6 ms·

Afganistan was the only time Article 5 was used and you can disagree, but yes that was a defensive war. One with an occupation that lasted way too long, but tha

Afganistan was the only time Article 5 was used and you can disagree, but yes that was a defensive war. One with an occupation that lasted way too long, but that's a different story.

tut-urut-utut 5y ago
When and how Afghanistan Attacke any NATO member? Someone claiming it was defensive doesn’t make it so. If Afghanistan can be called a defensive war, Russian „demilitarisation“ of the Ukraine is purely humanitarian operation.
jessaustin 5y ago
...way too long... Taliban weren't friendly with Al-Qaeda, and attempted to surrender in the first week of the war. In the first month of the war, its alleged target ObL decamped to Pakistan. After a decade, someone somewhat resembling ObL who had been living under close Pakistani military supervision a mile from PMA Kakul was allegedly murdered as a campaign event for BHO's reelection, although no corpse was ever examined. After another decade, NATO forces left Afghanistan with tails between legs, while experts assured us that the "government" they had installed would last several years. Realists assumed that meant it would last several months, but even we were surprised when that actually meant several hours. It seems "way too long" somewhat understates this. There is no sense in which this was a defensive war, and if this were as you say the only thing NATO ever did (perhaps something might have happened in Kosovo?) then that is a complete indictment of NATO.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Jess you can disagree, but at the time of this writing this is what one of the introductory paragraphs of the war's Wikipedia states: > Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, then-US President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban, then-de facto ruling Afghanistan, extradite Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks and who was, until then, freely operating within the country. The Taliban's refusal to do so led to the invasion of the country; the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies were mostly defeated and expelled from major population centers by US-led forces and the Northern Alliance.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Taliban and aQ were "allies" in the sense that they both fought against Northern Alliance. aQ were (are?) foreigners to Afghanistan, only welcomed by locals they regularly paid, which included some Taliban. Taliban, who themselves were not a monolith, were happy to receive weapons and training from aQ, but it wasn't out of love. It made political sense for American war media to blur the lines between them, but by now we know never to trust what we're told in the first few weeks of a new war. Did someone in Bush's administration ask some Taliban poobah for ObL, at some time before the invasion? Probably! That would have been like asking for a unicorn pony. They didn't have him in custody, and they weren't going to be arsed to engage in whatever deadly combat would have been required to get him in custody. Unlike today, at that time Taliban weren't really a national ruling entity. They ran the courts and the tollways in some of the populated parts of Afghanistan. ObL was holed up in the hills somewhere. USA military didn't have a great deal of luck digging him out either, once they gave it a try. The proportional action would have been to occupy only those parts of Afghanistan in which one could reasonably imagine ObL had hidden, and hire both Taliban and Northern Alliance to provide security on the condition they not fight each other while USA troops were around. It's not as though Taliban had created aQ, our supposed ally Saudi Arabia did that. Taliban, just like everyone else in Afghanistan, would have been perfectly happy for aQ not to have escaped Sudan. Somehow the goof troop that got us fighting a war in Iraq also screwed up the operation in Afghanistan. At this point that can't be a surprise to anyone. But you're talking about mistakes made leading up to and in the first several weeks of the occupation. The point of this thread is the following two decades of pointless brutality.
    - 3pt14159 5y ago
      Al-Qaeda are foreigners, yes, but that was because of their very founding as a force of volunteers to help the Afghans during their war with the Soviets. They were trained by the Americans as part of the cold war, but their real friends were the Taliban and everybody knew it. You can say "they weren't going to be arsed to[...]" but the reality is that they were close friends. If they weren't, the Taliban could have easily retained power by inviting the Americans in to aid their capture. As for why Nato stayed so long in Afghanistan, it is difficult to imagine now, but 20 years ago we had just won a giant string of wars and in most of them democracy was installed and life got better for everyone. We tried to make it work in Afghanistan too, but it didn't work for a multitude of reasons. Anyway, with respect, I was talking about Article 5 and the defensive alliance that is Nato. Countries within Nato can choose to go to war outside of A5, but they are only compelled to help under it.

Afganistan was the only time Article 5 was used and you can disagree, but yes that was a defensive war. One with an occupation that lasted way too long, but that's a different story.

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

When and how Afghanistan Attacke any NATO member? Someone claiming it was defensive doesn’t make it so. If Afghanistan can be called a defensive war, Russian „demilitarisation“ of the Ukraine is purely humanitarian operation.

jessaustin 5y ago

...way too long... Taliban weren't friendly with Al-Qaeda, and attempted to surrender in the first week of the war. In the first month of the war, its alleged target ObL decamped to Pakistan. After a decade, someone somewhat resembling ObL who had been living under close Pakistani military supervision a mile from PMA Kakul was allegedly murdered as a campaign event for BHO's reelection, although no corpse was ever examined. After another decade, NATO forces left Afghanistan with tails between legs, while experts assured us that the "government" they had installed would last several years. Realists assumed that meant it would last several months, but even we were surprised when that actually meant several hours. It seems "way too long" somewhat understates this. There is no sense in which this was a defensive war, and if this were as you say the only thing NATO ever did (perhaps something might have happened in Kosovo?) then that is a complete indictment of NATO.

3pt14159 5y ago
Jess you can disagree, but at the time of this writing this is what one of the introductory paragraphs of the war's Wikipedia states: > Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, then-US President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban, then-de facto ruling Afghanistan, extradite Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks and who was, until then, freely operating within the country. The Taliban's refusal to do so led to the invasion of the country; the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies were mostly defeated and expelled from major population centers by US-led forces and the Northern Alliance.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  Taliban and aQ were "allies" in the sense that they both fought against Northern Alliance. aQ were (are?) foreigners to Afghanistan, only welcomed by locals they regularly paid, which included some Taliban. Taliban, who themselves were not a monolith, were happy to receive weapons and training from aQ, but it wasn't out of love. It made political sense for American war media to blur the lines between them, but by now we know never to trust what we're told in the first few weeks of a new war. Did someone in Bush's administration ask some Taliban poobah for ObL, at some time before the invasion? Probably! That would have been like asking for a unicorn pony. They didn't have him in custody, and they weren't going to be arsed to engage in whatever deadly combat would have been required to get him in custody. Unlike today, at that time Taliban weren't really a national ruling entity. They ran the courts and the tollways in some of the populated parts of Afghanistan. ObL was holed up in the hills somewhere. USA military didn't have a great deal of luck digging him out either, once they gave it a try. The proportional action would have been to occupy only those parts of Afghanistan in which one could reasonably imagine ObL had hidden, and hire both Taliban and Northern Alliance to provide security on the condition they not fight each other while USA troops were around. It's not as though Taliban had created aQ, our supposed ally Saudi Arabia did that. Taliban, just like everyone else in Afghanistan, would have been perfectly happy for aQ not to have escaped Sudan. Somehow the goof troop that got us fighting a war in Iraq also screwed up the operation in Afghanistan. At this point that can't be a surprise to anyone. But you're talking about mistakes made leading up to and in the first several weeks of the occupation. The point of this thread is the following two decades of pointless brutality.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    Al-Qaeda are foreigners, yes, but that was because of their very founding as a force of volunteers to help the Afghans during their war with the Soviets. They were trained by the Americans as part of the cold war, but their real friends were the Taliban and everybody knew it. You can say "they weren't going to be arsed to[...]" but the reality is that they were close friends. If they weren't, the Taliban could have easily retained power by inviting the Americans in to aid their capture. As for why Nato stayed so long in Afghanistan, it is difficult to imagine now, but 20 years ago we had just won a giant string of wars and in most of them democracy was installed and life got better for everyone. We tried to make it work in Afghanistan too, but it didn't work for a multitude of reasons. Anyway, with respect, I was talking about Article 5 and the defensive alliance that is Nato. Countries within Nato can choose to go to war outside of A5, but they are only compelled to help under it.