Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
We're there because after 911 the Taliban refused to hand over the people responsible for the attack. They sheltered Al-Qaeda and provided a location for them to organize and launch attacks on the west. Once on the ground the US failed to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora, and he was allowed to escape into the frontier provinces of Pakistan. The Americans then trusted that the Pakistanis ran by Mushareff would capture the Al-Qaeda leadership and turn them over. Which never happened, due to issues with controlling the frontier provinces and their own spy agencies. Fast forward 10ish years and NATO is trying to stabilize the country they originally drove Al-Qaeda from. If they fail to put a strong central government in place they risk letting the country fall back into Taliban control, which would allow Bin Laden and friends a safe place to operate from. Also there is a desire to limit the amount of heroine filtering into the west by controlling the poppy cultivation. Lets not forget the Taliban destroyed a few thousands years worth of priceless artifacts with RPGs because they arent Islamic enough for them to tolerate. The brand of Islam pushed by these guys is the furthest from moderate and runs counter to what was preached in the Quran.
So you asked why we are there??
|
Ok cool. Thanks for the reply.
After 9/11, the US accused bin Laden of planning and executing the attacks and asked the Taliban to hand him over. I'm paraphrasing, but the words used by the Taliban in response was almost exactly..."give us proof and we will find and surrender bin Laden to you." The problem was the US had no proof. I think this is a realistic demand, anytime a country extradites an individual they have the right to ask for whatever evidence there is against that individual.
Remember, the Taliban had control of most of the country, but many parts were still under the control of other actors ie. warlords, northern alliance etc. There was no reason for them to keep a criminal in the country and risk having the US intervene in their domestic business. People like to paint 'others' as unreasonable and illogical. We are all human beings. When you get down to it, people will do what is in their best interests. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, other than putting up with bin Laden inside the country. And they were given no evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks.
This is where the whole issue gets iffy. It seems like the US gave up looking for bin Laden because he might have escaped a few hundred kilometre away into the jurisdiction of one of their allies. Wherever he went, IF the US was actually in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden, they would have followed him instead of staying and fighting the Taliban.
About NATO 'trying to stabilize the country.' I think this is a little naive to think. I'm not sure about you, but it seems logical that if you want to stabilize a country, you give the everyday citizen a choice in political matters. In other words implement actual democracy. Not bring in a man who was essentially raised, and educated outside the country and who worked for the CIA. The government in Afghanistan is the furthest thing from a democracy. If you want to stabilize a country you police it, set up fair elections, let the people decide and then back the legitimate government.
While i agree about the poppy fields, even that issue is a political one. Whoever controls the poppy fields has access to a cash cow. The US doesn't want just any group to benefit off of this. It's not really a matter of controlling how much heroine is grown, or smuggled.