40 ms·

This article makes a number of errors with very little advice on what we should have done. For example, it agrees that we should have invaded Afghanistan, but

This article makes a number of errors with very little advice on what we should have done. For example, it agrees that we should have invaded Afghanistan, but then suggests we accepted Taliban surrender. The Taliban did not ever seriously offer surrender, nor does the article say who should have been left in charge. As for capturing OBL in Tora Bora... that was a failure, not a bad decision. This article is just garbage Captain Hindsight nonsense.

rbanffy 5y ago
> but then suggests we accepted Taliban surrender. Was that even offered? I'd suggest that using soft power instead of a full-scale military invasion would be wiser. Afghanistan was never really a single country and treating it as such is a huge mistake. The groups within it have been warring each other for centuries and it was very arrogant to think you can win a war against an enemy to whom you represent an existential threat and who knows the place and have been practicing defending it for centuries. As for 9/11 itself, making Al Qaeda and OBL the enemy was a mistake. By giving it a name and a face, you acknowledge and empower it. The enemy was and continues to be extremism and it needs to be fought at home and abroad, but attacking it with force only makes it stronger.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  > but attacking it with force only makes it stronger. Nazism and Japanese militarism were both attacked with force and defeated.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Yes, but they were offensive national forces with long supply chains and highly structured military. Afghanistan is much more like Vietnam than WWII and the failure follows a similar pattern.
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      Afghanistan is like Vietnam in that they had a 3rd party foreign neighbor supporting them - Pakistan. ...whereas Japan and Germany had no support after the war to continue any sort of rebellion.
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        And that serves to illustrate that you don’t win a political war with guns alone.
        RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
        I think the Mongol Empire illustrates that if you have overwhelming military advantage and are prepared to be absolutely ruthless in using that advantage, you can actually go pretty far with pretty minimal diplomacy (which is basically offering a chance to submit before you invade).
        rbanffy 5y ago
        Well… American military are immune from prosecution for crimes against humanity, so that’s one possible route. Consider, however, opposition will be much more violent and relentless and that both Soviet and British strongly recommended suicide before allowing oneself to be captured by Afghans, so I imagine that wouldn’t end well either. Again, diplomacy is cheaper, in both money and lives.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Imagine someone murdering your family and then not going after them because you don't want to glorify the fact that they killed your family. ...and then they killed someone else's family.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Yes. And their family comes after you, and the rest of your family goes after the rest of their family and their neighbours… That usually doesn’t end well for anyone.
542354234235 5y ago
> “Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts. The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.” Oct 14, 2001 [0] > “Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States would not accept a negotiated surrender between Afghanistan's new interim government and besieged Taliban forces in Kandahar that granted amnesty to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar” December 7, 2001 [1] The Taliban did seriously offer surrender. The US just never entertained it unless it was basically complete unconditional surrender. We can’t know if the Taliban would have followed through, but it was the US refusal to seriously negotiate, not the Taliban. Karzai and the interim government were set up at that point, so that is who would have been in charge, likely with local leaders, including former Taliban, working loosely with the national government. It would have been a more militant islamist government, but it would have been Afghan focused and relatively neutral to the US. I agree on the Tora Bora capture. Operation Anaconda was a tactical failure but the goal was to capture UBL. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/12/07/rumsfeld-says-no-amnesty-for-taliban-leader/23608ba8-cf7c-4894-90ca-2120c2456be4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/12/07/r...
- koheripbal 5y ago
  No. They agreed to hand over OBL to a different country for trial IF they were given evidence against him. ...and then OBL confessed publicly on video, and the Taliban fell silent. Also remember that OBL was paying the Taliban $20 million per year to protect him. Neither of your sources says that the Taliban offered to surrender themselves.
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    >Neither of your sources says that the Taliban offered to surrender themselves. "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States would not accept a negotiated surrender between Afghanistan's new interim government and besieged Taliban forces in Kandahar that granted amnesty to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar." >We can’t know if the Taliban would have followed through, but it was the US refusal to seriously negotiate, not the Taliban. Literally what I said.

rbanffy 5y ago

> but then suggests we accepted Taliban surrender. Was that even offered? I'd suggest that using soft power instead of a full-scale military invasion would be wiser. Afghanistan was never really a single country and treating it as such is a huge mistake. The groups within it have been warring each other for centuries and it was very arrogant to think you can win a war against an enemy to whom you represent an existential threat and who knows the place and have been practicing defending it for centuries. As for 9/11 itself, making Al Qaeda and OBL the enemy was a mistake. By giving it a name and a face, you acknowledge and empower it. The enemy was and continues to be extremism and it needs to be fought at home and abroad, but attacking it with force only makes it stronger.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> but attacking it with force only makes it stronger. Nazism and Japanese militarism were both attacked with force and defeated.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Yes, but they were offensive national forces with long supply chains and highly structured military. Afghanistan is much more like Vietnam than WWII and the failure follows a similar pattern.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Afghanistan is like Vietnam in that they had a 3rd party foreign neighbor supporting them - Pakistan. ...whereas Japan and Germany had no support after the war to continue any sort of rebellion.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      And that serves to illustrate that you don’t win a political war with guns alone.
      - RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
        I think the Mongol Empire illustrates that if you have overwhelming military advantage and are prepared to be absolutely ruthless in using that advantage, you can actually go pretty far with pretty minimal diplomacy (which is basically offering a chance to submit before you invade).
        rbanffy 5y ago
        Well… American military are immune from prosecution for crimes against humanity, so that’s one possible route. Consider, however, opposition will be much more violent and relentless and that both Soviet and British strongly recommended suicide before allowing oneself to be captured by Afghans, so I imagine that wouldn’t end well either. Again, diplomacy is cheaper, in both money and lives.
koheripbal 5y ago
Imagine someone murdering your family and then not going after them because you don't want to glorify the fact that they killed your family. ...and then they killed someone else's family.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Yes. And their family comes after you, and the rest of your family goes after the rest of their family and their neighbours… That usually doesn’t end well for anyone.

542354234235 5y ago

> “Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts. The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.” Oct 14, 2001 [0] > “Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States would not accept a negotiated surrender between Afghanistan's new interim government and besieged Taliban forces in Kandahar that granted amnesty to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar” December 7, 2001 [1] The Taliban did seriously offer surrender. The US just never entertained it unless it was basically complete unconditional surrender. We can’t know if the Taliban would have followed through, but it was the US refusal to seriously negotiate, not the Taliban. Karzai and the interim government were set up at that point, so that is who would have been in charge, likely with local leaders, including former Taliban, working loosely with the national government. It would have been a more militant islamist government, but it would have been Afghan focused and relatively neutral to the US. I agree on the Tora Bora capture. Operation Anaconda was a tactical failure but the goal was to capture UBL. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/12/07/rumsfeld-says-no-amnesty-for-taliban-leader/23608ba8-cf7c-4894-90ca-2120c2456be4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/12/07/r...

koheripbal 5y ago
No. They agreed to hand over OBL to a different country for trial IF they were given evidence against him. ...and then OBL confessed publicly on video, and the Taliban fell silent. Also remember that OBL was paying the Taliban $20 million per year to protect him. Neither of your sources says that the Taliban offered to surrender themselves.
- 542354234235 5y ago
  >Neither of your sources says that the Taliban offered to surrender themselves. "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States would not accept a negotiated surrender between Afghanistan's new interim government and besieged Taliban forces in Kandahar that granted amnesty to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar." >We can’t know if the Taliban would have followed through, but it was the US refusal to seriously negotiate, not the Taliban. Literally what I said.