America Has Not the Resources Nor the Moral Authority to be the World's Police Force

We need to get out of the business of regime change. We need to get out of the business of being Occupiers. We need to get out of the hypocritical practice of picking one reprehensible, oppressive group to 'fight' or 'destroy', while ignoring ALL of the others in the world. We need to get away from the idea that there is such a thing as a 'right war'.

The 8 year Occupation Adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have driven this country into a depression; economically, morally and psychologically. Militarism is destroying us from the inside and weakening our security. There is no military solution to Afghanistan. The sooner we realize that, the better off we will be. Escalating will only make it worse.

were not in favor of a standing army

but you don't hear the heritage foundation, or the federalist society go on much about that.

:eyes:

Explain. Killing ones enemy is a solution.

You are right about the limitations of our resources and the plight that militarism has caused to this country and to the world. Nevertheless, we cannot close our eyes to overtly evil forces in the world and hope they just go away. The Taliban really did attack us. The Afghan people want them gone. Unfortunately, the chaos we created by attacking and then changing our minds have caused the population to choose oppression over anarchy.

Al-qaeda did. The Taliban offered to hand those who did atack us over, but we declined, choosing invasion.

If you think we can kill all of the Taliban, or groups of other names that act the same way as the Taliban, you are mistaken. We can kill some, but more are recruited everyday. We provide recruitment talking points everyday we continue. The Taliban and other extremist live in the mountains, and can wait out, regroup and defeat any army. They have been for centuries. What makes you think that the US is any different?

In fact I remember them being quite bellicose in telling us to bring it on

Bush declined:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2001_Oct_22/ai_80338926

Bin Laden belongs in a NYC Federal courthouse.

We were justified in that war becaue the Taliban knew who Bin Laden was and what he was planning to do before the act was committed. They were co-conspirators.

"the Taliban knew who Bin Laden was and what he was planning to do before the act was committed."

If you can't document this claim, you are no better than Right Wing Radio.

I was asking previous poster to post links document his claims that:

"the Taliban knew who Bin Laden was and what he was planning to do before the act was committed."

Neither of your links document this fallacy.
I have no doubt that some elements of "The Taliban" did know that there were some training camps in remote areas of their territory. AlQaeda was probably paying them rent.

But I scoff at the claim that the Taliban (a loose confederacy of Afghani religious zealots) had foreknowledge of any operational activity being planned by AlQaeda, a Saudi terrorist group who were foreigners and racially distinct from Afghanis.
The links you posted contained NO information to imply that they did.

Of course, to some people, all ragheads are the same.
That one misconception is the source of MOST of our problems in the Middle East.

then al qaeda were very poor guests indeed.

...that the Taliban had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks ??!!!!

"If they did not {have foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks} then al qaeda were very poor guests indeed."

WEll, thats good enough for me. Send in the bombers and blow them ALL to pieces, women and children too!


Now I finally understand HOW the American people let our government get away with Gitmo, Free Speech Zones, and the Patriot Act.



You can't be serious.

not the UN Security Council. Chill out.

You stated it as fact.
It has long been the tradition at DU that members provide documentation for their claims.

Put up,
OR
retract your claim that the Taliban had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attack.

it follows that in a culture such as the tribal areas of Pakistan and rural Afghanistan, where guest/host relationships are formal, and highly normative, that nothing of that scope would have been kept from their hosts. One responsibility of a guest is not to bring harm down on the host.

It makes little sense that once betrayed to the degree that al qaeda would have been betraying the Talib, that fatwas would have been proclaimed, and al qaeda would have perished in a short, brutal punch out attempt toward... where? Islamabad? Tehran? Chechnya?

In short, had 911 happened, and the international response occured *as a surprise* you have had 2002 photo ops of Dubya literally being presented Bin Laden's head pickled in a jar.

You are using a s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d personal speculation totally devoid of ANY facts or documentation to justify a WAR on an entire culture that could be entirely innocent of ANY involvement in the 9-11 attack.

You surely have realized by now that Bush/Warmongers tied Sadam to 9-11 using the EXACT SAME reasoning?

I am not suggesting going to war with the Taliban.

What is to be gained?
By resisting them, we justify their excesses.
They are an anachronism, empowered by our militarism and jingoist policy.
Let them fade into the Pakistani tribal area and return to the 11th century.

Then, Afghanistan will return to near modernity, its baseline state.

What I am saying, is that if al qaeda had kept Omar in the dark about 911,
Bin Laden would be a dead man already. *I dont care about Afghanistan or Iraq*

We have no business being there ... or anywhere else outside our borders.

We need to protect America first.
There is notthing for forward defense to be guarding. 21st century warfare has too small a granularity.
Our military is like a 14 inch dick with ED.

The 21st century makes their methodology and goals anachronistic.

But only with proof of his complicity in the attacks:

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.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

Our error wasn't going there...our error was not sending enough people to get the job done and trying to conduct a war on the cheap as sold by Rumsfeld.

And how many troops do you think might it have taken to get the job done, out of curiosity?

We would be out in 3 years and could turn over the country to the Afghan people and the UN. If we did that though...we wouldn't have been able to invade Iraq...which was the goal the day Bush took office.

...are you?

You sound like Donald Rumsfeld.
In your history challenged Rosy Scenario, the Aghanis would welcome us as Liberators, wouldn't they. Especially after 3 years when we turned their country over to a grateful nation.
:rofl:

Overwhelming force.

You do know that Afghanistan has never attacked or threatened the USA?

How many completely innocent people are you willing to blow to pieces trying to capture a handful of criminals?

Should we carpet bomb the entire state of Indiana because a sect of the KKK operates there?

They were complicit. And when did they offer to extradict the other conspirators? Did they even have them? Did they include those who were complice in the Taliban government. We both know that the Taliban will never cooperate in bringing other Muslim extremists to justice.

The Taliban is the group of student Islamists who assumed power after the Soviets fell. They are not Al-qaeda. (I suppose all those Muslims look alike to you.) The Taliban has not done anything for centuries.

Alexander conquered Afghanistan in a month and he did not have electronic communications, air power or global diplomatic assistance. Of course, Alexander fought an army, not a god.

Is that what they call rewriting history?

Wait, you can't USSR doesn't exist anymore and while Reagan thought he brought the giant down, it was brought down in a great measure by the long, draining quagmire in Afghanistan, the quagmire we are currently in. There is no military solution in Afghanistan.

We're taking on a minority extremist faction within Afghanistan. I think we will have better luck following the examples of Geo. Marshall and Alexander. Their POV: eliminate enemies by making them our friends. Once the Nazis were gone, we made the Germans our friends and have never had cause to regret it. Except of the '02 VWs which were lemons.

A bunch of Saudis attacked us. The Afghan people do want the Taliban gone, and that is more likely to happen when we quit randomly slaughtering civilians, which does nothing but make the Taliban, however bad, look better than imperialism.

Iraq was not. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Bin Laden did attack America and the Taliban supported him in those efforts.

The way we fought that war was stupid and since it was going to take longer than expected Bush went for Iraq because he got sold on the idea it would be a quick victory.

How long would the occupation of Afghanistan be acceptable? Gates is already saying 3-5 years just to 'reclaim' what we have lost the past 3 years. That puts it at 13 years. Another 5-10 after that? To what end?

When will we know success? Is our only objective to keep Karzai and Kabul from falling? Indefinitely? Are we seeking revenge? Is this at all about OUR security? There is not a military solution.

If we would have done that war right and sent 200,000 troops into that country we would have been out in 3 years. Instead Bush fell in love with this idea of using 30,000 that was sold to him by Rumsfeld because it kept the Iraq war option on the table.

I'm going to give the administration time to asses the mess and see what can be salvaged. After Afghanistan forced the Soviet Union to leave we had an opportunity to go into that country with investment tha could have prevented the Taliban and in turn wouldn't have given Bin Laden that haven in which to plan 9-11. We need to asses what can be done, how much it will cost, and than determine whether its worth it. That assesment won't happen overnight.

We are pulling out of Iraq. Its a start.

and his cohorts seems quite a drastic step, what with collateral damage and all. There is no justification. None. If you must get one man or one group then use black ops. Don't send yellow bombs that look just like food packages.

Please, trying to justify any war this country has been in since WW II is disgusting. And the only reason WW II was worth it was because we didn't engage militarily until we had to and the enemy on all fronts was clear and obvious.

So you say a government that aided and hid someone who organized the biggest attack on this country since Pearl Harbor is not someone we should go to war with? Under your logic WWII wasn't justified either.

If we would have sent the number of troops to get that job done instead of doing things on the cheap like Rumsfeld sold we would have a very different Afghanistan right now. They held back because Iraq was planned since the day Bush took office.

The Taliban were not involved in 9/11, but they did provide sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Still the idea that it's justifiable to destroy a civilian population is exactly what terrorists do.

The plan is probably floating around somewhere, but change was just one word President Obama used.

After 911, we obviously needed revenge, but we should have just gone directly for Al Qaeda. If Afghanistan would not cooperate, fine, but we did not have to undertake regime change.

The Taliban were at least complicit with providing Al-Queda with sanctuary within it's area of control and they actively fought against American forces when we went in. It might have been a different story, perhaps, if they had remained neutral and/or agreed to cooperate with us by turning over Bin Laden to us right after 9/11 but ultimately they refused to agree to our terms- which, given the circumstances, were by no means unreasonable IMHO.

It sucks that we have to go back into Afghanistan under Obama but Bush's decision to invade/occupy Iraq ruined our initial- best- chances for crushing Al-Queda and rooting out the Taliban, which was not only harboring a terrorist organization that had committed a horrific act of violence against us, but was generally bad for the people of Afghanistan (I think that they had also kidnapped some aid workers as well).
Had Bush "stayed the course" in Afghanistan instead of suddenly switching our attention over to Iraq, which, of course, had NOTHING to do with 9/11, Obama would probably not need to go back in there and push back the Taliban (again). Of course, I expect him to manage the endeavor responsibly and be willing to cut our losses there if it looks like we're getting bogged down but pursuing and rooting out the remnants of the Taliban and, more importantly, Al-Queda, seems entirely justifiable to me.
I do fear, however, that there is far more work that needs to be done within Pakistan's borders, specifically within the lawless tribal regions, than in Afghanistan at this point in time but that was because Bush decided to do Afghanistan "on the cheap" and relied on "proxies" to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora, as well as redirect most of our resources to invading and occupying Iraq. Hopefully, Obama can help Afghanistan and work with both Afghanistan and Pakistan in ways that Bush couldn't (or wouldn't) to deliver a death blow to Al-Queda and the Taliban.

And of course * should have concentrated on that rather than dragging in Iraq.

or threatening them with "regime change" just so that we can exploit them, their resources, etc. and advance our own often twisted "strategic interests." IMHO the ONLY time we should even consider it is when another government is actively threatening to harm us (i.e. launching strikes, massing troops) and/or our allies. I'm not talking about some blowhard figureheads making bellicose statements as a means of "playing to their audience" but I'm talking more along the lines of WW2 Germany, Japan, and Italy, whose governments' actions clearly threatened the legitimate interests of us, our allies, and the rest of the world. Anything less than being legitimately threatened with attack or actually being attacked by another country is insufficient justification for toppling another country's government IMHO.

Mostly because of OBL (the guy that actually attacked us.)

OBL's checks (assuming he's still alive. A big hairy unlikely assumption right there). We did and we likely still do or at least we did until after 9/11. Why do you think the Bushies are all private-like about their, ahem, papers-like?

...all joining in the battle in Afghanistan.

It's not just the US.

There are human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that demand that we do something about the blood-curdling, evil practices of the Taliban on their own people as well as others.

There IS a military as well as a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan if we can get the Pushtan region and Waziristan under some semblance of control.

I understand the notion that we should be all about peace and love, but the World is much more complicated than that.

Canada wants out, and others are cutting troops as we are doubling our force. This may have a NATO stamp, but its largely a US operation.

I understand the world is a dangerous place. But, I also disagree with war as policy and profit.

We can talk again when that pipe dream of control becomes a reality in Wariristan. I hope this effort works, really I do. The Taliban are a cancer on this planet. More diplomacy is needed. More efforts need to be made to build up the people of Afghanistan. THey need schools, hospitals and working infrastructure. Unfortunately, they are getting more bombs and killings, from us and the militants, than those necessities.

Every dollar we spend launching strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan is one less dollar for our infrastructure.

Canada wants out of Iraq... not Afghanistan. This was released this month...

They will be there 2 more years, we are looking at 3-5, just to regain lost territories, we will long outlast the Canadians.

We'll see how it goes in the next few years.

to build infrastructure rather than fighting a war in Afhanistan is that the benefits are certain rather than speculative and we don't have to kill innocent civilians to do it. Hardly the American way IMHO.

.... there's a difference between being the world's police and trying to disable an enemy who's already attacked you once.

I say....

Get out of Iraq

Stay neutral in Gaza

Make it impossible for Al Qaeda to maintain a base in Afghanistan ... or anywhere else for that matter.

Al Queda has attacked us multiple times. The WTC bombing, Kenyan Embassy, USS Cole... and that's the stuff that's well known.

Throw in the mix that either the Taliban are Al Queda's lackeys or vice versa. Regardless, allowing the Taliban to reclaim control of Afghanistan is not an option.

To say we should leave Afghanistan is either pure naivety or isolationism.

That's the price for coming out of the 20th century as the last center of power standing.

What an ego trip! Working for a world legal system in which participating countries are all considered to have an equal voice might be difficult for such a SuperPower as ourselves to stomach, but it would work. Use laws and law enforcement that everyone agrees to.

However, until we build a global infrastructure for a world legal system, this is what we're stuck with. A few hundred regional governments all acting in their own individual interests.

:eyes:

in 1917 it was a stalemate. Demonstrations in germany and england to stop the war.
Russia already withdrawn from the war.

What do we do?

We go in, pick a side, unconditional surrender, redraw the europe, middle east.

We get WWII and powderkeg which is the middle east.

I don't think we have a good record at being a world policeman.

So we never had a leg to stand on to begin with, other than our center of power's ability to expand through force. Just like every other center of power in the history of civilization.

So why is the US Government the world's policeman? Because there was nobody else left. The US won't be left either at some point, which will cause another chain of events to happen, and some other center of power will, to some extent, be global cop.

and enforces its will on other countries.

I don't mind countries pulling their resource for some common defense / conflict resolution.
As opposed to one country deciding that it knows best for some other countries 6000 miles away from its shores.

As to the expansion, there are balancing forces, borders expand until they meet enough resistance from the other side / some natural geographical feature (Ocean / Mountain rage / sea) or just plain the ruler thinks that it got enough land it can defend.

Why do you have to have a monopoly empire, as opposed to multipolar world with multiple power center balancing each other?

"I don't mind countries pulling their resource for some common defense / conflict resolution. As opposed to one country deciding that it knows best for some other countries 6000 miles away from its shores."

We just don't have the infrastructure for that though.

"Why do you have to have a monopoly empire, as opposed to multipolar world with multiple power center balancing each other?"

Because we had that before the Soviet Union fell, and before WW2, and before WW1, and before every war ever recorded, and all it takes is just one expanding organized effort to ruin the party.

In addition to that, I really think cheap energy has a lot to do with the concentrating power of monopolistic expansion.

Our days as a super power are over.

Disregarding ICBMs, the US is the only nation that atm can hit almost anywhere in the world in a very short timeframe.

Ressources might be a little stretched atm., but on the scale of military power the US is still super to everyone else.

How that is then used, is another can of worms.

We have lessened influence economically, politically and culturally. Militarily, ALL we have is fire-power. We are worn thin on actual troops, and public will for military endeavors. And, like you say, how we use that fire-power opens cans of worms. In effect, it is greatly restricted, even in threats.

It looks like it could be a very different century.

Our imperialism must end.

The Taliban and al Queda groups are one of our Frankenstein's monster legacies of geopolitical strategy along with our subsequent loss of morality.

Masood's assassination on 9/9, eliminating the Taliban's greatest Afghan enemy, was purely coincidence. Why would anyone think there was a connection?

:sarcasm:


While this does not "prove" that the Taliban chief knew his brother-in-law was planning an attack on the United States, it seems more than coincidental.

Aside from that, many of us were advocating intervention against the Taliban for years prior to this. We should have given Masood all the help he wanted. Today we need to find a new Masood. Surely the man had some people under him who could replace him assuming the Afghans would rally around such a man (a huge assumption I realize).