this for you Green Bean

3

Depends how the tragedy is viewed by different countries. If it’s an ‘Act of War’ then NATO steps in immediately (“An attack on one member is an attack on all…”), if it’s an act of terrorism then the rules are different.

Unlike, for example, the Gulf War where an ‘Alliance’ was important to sell Desert Storm to the public, this time the US doesn’t need Allies in that media friendly we’re-all-in-it-together sense. The Administration has all the public support it needs.

Notwithstanding that, most national leaders are characterising the attacks as an assault on ‘civilisation’ – something I sense Tony Blair has co-ordinated rather than it emanating from the US (the US Administration understandably took the phone off the hook most of yesterday so Blair got the ball rolling). That approach, one imagines, foreshadows the way any future actions will be characterised and, in doing so, keeps the way open for other countries to participate on the ‘all civilisation is threatened’ slogan - It’s important to remember, IMHO, that military aggression has to be ‘sold’ to the electorate of every country.

It would then be down to offers of assistance and requests for same based on an established plan of action. That’s the military angle. Politically, the picture will emerge more slowly.

IMHO, there won’t be a war in the old-fashioned sense as ground troops would only be used to secure Bin Ladin himself (Special Forces) – The Balkans and the Gulf War have shown much can be achieved with air supremacy.

Also, of course, the ‘dirty war’ has been underway for years and yesterday demonstrated ‘we’ ain’t winning that Intelligence war. Yet.

Whatever happens, Bush almost certainly needs President Putin (who’s already indicated he’s on board, not least because of a definite distain for Bin Ladin from the Soviet-Afgan war 1979-89) because of geography and logistics.

On the other side, no one apart from Saddam will support Bin Ladin openly. Other Muslim States might be sympathetic behind the scenes but he’s essentially on his own.

I just hope the terribly oppressed majority in Afghanistan don’t have to suffer very much more – first the USSR, then the Taliban, now, goodness knows what.

4

London, thanks for that extremely interesting analysis. But you have not said anything about the United Nations. Is it that irrelevant an institution in your view? Just an oversight?

5

London_Calling: A prety reasonable analysis. Just a couple of points though.

First, the Taliban first appeared ) after the Soviet pull-out ( I’m pretty sure - 1990? ) and certainly weren’t a dominant force at first. Osama bin Ladin didn’t become prominent until later still. I have no doubt Putin despises a destabilizing radical like bin Ladin, who is doubtlessly pouring resources into the Chechen conflict. But I don’t think it has anything ( or not much ) to do with the Afghan war.

Two Putin doesn’t have much to offer in terms of logistics. Russia doesn’t share a border with Afghanistan any more and the Russian force-projection capabilities are weakened along with the rest of the Russian military. I doubt Putin has all-encompassing clout in nations like Uzbekistan, though I’m sure he has some.

The key logistic player would instead be Pakistan. I suspect they’ll be a tough sell given their own domestic troubles, unless the U.S. has pretty strong evidence and appears to have a lot of international backing. This is where world opinion ( and the U.N. ) can help a great deal.

  • Tamerlane
6

NATO has already convened and is considering invoking the “Article 5” requirement of the North Atlantic Treaty, which is the “an attack on one is an attack on us all” clause:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/12/nato.us/

7

Tamarlane

Russia dooesn’t share a common border w/ Afghanistan, but the CIS does and Russia exerts more influence in Central Asia than you would expect. They still have Airbases there, IIRC.

8

** Mandelstam** IMHO, The UN was a non-starter for a number of reasons not least because the Charter does not permit retaliatory action. NATO is the preferred tool for almost every country concerned.

It works both ways (for Bush and Blair). It means, for Blair, that any response is ‘shared’ which makes him (in particular but other Euro’s also) a lot more comfortable with his seemingly unrestricted support for any action the US deems appropriate – at least you get a framework for input into what it is you’re supporting (bear in mind the UK lost up to 200 people at the WTC).

Hence, Blair is pushing the ‘civilisation under threat’ slogan. He very much wants NATO involvement and with his old friend Lord Robinson at its head, believes he can bring into line any possible doubting members. It seems that reassured, Colin Powell and Bush determined overnight that was what to shoot for (almost the first thing out of Powell this morning was “Act of War”, Bush went for “Freedom everywhere”). Tonight the deal is done and Article Five invoked.

Bush is also happy for the action to take place as a NATO operation for the US’s own reasons: The US is deeply disliked and / or mistrusted by the Muslim world. To act alone would likely only deepen that hostility whereas a NATO coalition presents a far broader and united front. It also forges an off-the-peg alliance with a group of nations with which the US shares much, both militarily and politically and releases the US from having to leverage assistance from local friendly countries as a single nation.

The ‘civilisation under threat’ angle works for everyone at this stage. Nice work in very short time by Blair in particular.

The Russians are also on board but it’s more complex as the Southern (former USSR) States have a high degree of Muslim influences – not necessarily pro-Bin Ladin or pro-Taliban but also not necessarily pro-US.

Osama bin Ladin is a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war (Afghani Jihad), that’s where he established his reputation.(although, I agree, he was viewed as some kind of rich wannabe in the early days. I believe he still carries the rifle he took from a Soviet soldier in hand-to-hand fighting). The Mujahedin were largely armed by the CIA from Pakistan and, somehow, through that experience, Bin Ladin became radicalised. It is also believed that he (significantly) financed the (post-Afghan Jihad) Taliban rebellion that later took control of Kabul –hence his continued residence in Afghanistan as a ‘guest’.

Not so, IMHO. Pakistan is a Muslim State with which Bin Ladin has had very close ties since the old CIA-Pakistan-Mujahedin days. Nothing could happen out of Pakistan without word first getting to Bin Ladin. Instead, Putin’s influence over Uzbekistan and, perhaps, Tajikistan will be important as a potential asset (exit as much as entry, IMHO).

In addition, the US is most certainly not flavour of the month in Pakistan since US foreign policy did a major u-turn from supporting Pakistan against India (both now nuclear powers) in favour of courting India. Not good.

IMHO, Putin can bring those two States into play and that brings a range of interesting options.

9

Worst case scenario, many Islamic nations ally against the U.S. In such an instance, NATO would immediately jump to our side and India too if Pakistan allied with Afghanistan. If China joined Afghanistan’s alliance, Japan and South Korea would be immediately on our side.

WW3 would be a way of continuing local conflicts, besides obvious Palestine vs. Israel.

Greece vs. Turkey, India vs. Pakistan, North Korea vs. South Korea, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea/Somalia (?) might all be conflicts in which both sides join one side of the world war. That would be truly devastating, especially since many of the involved nations on each side would possess nuclear technologies which might be passed around inside each alliance.

10

If it comes down to a large scale military action, I think there wouldn’t be anyone, aside from Iraq, willing to supprt Afghanistan. I don’t think the Taliban will let it get to that point, though. But if…

The US can now count on NATO, though I question whether the Germans would feel to comfortable providing direct millitary assistance (remember the last time ten years ago, they feared it very deeply). India would have cause to join, and Russia has stated they are in favor of combatting terrorism world wide. Australia has indicated any help that is asked for would be given. South Africa maybe. Israel would be in favor of it, but might be asked to sit it out. China, I think, might like the chance to give their military some real-life expreience, and they also want to make sure their western provinces are secure. Iran, on Afghanistans western border, could see action outside any alliance. Governments of the Middle East would likely stay neutral, though leaning towards the west, while their citizenry might lean the other way. All said, should it get to that point, there would be more foreign soldiers sent to Afghanistan than there are Afghans. No one, not even in places where the press is completely run by the local regime, is going to be able to give any real help to the Taliban when the pictures of the WTC explosions speak louder than any rhetoric. Iraq may talk their talk, but Saddam likes staying in power. Although the US might have carte blanche to finally get him out, should they like.

And as grim as the past few days have been, I find the idea of world war, the likes of the first two, to be rather unlikely. But maybe I’m turning into an optimist.

11

My OP was prompted by two related questions. The first is simple: Who would side with the Afghans and why? The second is more troubling: If push came to shove, how much real help could we expect?

At the time that I posted the OP, NATO had not met yet. The outcome of the NATO meeting is reassuring–but my initial gut reaction is really troubling to me. I was not, and am not, sure that all of our supposed allies would actually “put their money where their mouths are” if it came to full-scale war.

My first thoughts of who would jump in with us: The UK, Canada, Australia surely. Russia. Probably Japan. The whole EU and NATO, but with each country contributing to various degrees. I think that a few nations who are not necessarily international players, but with whom we have strong relationships would provide some sort of support. I think Mexico would fall into that category, as would South Africa.

But then I started thinking of all the small countries that we have aided in the recent past. American aid does come with strings attached. But we have provided a stupendous amount of aid to other countries over the past 60-odd years. I guess I have the underlying suspicion that a lot of the countries that we provide aid to are like the 8-year-old kid who kisses up to his icky grandmother because he knows that if he smiles and plays nice, he’ll get a generous birthday present.

Maybe not the best example–but we sent a ton of help to Honduras after their catastrophic earthquake. Would they do anything to help us? Granted, the country is still a mess and they have very limited resources, but would they scrape something together, or would they just sit it out?
As to who would side with the Afghans? I haven’t the foggiest notion of who would join them. I expect some fundamentalist Islamic groups would, including some Palestinians. And perhaps the more radical Middle Eastern countries would too. But it is hard to imagine that any countries who are non totally steeped in that radical ideology would be willing to risk war with us. Pakistan may be willing to have diplomatic relations with the Taliban, but would they put themselves on the line for them? I doubt it.
Anyway, the above is pure speculation on my part. I am just an interested observer.

12

Not to mention he appears to have had his “fingerprints” on the Ahmed Shah Massoud assaination ( or attempt ) the other day.

But my point was just that I think for the Russians it is more likely his more recent activity ( especially aiding Chechen rebels and destabilizing activities in the former SSR’s of Central Asia ), not his operations against them in the Afghan fighting, that is likely motivating Putin’s eagerness to cooperate.

Well, I’m just going to disagree :wink: . If we’re looking at abest possible scenario, I think Pakistan is a far more useful base than the Central Asian states. Even with the full cooperation of Russia and Uzbekistan, we’re talking an enormous and difficult logistic train moving from Turkey or the Black Sea, across to staging points near the northern border of Afghanistan. The incompatability of NATO and Eastern Bloc equipment, means that all Russia could provide ( which isn’t inconsequential, to be sure ) would be fuel, food, and bases.

On the other hand Pakistan can be supplied directly and easily from the Indian Ocean through the major transit point of Diego Garcia. And the Pakistani military actually has fewer compatability issues with Western forces.

Not saying it would be easy - You’re right it might take a lot of arm-twisting to convince Pakistan to go along and they may refuse completely, all the same. And certainly their would be serious security issues ( but some of the same ones would exist in Central Asia ). But it’s a better option, if it could be accomplished.

Of course all this is somewhat predicated on just what sort of intervention we’re talking about.

Just MHO :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
13

I think what has to be considered is what kind of action is going to be taken. If there are land forces involved, which is probably going to be a necessity, would Russia want Americans using their territory as staging grounds? It seems almost unthinkable, American GIs in Russia and not shooting at Russians? Holy cow has the world changed of late. I think it will seem just as odd to the Russians. And it might be a politically tough thing to actually bring into being.

Pakistan presents a different problem, if they decided to play ball. Pakistan would allow their airspace to be used by Americans, if their statement that they would join the fight against world terrorism is truthful. But would the US want to put troops there as a “friendly” base? Would it be safe? They can hold land in Afghanistan because it would be acknowledged as hostile territory, but if the local Pakistanis don’t want the Americans on their land, you’d face being in hostile territory when your in an allie’s land. I don’t think we’d find a good launch point for American troops, unless we can manage the largest airborne invasion ever from Diego Garcia.

I just have to wonder what the strategists are thinking right about now.

14

I would look at a staging point in India myself, but I’m not the expert in these matters.

As to the OP’s thoughts, I have to say that allying with us and giving NO support whatsoever is pretty good. Anyone that allies with us is not an enemy and that’s good. It’s not like the US could not take Afghanistan alone. We annihilated Iraq with the British and Iraq was one hundred times the threat that Afghanistan is. I am just worried that this will seem like a good time to make a play for Israel for some people.

Erek

15

I considered that, but the question is where? Kashmir? Anything outside that and you’re getting pretty far from Afghanistan. Kashmir itself has enough problems without Americans showing up.

16

Not unthinkable at all. Russia has been trying to become a member of NATO for a while, and they can’t understand why nobody wants them. They would jump to the opportunity of a joint operation. Militant fundamentalist Islam has been causing them untold trouble. Chechen wars, buildings in Moscow blown up etc. They also would like nothing more than get rid of them and win points with the West at the same time. Would be a win-win-win for them. All it needs is some money. They are broke.

Definitely, because the population has sympathies for the Taliban. The Pakistani rulers (came to power in military coup) would like nothing more than to get back on the “good guys” list with the West, have an end to sanctions etc. Hence their declaration of full support. OTOH, they want to stay in power and they have to consider their own people. You’ll probably see statements for internal and external consumption, along with shadowy business. I wouldn’t be surprised if US Special Ops personnel are already in-country, official Pakistani statements notwithstanding.

The people with the best local knowledge, the Taliban, don’t seem to rely too much on those insurmountable logistical problems, they are scared. They are digging ditches as we speak, and they are pleading for mercy. They’ve been fighting a war with the Northern Alliance for years, and the frontline is 30 miles from Kabul. The Northern Alliance has received limited support from the UIS and Russia, just enough to keep them alive and the Taliban on their toes, but it’s a safe bet that they are already getting more. A little bombing of Kabul, coordinated with an attack of the Northern Alliance wouldn’t get Bin Laden, but his landlords.

Long-term, this will be a nasty, long and dirty effort. Like the silent war the Israeli fought against the Munich terrorists of 1972, just on a much larger scale. This needs a re-orientation of priorities, patience and determination. We might have the determination right now. But I doubt we have the patience.

17

China would jump to our side or stay neutral. They are as concerned with Islamic fundamentalism (in their western provinces) as all moderate Islamic states are. China might very well stay out of the conflict, preferring to let two potential enemies destroy each other.

But this is real life, not a game of RISK.

18

I know what you’re talking about, but my interpretation of that was that Russia wanted to replace NATO with a new pan-European defense league, with the US as an associate, but not really a member. I don’t know if that’s a correct assessment because I can’t claim to have spent much time keeping up with most of the news out of Russia in the past few years, outside of the sub incident last year. If anyone knows anything that would clear this up I’d love to hear it because it’s suddenly very interesting. I do agree, though, in the reasons you presented in Russian motivation in enlisting in any possible action.

Another thing about China is that they’ve been working on building a quasi-capitalist economy for the past 10+ years. If they want to continue on that path, and I’m sure they do, they can’t risk losing the American market. The spy plane incident was microscopic compared to what backing the Taliban would do to Sino-American relations. Plus the fact that turning the economy back to what it was could be more disasterous than losing American money.

19

Here’s an interesting article I found on CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/oakley.analysis/index.html

20

Didn’t the Sudanese government host bin Laden for a while? Would Sudan join the forces on the other side?