4 ms·
The attack on Afghanistan was literally an invocation of NATO's Article 5, the only time this has happened: "Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the vict
by marvin 5y ago
The attack on Afghanistan was literally an invocation of NATO's Article 5, the only time this has happened:
"Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
So, the 9/11 attacks were considered an armed attack on the United States, and the alliance deemed it necessary to overthrow the Taliban in order to prevent Al-Qaeda from perpetrating similar attacks again.
One can disagree with the rationale behind the decision, or the cost-benefit ratio. But it did follow the protocols of the alliance.
- aszen 5y agoI think it's very naive to think that us invaded afganistan to protect itself or prevent similar attacks. It was pure irrational vengeance by bush. It may follow their protocols but by no means you can consider invading and occupying a foreign country for 20 years as defensive. In effect u cannot call nato a defensive organization by their involvement in wars where no defense was required
- GavinMcG 5y agoYou're looking at it in retrospect, but decisions to involve NATO in responding to an attack on a member aren't made with the benefit of hindsight.
- jgraettinger1 5y ago> us invaded afganistan to protect itself ... is a very different thing than ... > occupying a foreign country for 20 years When NATO invaded the towers were still smoking, the war-on-terror intelligence apparatus had yet to be built, and we (I) had no idea whether another attack was forthcoming. It felt pretty damn reasonable at the time.